question on the moderation of the warhammer review forum

[Spell]

hello.
i have a couple of questions on the way the warhammer review forum (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=144126&page=1&pp=40) was moderated.
i think it was right that tetsujin28 was banned for calling names.
i don't understand, though, why Breakdaddy, who at the end of page 6, calls eyebeams a jackass wasn't banned, though. maybe he was saying that he was a jackass and i misunderstood him?
and why not a word has been spent on BelenUmeria's many comments that could have hijacked the thread into an open flame war? maybe stuff like being called "condescending" is more polite, but not much less offensive than being called a "class A jerk". maybe you contacted him in private?
i don't know but, at some point, it looked like some people on the thread were trying to have a discussion, while other were there to trash them because they were obviously D&D haters with some secret agenda, or just so plain dumb not to understand that everybody should really agree with Ryan.

is it just my impression? since it's not the first time on Enworld that i find myself attacked not to pay hommage to the next d20 game designer, i might be a bit touchy.
i know that these, after all, are d20 boards. nevertheless i have sometimes the impression that, if i disagree on some "commonly accepted point" (e.g. D&D is the best game in the world) or, worse, with some people, i will find myself in rough times. and this does prevent me from using the boards more and to forget what problems i have with D&D and d20 system and, for example, enroll in some online games.

 

[Henry]

I don't understand, though, why Breakdaddy, who at the end of page 6, calls eyebeams a jackass wasn't banned, though.

If i had to guess, I'd say that BD's comment was not only at the end of the page and unseen, it was before Dinkeldog's last warning, of which Tetsujin's comment came at the EXACT wrong time, namely right after that final warning. I know if someone had called our attention to it three days ago, it would have been addressed. As it is, I'm going back and editing it out now, and thank you for the callout. If you see ANY violations, please report the post through the 'report a post' feature, and we'll look into it. We can't take action if we don't catch it amidst all that's going on in that thread.

and why not a word has been spent on BelenUmeria's many comments that could have hijacked the thread into an open flame war? maybe stuff like being called "condescending" is more polite, but not much less offensive than being called a "class A jerk". maybe you contacted him in private?

I couldn't say, but we DO contact people in private, too, especially if we can find them in preference to calling them out publically. Sometimes, people are being egregious about their behavior, and we don't catch them by e-mail, so we just have to jump in right then. In BelenUmeria's case, he had some pretty strong things to say, but in the mods' judgment he didn't cross the line.

i don't know but, at some point, it looked like some people on the thread were trying to have a discussion, while other were there to trash them because they were obviously D&D haters with some secret agenda, or just so plain dumb not to understand that everybody should really agree with Ryan.

Not to sound sarcastic, but that's what disagreeing is about I guess. One of Belen's strong points is he can eventually give up on an argument and agree to disagree. He's done it with me a time or two in the past.

I'd like to single this out:
------------------------------------

is it just my impression? since it's not the first time on Enworld that i find myself attacked not to pay hommage to the next d20 game designer, i might be a bit touchy.

-----------------------------------

A few personal words on this: "not paying homage" to some members is simply disagreeing or complaining; to others, "not paying homage" is name-calling, casting aspersions, and outright flaming. You should ALWAYS feel free to disagree with something here; but as long as disagree is "I disagree" or "it does nothing for me" or "I've been unimpressed with his opinions in the past and I'm unimpressed now," or "that's just plain incorrect and here's why," THAT'S not insulting, that's commentary. Most posters here won't be offended or defensive if the disagreeing doesn't get worse than that; if someone DOES insult you, curse you out, say rude things, etc. report it. If you are a member of this community, you have just as much right as Ryan D, Chris P, Monte C, Gary G or Tim D NOT to be insulted.

And NEVER let that stop you from checking out the rest of the community. There are games here going on at all times (from Cthulhu, to Warhammer, to Castles & Crusades, et. al.) There are discussions of Movies and Books, there is schmoozing in the Off-topic, there's stuff going on that doesn't involve defending your favorite game from attacks and inaccuracies; these forums have their own different sets of discussions, and there's plenty to like. I know some people who play in the Play By Post forum here, and NEVER come out into the General or Rules forums. A friend of mine posts here in the Off-topic and the books & Movies, and ALMOST NO WHERE ELSE. Don't let a few people you disagree with spoil other avenues.

Hope this answers a few questions.

 

[DaveMage]

Wow - great response, Henry.

I think your 2nd to last paragraph should be added to the FAQ with the question of something like: "Is there anything here for those who aren't fans of D&D?"

 

[diaglo]

and there is always the ignore option.

diaglo "who only uses his ignore list on ENWurld and nowhere else" Ooi

 

[Belen]

I think your 2nd to last paragraph should be added to the FAQ with the question of something like: "Is there anything here for those who aren't fans of D&D?"

