OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Doug McCrae]

The basic issue is, not every opinion is of equal value

You got that right. But we have to pretend. It's what being civilized is all about.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'll make an effort to be more civil.

 

[med stud]

The basic issue is, not every opinion is of equal value

Until there is a way to quantify the value of an opinion the best way to handle differing opinions is to treat them as equal and let people defend them the best they can.

 

[Morrus]

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.

For the record (given that the person being spoken about has confirmed this is accurate), this is not compatible with EN World. If you know (or think it's likely) it's going to cause offence, you don't post it. Period. We don't care whose "problem" a poster believes it to be or what "rights" they choose to "reserve".

Just so we're clear: we're not interested in "justice", "fairness" or "rights"; our one, sole concern is to keep the boards calm and friendly, and everything we do is toward that goal.

Circvs Maximvs is available for those who would rather be more outspoken - you can be as direct, blunt, or "honest" as you like there. If you don't like the atmosphere there, that should tell you something about why such behaviour isn't allowed here; but you don't get to say "I don't like those characteristics [there] unless I'm the only one using them [on EN World]"; you need to join other people who are accepting of that manner, and I've provided an entire website for you to do so.

That got a little more general than just addressing the post in question - Simplicity, it's not all directed at you, don't worry. I just felt a point needed to be made.

 

[Simplicity]

Morrus, I think this suggests a change in policy. The three golden rules via the rules page (which I have read): (1) Keep it civil, (2) Keep it clean, and (3) Keep it on topic.

Elaboration of "Keep it civil":
Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.

Now, I agree with *everything* said in those rules. I'm not looking to post obscene content or anything. I want to post civil, clean, and on-topic posts about 4e, and yes, sometimes I want to put some emotion into it. Does anyone honestly believe that if I wrote a accurate, yet harsh critism of 4e, *someone* in the pro-4e camp wouldn't get offended by it? Similarly for overly rosey praise for 4e and the anti-group.

Maybe I just have a different definition of offend.

 

[The Little Raven]

Morrus, I think this suggests a change in policy. The three golden rules via the rules page (which I have read): (1) Keep it civil, (2) Keep it clean, and (3) Keep it on topic.

If you don't consider "honesty" to be a part of civility, then we need to add (4) Keep it honest. Nothing's worse than a discussion being derailed by people lying about the topic at hand, especially when it's a situation like 4e where there's so much rumor and speculation flying around already.

 

[Simplicity]

If you don't consider "honesty" to be a part of civility, then we need to add (4) Keep it honest. Nothing's worse than a discussion being derailed by people lying about the topic at hand, especially when it's a situation like 4e where there's so much rumor and speculation flying around already.

Everybody likes honesty. That said, some of the most classic ENWorld posts have been completely insincere. For example:
1) The Bugaboo classics (I won't spoil them here)
2) billdoor's goat sacrifice post.
3) The April Fool's series

Sure, there's a fine line between trolling/misinformation and humor. But it's not drawn at sincerity. It's drawn at malice.

Okay, I'm getting sucked into the thread again, and I really should just shut up. I'm clearly just overly parsing things.

 

[JayBrickwall]

Until there is a way to quantify the value of an opinion the best way to handle differing opinions is to treat them as equal and let people defend them the best they can.

Isn't that what sites like plastic and digg do with their user +'s and -'s of thread comments? Set your filter where you may, and the EN community as a whole will slide trolls/flames/insults right off your page.

But, I like the fact that at sites like plastic you have to "earn" your moderation points.

Not sure it would work here, just saying that there are working models of forums that "quantify" the value of opinions.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Isn't that what sites like plastic and digg do with their user +'s and -'s of thread comments? Set your filter where you may, and the EN community as a whole will slide trolls/flames/insults right off your page.

But, I like the fact that at sites like plastic you have to "earn" your moderation points.

Not sure it would work here, just saying that there are working models of forums that "quantify" the value of opinions.

This sounds similar to the Slashdot method, which I enjoyed. I found it better than most rep systems in that it was less a personal statement on the poster and more a judgment on the "value" of the post itself in the context of the thread. I like it slightly better than top down moderation because it combines a more distributed "community standards" feel* with the choice of how much noise each poster wants to put up with.

*meta moderation was also used to control the use of plus/minuses in personal vendettas or to attack one side of a discussion thread. If a randomly selected third party found your 'moderation' unfair, you wouldn't get points to spend as quickly.

I agree that it's a different kind of system that might not work on a board like this, but there are options between lack of moderation and top down moderation, and systems with options between everyone having to put up with a borderline post and no one getting to see it.

 

[rounser]

I like it slightly better than top down moderation because it combines a more distributed "community standards" feel* with the choice of how much noise each poster wants to put up with.

Unfortunately, groupthink moderation also encourages "the truth" to get moderated down or deleted when it doesn't make intuitive sense or toe the party line/political correctness/personal beliefs.

Happens on Wikipedia a fair bit I gather, where "the truth" as posted by some expert seems unlikely to the layman (who far outnumber said expert), doesn't match their beliefs or takes too long to explain, so keeps on getting deleted in favour of fallacy that seems to make intuitive sense, or reflects the world as people wish it was.

Imagine an enworld poll for each post, determining whether it should get shown or not.