OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[malladin]

Malladin- this has been bugging me for a while as you post in this thread, so I'm just going to say it.

You seem to have no ability to differentiate between:

1: EN World
2: The Fourth Edition Sub Forum at EN World.

These are not the same thing.

If there was a "Third Edition D&D Sub Forum" at EN World, the people there would have every right to be irked by constant visits from fourth edition fans going on and on about vague, impressionistic reasons they don't like third edition. Even the ones who weren't intentionally being annoying would get really old, really fast.

Stopping that from happening is one of the convenient benefits of having sub forums.

Which we do.

So we have a only positive comments on 4th edition sub forum not a general discussion, pro and con. Once again a user is judging the legitimacy/value of comments, not the people responsible for the site. Are you arguing thats how it should be or is, personally I've never seen it officially stated posters can't disagree with the OPs position on the 4th ed or any other forum. Am I wrong? And if its so necessary why doesn't this site make this the policy and problems solved! I suspect your right in regards to the 4th ed forum being a less contentious if 3.5 people stayed out but its still sad that a community comes down to that!

 

[Doug McCrae]

My argument is its not your, my or any other posters job to decide what is or isn't acceptable, constructive, or trolling, its the admins and mods and they should be left to do it.

Aren't you doing that yourself when you say things like -

Jumping in saying someone else's view is illegitimate just because it isn't your own,from either side, doesn't help.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Constructive criticism of 4e = good
Purely negative criticism of 4e = acceptable
Nothing but negative comments from the same poster = unacceptable
Opposed to the existence of 4e = unacceptable

 

[malladin]

Aren't you doing that yourself when you say things like -

I am, your right, I apologise. It doesn't negate the point that people are doing it, indeed it was the perceived attitude of your post that caused me to make this comment, and shouldn't and it demonstrates that thinking how you might come across negatively, as your post did to me and I did in mine, is worth doing.

 

[malladin]

Constructive criticism of 4e = good
Purely negative criticism of 4e = acceptable
Nothing but negative comments from the same poster = unacceptable
Opposed to the existence of 4e = unacceptable

I agree, but the definition of where opinions fall in these groups is proving to be the problem. No easy solution!

 

[Cadfan]

So we have a only positive comments on 4th edition sub forum not a general discussion, pro and con. Once again a user is judging the legitimacy/value of comments, not the people responsible for the site. Are you arguing thats how it should be or is, personally I've never seen it officially stated posters can't disagree with the OPs position on the 4th ed or any other forum. Am I wrong? And if its so necessary why doesn't this site make this the policy and problems solved! I suspect your right in regards to the 4th ed forum being a less contentious if 3.5 people stayed out but its still sad that a community comes down to that!

What I'm pointing out to you is that your comments about how, you know, woah is me, I'm being chased from EN World, etc, etc, etc, are completely out in left field. Even if someone really was chasing you, it wouldn't be away from EN World.

Sadly, i'll probably give up soon as well though, my gamings not affected by people here and how they choose to treat others over something as irrelevant as a game, but i'll be sorry to feel a disconnection with a site I've enjoyed so much in the past.

Comments like that, for example, don't make sense. Since the 4e forum didn't exist in the past, I assume the connection you felt was to sub forums like "D&D Rules" or "General RPG Discussion." These sub forums still exist.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't think anyone who hates subject matter X should ever be posting on a thread/forum/messageboard or whatever devoted to X. Whether X is 4e, 3.5, 1e or model trains. For example, I can't stand Planescape. If I behaved like some people on the 4e forum do that would mean I post in every Planescape thread saying something like, "Just thought I'd let you know that I still really hate Planescape". On what planet would that be a good thing? Or even acceptable?

 

[HeinorNY]

So we have a only positive comments on 4th edition sub forum not a general discussion, pro and con.

But we really don't need pros and cons to have a good and construcitve discussion. If we had only neutral people, or people that has not yet decided to go to 4E or not, we could have a good discussion.
I'm saying "pros" and "cons" considering the 4E as a whole. If we will discuss Elven Accuracy, we need people to give pro arguments and people that give con arguments. Nothing new here.

The problems start when some people, that already made up their minds, start behaving unconstructively because of that decision. They decide to not go to 4E, and then enter in an anti-4E crusade, trying to show the worst in every new preview, looking for problems in details, hyperboles or corner cases, but mostly using the same old points, and complementing Cadfan, they get really old, really annoying, really fast.
OR they decide to go to 4E and try to prove everyone that the designer's choice was the best and most correct one, even when the designer himself is not yet sure of that. The "dragon tail cut" was a very fun episode. Some people really wasted a lot of effort to somehow prove that name was ok, and then the designers just came and said, nah this is not a nice name.

I think a good way to handle it, (or How to Survive Enworld 4E Forums), is to not get it personal. If I say something about D&D, good or bad, I'm not saying it about your game, I'm saying it about WotC's game.

 

[malladin]

Since the 4e forum didn't exist in the past, I assume the connection you felt was to sub forums like "D&D Rules" or "General RPG Discussion." These sub forums still exist.

No i'm talking about the site as a whole, which 4th ed is now part of and so effects the overall feel especially as EN World is primarily a D&D site. Not saying woah is me, i'm saying it'd be nice to see less hostility and judgement, which I sense-could just be me but I'm not the only person to say it, I'm on a thread about it and its been commented about on other sites. I'm sorry if you consider liking a site for its atmosphere and the behaviour of its posters bit strange and disliking negative impact on these things out of left field But since what I say makes no sense and those people chasing me might be here soon I'll leave. If you want discuss what I'm talking about I'll try to reply if they haven't got me

 

[malladin]

But we really don't need pros and cons to have a good and construcitve discussion. If we had only neutral people, or people that has not yet decided to go to 4E or not, we could have a good discussion.
I'm saying "pros" and "cons" considering the 4E as a whole. If we will discuss Elven Accuracy, we need people to give pro arguments and people that give con arguments. Nothing new here.

The problems start when some people, that already made up their minds, start behaving unconstructively because of that decision. They decide to not go to 4E, and then enter in an anti-4E crusade, trying to show the worst in every new preview, looking for problems in details, hyperboles or corner cases, but mostly using the same old points, and complementing Cadfan, they get really old, really annoying, really fast.
OR they decide to go to 4E and try to prove everyone that the designer's choice was the best and most correct one, even when the designer himself is not yet sure of that. The "dragon tail cut" was a very fun episode. Some people really wasted a lot of effort to somehow prove that name was ok, and then the designers just came and said, nah this is not a nice name.

I think a good way to handle it, (or How to Survive Enworld 4E Forums), is to not get it personal. If I say something about D&D, good or bad, I'm not saying it about your game, I'm saying it about WotC's game.

Excellent points and just the sort of productive tone and content I've always associated with these boards. It's that non entrenched discussion I think is important and is being lost in people taking sides and decrying other people rather than discussing their ideas with them, which I've done but try not too, or saying there ideas don't belong.