Tons of stuff. If you only read the thread on the Dancey review, then you'd think that I was a D&D fanboy. There are other threads that would make me appear to hate the game.

Go figure.

 

[Belen]

Not to sound sarcastic, but that's what disagreeing is about I guess. One of Belen's strong points is he can eventually give up on an argument and agree to disagree. He's done it with me a time or two in the past.

Thanks, Henry. That is a high compliment coming from you.

 

[Belen]

and why not a word has been spent on BelenUmeria's many comments that could have hijacked the thread into an open flame war? maybe stuff like being called "condescending" is more polite, but not much less offensive than being called a "class A jerk". maybe you contacted him in private?
i don't know but, at some point, it looked like some people on the thread were trying to have a discussion, while other were there to trash them because they were obviously D&D haters with some secret agenda, or just so plain dumb not to understand that everybody should really agree with Ryan.

I am sorry that you feel that way. I do not recall anyone who said that they had to agree with Dancey. There were two arguments in that thread that were exclusive of each other. The first argument was "Dancey does not have a clue, it is a bad review, and here is why."

The second argument was "We thought the review was fairly positive and would help someone who plays D&D get interested in Warhammer."

I, personally, thought there was a strong undercurrent of hostility to D&D in the thread. There is definitely a strong current of hostility to Dancey in the thread.

My wife read the thread and asked me why people were so offended that Warhammer was compared with D&D. Her only point of reference is with D&D, so the review made sense to her.

The problem with both arguments is that one cannot disprove the other. This is why I ignored Jonny for so long. I was not arguing with him.

As is, I am done with the thread. There does not seem to be much discussion there other than a need to prove Dancey wrong. That is my take on things anyway and if you feel differently, then cool.

 

[Spell]

If you see ANY violations, please report the post through the 'report a post' feature, and we'll look into it. We can't take action if we don't catch it amidst all that's going on in that thread.

alright. i didn't mention it to the mods because i completely missed that feature... i should really look better, shouldn't i?

Not to sound sarcastic, but that's what disagreeing is about I guess.

well, i know, but i feel that sometimes, people take arguments on a personal level when they shouldn't really. i would have understood that better if it came at the beginning of the topic, i guess...

And NEVER let that stop you from checking out the rest of the community.

alright. i did need to hear that. i know the vast majority of EnWorld users do play other game, and couldn't care less if one loves their style of playing or not, but, as sometimes happens, a couple of bad people can leave you with the feeling that it's not so.
thanks.

Hope this answers a few questions.

it does answer pretty much everything. thanks.

 

[Spell]

belen, i don't want to continue this discussion here, so, i will reply to you in the warhammer review thread.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

My wife read the thread and asked me why people were so offended that Warhammer was compared with D&D. Her only point of reference is with D&D, so the review made sense to her.

Firstly, you're putting that in a twisted way, a way which is twisted such that it's not so much a question as your opinion on the subject.

i.e. You've taken the actual question: "Why were people offended by the review?" and then taking *your* answer to that question: "Because it compared WFRP to D&D" and then come up with the combined, twisted "question": "Why are people so offended that WFRP is being compared to D&D?"

We were not offended because Warhammer was being compared to D&D. We were offended because the review appeared to be implying that the designers of WFRP2 had plagerised D&D3, and that the author of the review himself should therefore have much of the credit for the creation of WFRP2.

As an example: Imagine I wrote a post where I said "XXX is a liar", a bunch of his friends got very upset and disputed the truth, and then I started going around saying "I can't understand why they are saying that it doesn't matter that XXX is a liar?" (Instead of saying something "non-twisted" like: "I don't understand why they are so upset about me saying that XXX is a liar and so adamant that he isn't").

if you ask a genuine question - someone can give you an answer. But ask a question that already contains your answer... well that's not really debating.

Finally, did your wife read any of the *four* separate posts where I explained why I was offended? I both understand and accept that someone who has read those posts might disagree with my reasoning and my conclusions, but they should understand my position because I think I explained it pretty clearly; so if someone claims to have read those posts and still not understand why I'm offended... well I begin to believe that they mean it not in the logical sense of not understanding my logic, but in a more general insulting sense.

The problem with both arguments is that one cannot disprove the other. This is why I ignored Jonny for so long. I was not arguing with him.

Well firstly, you were arguing with us. You were constantly criticising us and casting aspertions about our motivations.

Secondly, I was always bought up to believe that if you ask a direct question that is addressed to everyone present (i.e. you're not talking to a specific person), and one of the people present takes the time to try and answer your question, that you should listen to what they're saying - because you're the one that asked them to say it. To ignore them just seems plain damn rude to me.

But I guess that's something else we're going to have to disagree on.