OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Bishmon]

If this is your general desire, a blog would be a better outlet.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Simplicity]

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.

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.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (and no, I don't need to be shown the door).

I feel there is a place for harsh critique of published material (or even published previews of published material). I won't take up any more time on this thread about it though.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (and no, I don't need to be shown the door).

I feel there is a place for harsh critique of published material (or even published previews of published material). I won't take up any more time on this thread about it though.

For the record, I'm not talking about your posts or even your examples of things you might say, necessarily. I'm disagreeing in principle with where you draw the line for a good vs bad post, and yes, agreeing to disagree is fine with me on the subject.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why exactly is "attitude" a problem?

Because the mods are trying to keep ENWorld from turning into a non-stop flamewar.

It's really that simple.

 

[Deset Gled]

How about using the Warning Point system that's built into the board? Seems to me that it's designed specifically to let people know they're pushing the limit, without resorting to a ban. When someone gives a post that seems to be flaming, trolling, or just with a bad attitude, give them a warning point. When someone gets to X number of points, they get a short vacation from the 4e forum. If the system won't let you ban someone from a specific forum, make it work on the honor system, with a real ban in they don't follow it. The handing-out of warning points could be public or private, depending on the situation, with disuputes always being private (in normal ENWorld fashion).

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

How about using the Warning Point system that's built into the board? Seems to me that it's designed specifically to let people know they're pushing the limit, without resorting to a ban. When someone gives a post that seems to be flaming, trolling, or just with a bad attitude, give them a warning point. When someone gets to X number of points, they get a short vacation from the 4e forum. If the system won't let you ban someone from a specific forum, make it work on the honor system, with a real ban in they don't follow it. The handing-out of warning points could be public or private, depending on the situation, with disuputes always being private (in normal ENWorld fashion).

I had no idea that wasn't in use. My fiancee admins on another message board using the warning system, and that first warning point corrects the problem 90% of the time.

 

[Mistwell]

…I want to say something about some of these suggestions.

Suggestion: "Don't say anything that you wouldn't say if you were face-to-face."

Nonsense. I don't post to messageboards to be the boring, rather quiet person that exists in the real world. In text, I'm a different personality (yes, yes... anonymity + audience ...).
But that's not a bad thing necessarily. While it's hard on moderators, the boards are actually seeing LIFE again. The threads being posted are pulling me back to ENWorld wheras before... it was getting a little stale. There's a bit of the old 3e rumors ghost about, and I like it. Let's not kill that cat too soon.

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.

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….Maybe it'll make somone respond uncivily towards me... But that would be their bad, not mine.

[W]hat 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?

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.

So let me see if I get this straight. You use the anonymous nature of this board to try and spice things up here. You think it is fair game to post insincere, lying, unhinged, drama-queen ridden, hyperbolic and unfair posts that are overly-filled with attitude, and in fact think it is a "right" as long as it is "civil", which you feel means "not making personal attacks". You "reserve the right" to critique in any manner you choose, even if you know in advance it is likely to result in people making uncivil attack posts in reaction, and even if it is likely to offend people, because that is their problem and not yours.

Did I mischaracterize anything?

 

[Fifth Element]

Did I mischaracterize anything?

Even if you did, he apparently believes it's your right to do so.

 

[Simplicity]

So let me see if I get this straight. You use the anonymous nature of this board to try and spice things up here. You think it is fair game to post insincere, lying, unhinged, drama-queen ridden, hyperbolic and unfair posts that are overly-filled with attitude, and in fact think it is a "right" as long as it is "civil", which you feel means "not making personal attacks". You "reserve the right" to critique in any manner you choose, even if you know in advance it is likely to result in people making uncivil attack posts in reaction, and even if it is likely to offend people, because that is their problem and not yours.

Did I mischaracterize anything?

Accurate and a good summary. Though mischaracterization would be rather uncivil, if it were to occur.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm interested. Why do you think

a) civility rules
b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
c) presuming there are two sides to an issue

encourages antisocial behaviour?

Let me jump in here. I had this discussion with some of the mods on RPG.net, which did not go well, but I'm going to try to explain what can happen.

Poster A says, "Game X is the stupidest, most rotten game ever. I can't imagine someone liking it."
Poster B says, "I like it."
Poster A says, "Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course."

Poster B probably does not want to come back and say, "You know what? I feel dissed, and I'm mad about that."

Because Poster A will reply, "Whoa, hoss. No reason to take it personally."

Of course, there is a reason to take it personally. But Poster A does not want to come back and say, "You're not taking this seriously, but I am actually mad and I'm going to reply to you in thread."

So in the end, Poster A does not reply at all. They endure it, and if they get tired of it, they might leave the boards or something, or just quietly wait for Poster B to do something reportable.

Poster B is of course being "civil" in the sense of defusing, but they're only escalating the insult.

The basic issue is, not every opinion is of equal value, or at its face is worth considering. "Game X is a stupid game" has a variable value depending on how stupid it actually is. If most people think it's stupid for reasonable reasons, "Game X is a stupid game" may be a little tactless but gets to the point, especially if one of the five fans of Game X tries to mount some kind of defense. On the other hand, if Game X is the most popular FRPG, "Game X is a stupid game" is out and out trolling anywhere play of Game X is discussed.

In general, people should not say, "Game X is a stupid game." Context, exceptions, etc.

In my view, "People make the same complaints about 4e that people did about 3e" is untrue enough to be insulting. Similarly, "4e is a money grab for suckers" is really insulting to someone who is attracted by what they hear about 4e. And each statement is similar enough to "You can't please everyone" and "WotC is primarily running a business" that they can slip under the radar of discussions.

A general rule of thumb: "civility" or "neutrality" inevitibly favors the status quo. Since the non status quo tend to be riled enough already, it can lead to prickly feelings.

I think the mods should definitely be sensitive to when "neutrality" isn't soothing anyone feelings. The most important things are to preserve bandwidth and keep the discussion going, not to make sure everyone tolerates any given discussion. Some topics are simply going to be too close to the heart for civility to prevail.

Also, "civility" generally isn't compatible with critical analysis. Discussing the merits of a game is at heart critical analysis.