OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[JohnSnow]

There's no requirement for people to give WotC the benefit of the doubt. People will believe what they choose with the evidence they've seen to date. It's not like we're completely ignorant of some of the changes that 4e is proposing. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with those changes or even believing that because those changes are bad there will be more bad ideas in 4e.

Believing that doesn't make you a grognard. Just someone with an opinion.

I want 4e to succeed. I'm personally not liking some of the things I'm seeing. I'm going to say something about that. Maybe changes that make me happier will make the cut. Or maybe I'll howl at the wind. I've had my quiet period of reflection on the current state of 4e and preview information. I consider that period over now. Commence gnashing teeth.

I think civility demands that we give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt that they aren't actively trying to destroy D&D. Many of them are members of this community and they deserve the same respect as anyone else. My issue is with people who have decided that the requirement to be respectful of the opinions of members of the community does not apply if those people happen to work at Wizards of the Coast.

You certainly have the right to disagree with the decisions the designers have made. And you can certainly base that decision on the previews we've gotten to date. However, the minute you decide to infer designer intent because they have a difference of opinion about the direction of the game, you've transcended civility.

That tends to make those of us who agree with them respond as if WE have been attacked. Constructive criticism is fine but claiming that "they're trying to destroy D&D" is ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[Simplicity]

This is a site for discussion of D&D. That should be the primary goal, not its theoretical value as a therapeutic tool.

No one is asking posters to be bland and lifeless. Again, all that's being asked for is civility. That's not too much to ask for, and if it is, there are countless sites that provide a more bare knuckle experience, if that's preferred.

I agree with civility. I do not agree with various other aspects of face-to-face conversation. For example:
- Calmness
- Rational thought
- Understanding
- Sincerity

I support a poster's right to be a completely unhinged, lying, self-absorbed, drama queen. As long as they're civil.

 

[Simplicity]

I think civility demands that we give the WotC designers the benefit of the doubt that they aren't actively trying to destroy D&D. Many of them are members of this community and they deserve the same respect as anyone else. My issue is with people who have decided that the requirement to be respectful of the opinions of members of the community does not apply if those people happen to work at Wizards of the Coast.

You certainly have the right to disagree with the decisions the designers have made. And you can certainly base that decision on the previews we've gotten to date. However, the minute you decide to infer designer intent because they have a difference of opinion about the direction of the game, you've transcended civility.

That tends to make those of us who agree with them respond as if WE have been attacked. Constructive criticism is fine but claiming that "they're trying to destroy D&D" is ridiculous hyperbole.

That is actually the one real problem with "civility" as a term. I respect that the makers of the product we use are posters on this board, and personal attacks against them are bad.
But their products and the decisions made about those products? That should be open for downright evisceration. I respect their right to publish their work, but I reserve the right to critique it in any way I choose.

And until and unless a designer joins a thread to tell me what their intent is, all I can do is infer their intent. That's basically what this board is about is inferring what we can about 4e because we don't have all the information.

If those people who like 4e feel that they are being attacked because of some critique I made of 4e or of the inferred direction of 4e that's not my problem. I'm not attacking anyone personally. I'm talking about my opinions about a game. Maybe it'll make somone respond uncivily towards me... But that would be their bad, not mine.

 

[Simplicity]

"they're trying to destroy D&D" is ridiculous hyperbole.

BTW, claiming that people are saying that Wizards is trying to create a failed product is probably also hyperbole.

 

[JohnSnow]

I agree with civility. I do not agree with various other aspects of face-to-face conversation. For example:
- Calmness
- Rational thought
- Understanding
- Sincerity

I support a poster's right to be a completely unhinged, lying, self-absorbed, drama queen. As long as they're civil.

Most people who are unhinged, lying and self-absorbed are not civil. In fact, I question whether it's possible for them to coexist.

If those people who like 4e feel that they are being attacked because of some critique I made of 4e or of the inferred direction of 4e that's not my problem. I'm not attacking anyone personally. I'm talking about my opinions about a game. Maybe it'll make somone respond uncivily towards me... But that would be their bad, not mine.

Because you're attacking a concept, not a person. What often happens then is someone responds, and then they get personally attacked, accused of being a WotC plant, that they must like "dumbed-down D&D" and other similarly nasty accusations. That is making personal attacks but disguising them as game criticism.

