OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Bishmon]

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?

1) I didn't tell you to leave.

2) I never said no one should be able to criticize anything.

I was talking about when criticizing something becomes eviscerating something. It's the difference between "I don't like this, I don't think it's a good idea" and "This is ridiculous. It's the most boneheaded design I've ever seen, and I can't imagine how anyone would possibly think this would make for a fun game. They're destroying D&D."

The former statement is great and fosters discussion. The latter statement, however, is almost always disruptive to a group. That was my point.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Folks, I'm not sure it's a good idea to start that kind of argument in the exact thread Morrus started to remind us all to keep it a little more calm and peaceful, knowhutamsayin?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

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.

Interesting. So, how are these things good for any sort of conversation?

You've basically just told EN World that your posts are worthless, because they may be a bunch of lies and irrationalities, strewn across the screen.

I suppose that destroying one's own credibility on a messageboard is one tactic to take, but not one that I would choose.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This is kind of like putting console gamers from [Gaming Console A] and [Gaming Console B] into a room, asking them to discuss the merits and problems with Console A, and telling everyone to be civil. Gamer's who like A don't see the downsides and B don't see the merits. The clash is legendary.

Part of it is the need go to one camp or the other. Being neutral gets you drowned out, or worse people will use the facts that you pointed out merits/problems to ad homenem your points because you are seemingly contradicting yourself, even though you are talking about two different aspects of the game. It can also feel like a cause to some people. Then there's being in a group vs. switching all around, etc. There are many reasons for people to camp up.

We're all also a bunch of nerds who would die before we admit being wrong. This goes for both sides as well. We don't like to lose! Our mind is a phallus whose stubbornness is its size.

 

[malladin]

Folks, I'm not sure it's a good idea to start that kind of argument in the exact thread Morrus started to remind us all to keep it a little more calm and peaceful, knowhutamsayin?

QFT. Sadly, its indicative of the scale of the problem when a thread about solving the problem becomes another indication of it (your opinion creates the problem stop doing it/no/your wrong not to.) Unfortunately my solution is just not to bother coming here as often, which is a pity as I used to enjoy it. It seems the reasonable majority are being droewned out by vocal minorities with a desperate need to be right. My only constructive suggestion is to try and encourage more consistent moderation, through peer review/assessment/discussion among moderators, which would alieviate some peoples resentment of perceived bias, mine included, and thats at least one step forward.

 

[Plane Sailing]

through peer review/assessment/discussion among moderators, which would alieviate some peoples resentment of perceived bias, mine included, and thats at least one step forward.

FWIW there is a lot of discussion between moderators about both general and specific issues. I hope this doesn't make you think "oh noes", but rather that we discuss things in order to maintain as reasonable a degree of consistency as we can.

Cheers

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

QFT. Sadly, its indicative of the scale of the problem when a thread about solving the problem becomes another indication of it (your opinion creates the problem stop doing it/no/your wrong not to.) Unfortunately my solution is just not to bother coming here as often, which is a pity as I used to enjoy it. It seems the reasonable majority are being droewned out by vocal minorities with a desperate need to be right. My only constructive suggestion is to try and encourage more consistent moderation, through peer review/assessment/discussion among moderators, which would alieviate some peoples resentment of perceived bias, mine included, and thats at least one step forward.

Yeah, I'm thinking about reporting Morrus.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Yeah, I'm thinking about reporting Morrus.

Ugh, I know. What a concern troll.



Please don't ban me.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

FWIW there is a lot of discussion between moderators about both general and specific issues. I hope this doesn't make you think "oh noes", but rather that we discuss things in order to maintain as reasonable a degree of consistency as we can.

Cheers

A thought on the role and perception of mods. While the "unquestionablity" policy concerning moderator decisions is understandable (who really wants a 2 page backtalk digression every time a moderator steps in?) in cases like this it also can cause problems. Even attempts to question a decision in a separate thread in the Meta forum (something I have seen, not attempted, so this isn't a personal thing) can get shut down with no reason except "you can't publicly question a mod decision."

This is of course "within Morrus's rights", but my feeling is that it is not good for the long term health of the site. Mods are not perfect, they can try their best to be impartial but will not always succeed and they can make the same rhetorical mistakes in moderation that they chastise posters for making in posts. The ability to publicly question (in a clarification, not challenge manner whenever possible) moderation decisions in separate Meta forum threads could reduce feelings that mods take sides, play favorites or any other unpleasantness. Transparency of a process can increase confidence in a way that the theoretical ability to privately ask a mod questions in email really can't. Whether it's worth the possible hassles or not is a balancing question.

 

[DaveMage]

I've found that Piratecat or Henry are great if you have a question on a mod decision. Even though they probably think I'm a total twit, they always respond to inquiries politely in e-mail.