OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

I'm thinking of the group orientation policy that says that if you have a question several others may as well and it's easier and more informative to have one person "get up the nerve" to ask the question publicly (thus informing everyone once) than have some but not all ask it privately after (thus informing some but not all at more work to the answerer.)

 

[billd91]

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?

Notice the spin you put on the last one. "Sticking it to the Wizards". Anyone posting with that attitude dripping out of their comments is probably not being very constructive or civil and should rethink their approach.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Anyone who wishes to can write to a moderator and ask about moderation - even if it wasn't done to them. I get more e-mail from third parties than I do from the "offenders", and I do my best to make sure I answer each and every one.

The problem with public discussion of specific incidents is that it tends to folllow the same pattern as problem threads - if you stop the original, but allow discussion to continue, you don't actually see an end to the problem behavior. It just continues in the new space.

Note that we are quite willing to discuss general policies in meta, even if not specific cases. If you want us to clarify how we think the Grandma rule works, we're open to that discussion.

 

[Simplicity]

Notice the spin you put on the last one. "Sticking it to the Wizards". Anyone posting with that attitude dripping out of their comments is probably not being very constructive or civil and should rethink their approach.

I'm not a journalist. Who said I was trying to be impartial? My posts can be nice and helpful. They can also be unfair or overly-filled with attitude. Why exactly is "attitude" a problem? Because people get offended by attitude? Too bad. I'm not spewing personal insults, I'm making a point using pathos.

Okay, people seem to think that's not "constructive." Well, since the board has gone into a tizzy over feat names we've actually heard rumor of a feat name change within the playtest reports. So perhaps there was something constructive there. The term "constructive" itself though is way too subjective to mean anything. "Civil" I'm fine with; "Constructive" I'm not.

 

[Simplicity]

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.

I would personally recommend not placing too much credibility in an anonymous message board poster anyways. The point of the post is that if there is a line which determines whether a post is good or bad: civility is it. Not everything else which may or may not annoy you about a poster.

That said, don't believe a word of it.

 

[FickleGM]

I would personally recommend not placing too much credibility in an anonymous message board poster anyways. The point of the post is that if there is a line which determines whether a post is good or bad: civility is it. Not everything else which may or may not annoy you about a poster.

That said, don't believe a word of it.

Yes, but through time, some posters become less anonymous. Especially those posters who I meet at GenCon, but even some that I don't ever physically meet.

The credibility of said posters determines whether or not I like them, wish to discuss topics with them or roll my eyes at them. Like in "real life", interactions are not isolated and what I learn from one interaction will affect how I act in the next.

Civility is far less a concern of mine than honesty. An honest, but uncivil, person can be dealt with, because you know where he stands. A dishonest person can not be trusted.

I will admit that I have a huge problem with dishonesty, which includes having an "internet persona". I will judge a person based on the information that I have at hand, and if that is irrational and/or dishonest posts, so be it.

So, to me, I'd rather you be uncivil and just let me know how you feel, rather than be dishonest or irrational.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The point of the post is that if there is a line which determines whether a post is good or bad: civility is it.

That is your line. Mine is different. So, for that matter, is ENW's as a perfectly civil politically charged post will still count to the "bad" side under current policy.

 

[Simplicity]

That is your line. Mine is different. So, for that matter, is ENW's as a perfectly civil politically charged post will still count to the "bad" side under current policy.

Ah, right. I forgot about the taboo subjects addendum. I've got no problem with that.
May I amend to say that as long as the subject is D&D, civility should be the dividing line?

 

[Kesh]

I'm not a journalist. Who said I was trying to be impartial? My posts can be nice and helpful. They can also be unfair or overly-filled with attitude. Why exactly is "attitude" a problem? Because people get offended by attitude? Too bad. I'm not spewing personal insults, I'm making a point using pathos.

Okay, people seem to think that's not "constructive." Well, since the board has gone into a tizzy over feat names we've actually heard rumor of a feat name change within the playtest reports. So perhaps there was something constructive there. The term "constructive" itself though is way too subjective to mean anything. "Civil" I'm fine with; "Constructive" I'm not.

If this is your general desire, a blog would be a better outlet. "Attitude" on a message board is simply stirring the pot, and does nothing for civility.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Ah, right. I forgot about the taboo subjects addendum. I've got no problem with that.
May I amend to say that as long as the subject is D&D, civility should be the dividing line?

you can, but it will remain your line, not the only reasonable one. For me personally, civility is included under a larger judgement of "contributory" which is my line.