BTW, claiming that people are saying that Wizards is trying to create a failed product is probably also hyperbole.

I'm pretty sure I could dig up pretty much that exact quote. To find it, I might have to go back to one of the "it's the WoWification of D&D" threads.

 

[Bishmon]

Suggestion: "Stop threadcrapping."

Kind of hard to define. How about we just draw a line at making things personal? What's wrong with saying Wizards sucks or Wizards rules. Fine do that. Whatever. If there's any merit to it at all (basically, it's not spam) then, let it be. Sometimes people have valid points to make about suckage or ruleage.

That is actually the one real problem with "civility" as a term. I respect that the makers of the product we use are posters on this board, and personal attacks against them are bad.
But their products and the decisions made about those products? That should be open for downright evisceration. I respect their right to publish their work, but I reserve the right to critique it in any way I choose.

Often times that's wildly unproductive to a group setting. If you're going to openly eviscerate something in a group that contains many people who like whatever that something is, you can virtually guarantee nothing good will come of that despite how within your "rights" you were.

That's not to say you'd be necessarily wrong in expressing your opinion that way, though one could argue you would be more "right" if you use more tact, but it would certainly mean it would be unproductive to the group discussion. And seeing as this is a message board set up for the purpose of group discussion, you can see the conflict.

If you don't care that your evisceration will cause such a stir, of you think those concerns are beneath you, then maybe a place like this isn't the best place for you to be, you know? And I'm not saying that's right or wrong in the big sense of things, but that's just life. There's certain concessions you have to make when you put yourself into certain situations, and if you're unwilling to make those concessions, you're not doing anyone any good by putting yourself in that situation regardless. It just causes unnecessary drama.

 

[coyote6]

If you want to visit a nearly unmoderated forum on rpgs, go to www.therpgsite.com . People were slagging it because of its owner, but honestly, the flames there are much less than here, and the moderation is almost nil.

According to the main site, there were 54 people viewing the therpgsite a few minutes ago; ENWorld had 1747. I believe that's relevant. IME, the bigger a message board gets, the more contentious it gets. There are more people, so there are simply more opportunities for someone to aggravate someone else.

There aren't that many flame wars on the site ]theRPGsite] now, but add another 1700 users at any one minute, and I wager that would change.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I support a poster's right to be a completely unhinged, lying, self-absorbed, drama queen. As long as they're civil.

What are these "rights" that you speak of? This is a private message board; if Morrus wanted everyone to have to post without using the letter "m," it'd be his choice and he could ban anyone he wanted to that didn't comply.

For those posters getting online in a country that guarantees them free speech, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, they're free to create their own message board and post whatever they want there.

 

[Simplicity]

If you don't care that your evisceration will cause such a stir, of you think those concerns are beneath you, then maybe a place like this isn't the best place for you to be, you know? And I'm not saying that's right or wrong in the big sense of things, but that's just life. There's certain concessions you have to make when you put yourself into certain situations, and if you're unwilling to make those concessions, you're not doing anyone any good by putting yourself in that situation regardless. It just causes unnecessary drama.

I've been a poster on these boards virtually since they started, and I've never been banned (mildly warned once or twice, sure). The moderators can tell me to leave if they like, but it's not really your place to say. Morrus owns the site. He (or his designated authorities) can write the rules, and change all my words to monkey-speak if they like. But I will not conceed my right to criticize the work of Wizards of the Coast. Regardless of the drama it causes. What is the point of having a place to discuss without the ability to critique?

 

[Simplicity]

What are these "rights" that you speak of? This is a private message board; if Morrus wanted everyone to have to post without using the letter "m," it'd be his choice and he could ban anyone he wanted to that didn't comply.

For those posters getting online in a country that guarantees them free speech, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, they're free to create their own message board and post whatever they want there.

Agreed. Morrus is within his rights to do as he wishes with this site, and he can bring down that ban hammer like John Henry if he likes. Rarely a good idea though. Besides, what exactly am I doing or proposing that you guys consider ban-worthy? Disagreeing with other posters? Pointing out things about Wizards that I don't like? Sticking it to the Wizards via hyperbole?