Return of the Edition War

[rounser]

On the whole, I want to thank the mods here, you guys mostly do a fantastic job, and thank you for putting up with my bollocks for years.

I think the problem is not so much with the community but how the custodians of the game have chosen to proceed, and the aftermath of that.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I meant a combined Pro-4E and Anti-3E outlook. There are those that are pro-4E that go into 3E threads and post how awesome 4E is and thus they aren't negative, but they aren't creating goodwill. Or those that drop a note that they left 3E long behind and are very happy that they did so.

That's pretty much the exact definition of thread-crapping, and these posts should, hopefully, be reported.

It could be that folks on both sides of the coin are experiencing exactly the same thing in opposite directions, and so everyone sees EN World as being anti-them. The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.

An equally drastic alternative would be to ban anti-edition threads/comments altogether. In essence, apply the idiom, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

I don't either option actually solves the problem, they're just sticking heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. The problem is a small subset of posters that will deliberately go out of their way to start edition wars. Any solution has to deal with that subset, and not with the community as a whole.

I've mentioned a couple options earlier in the thread, but I'd like to put forth a specific option with regards to posters inciting edition wars. The only* real way to "punish" posters, regardless of the infraction, is to ban them from using the site and the boards. I use the term punish loosely here, because I question whether that is really a punishment to people who break the rules. Perhaps it is better to say it is the only way to make breaking the rules have consequence. Any solution would have to be necessity stem from that. I would suggest making the bans for edition war nonsense twice what they would normally be for other infractions. For example, if a temp ban for attacking another poster is one day, make it two days if it's an edition war situation. Make this known with an announcement. Make it clear that it won't be tolerated.

I know it sounds a little draconian (and more than a little jerky), but it would work. The reason it would work is because the repeat offenders would simply offend themselves into a long-term temp ban or a permaban. The people who want to keep posting will learn to behave themselves. After a while, the edition wars should reach some sort of minimal level.

I'd point out that the edition war ban here earlier when 4E came out did a significant amount to minimize this stuff, even if it left it simmering. That's why I think a flat out moritorium on it isn't the ideal situation.

Another suggestion is to point banned members towards the boards at RPG.net or Paizo or WotC. If they really want highly-polarized partisan discussion, those boards may be more to their liking. Perhaps with an outlet there some of the offenders will simply leave it be here, or stop posting.

Of course, it does require more work from the moderators, and that's the downside. After all, who wants to constantly moderate? It's a crappy job having to be the parent all the time. So I don't know if that's something to be considered.

 

[Lanefan]

It could be that folks on both sides of the coin are experiencing exactly the same thing in opposite directions, and so everyone sees EN World as being anti-them. The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.

Or go the opposite route: stop trying to accomodate anyone and just let the battles rage until they burn out on their own.

Planting a flag won't ensure a more harmonious membership; in fact it'd alomst certainly guarantee quite the opposite, until and unless you start booting out those who run under different colours than those chosen. And that would be a sad day.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think there is a catch-all solution.
Maybe an addition to the "Edition War" post sticky:
"Remember the pitfalls of being anti-anything, be it Winona Ryders latest haircut, Micheal Bays latest action fest, or an edition of your favorite RPG. You risk being - whether you want it or not - being more rude, and you provoke people disagreeing with you. Monitor yourself and make you express your opinion adequately, avoiding insults, baits or rudeness.
But better yet - rather talk about what you love and like."

Mods, but maybe more importantly any poster worried about Edition Wars should focus on "positive" things. What do they like and why do they like it. What questions do they have on a specific topic - be it in-game, a rule or something else. Report cool experiences you had and explain or ask how to replicate them, or bad experiences you had and ask how to fix them.

 

[jdrakeh]

Planting a flag won't ensure a more harmonious membership

Neither will not moderating posters. There are a couple of forums that have tried this and become widely reviled as the squatting places of the Internet's worst trolls as a result.

 

[S'mon]

Mmm, ok so it sounds like the mods are not anti 4e or anti 3e, but anti perceived 'negativity'.

Personally, I like both 3e and 4e, and am currently taking a break from my ongoing 3e campaign to start a short 4e campaign next month.

However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.

A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.

So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?

In particular, indiscriminate banning of everyone involved in a conversation may be quick and easy, it may even fend off accusations of bias ("See, we banned both sides!"), but I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[Morrus]

Mmm, ok so it sounds like the mods are not anti 4e or anti 3e, but anti perceived 'negativity'.

Negativity is fine; it's rudeness that's the problem. Unfortunately, the negativity and the rudeness seem to be firm bedfellows.

However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.

A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.

Hmmm? The post you got the 3 day ban for was: "I can't "man up and talk straight" to you, sir, because that would get me a suspension, and you're not worth it."

Admittedly, an incredibly minor infraction which would have ordinarily have gone unnoticed. Unfortunately, it came shortly after a civility warning. But that aside (I won't dispute that it was very minor), the ban reason clearly was "ignoring a mod", not "negativity".

I think this is, perhaps, a perfect example of what I meant above when people see the reasons for a ban as something contrary to the actual, and indded explicitly stated, reasons.

Someone else would be crowing on RPGnet by now about how they got banned for "not liking 4E" or some such nonsense (you, of course, not being that someone else - I can't imagine you acting in such a manner).

So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?

Sure. I think that goes to the level of the infraction rather than the reason for it, though.

One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason. That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.*



*I realise you emailed me, but I found that email too late. Sorry about that!

 

[rounser]

However, in the Goodman thread where I got banned for 3 days, it seemed to me that I was perceived as being negative about 4e, because I pointed out that Goodman was saying that 4e had not sold as well as 3e did a year after launch - though he put a positive spin on this. To me, that says nothing about the relative merits of each game.

A poster consequently regarded me as anti-4e, was fairly rude to me and others, and got a ban. I also got a ban. My feeling is that I was more vulnerable to being banned because I was perceived by the mods as a negative poster, and that perception was based on the statements of another poster.

So, my advice to mods would be: Before you ban people, stop and think, is this poster really being negative? Are they being disruptive? What's actually going on here?

In the mod's defense, I don't think that was a typical thread nor a typical day. I think they were just fed up with the shenanigans. I know I was, almost welcomed the ban, people were acting strange.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One thing we are imlpementing now is that in the "Reasons for ban" field, the mod in question will be leaving their email addess in addition to the reason. That way you have the ability to actually talk to the mod privately about it; that often resolves things very quickly.

That sounds like a fine houserule. Err, I mean it's a great idea.

Mustrum "Hopes he never has to see that feature in action" Ridcully

 

[kenmarable]

The only answer might be for EN World to stop trying to accomodate everyone and plant a flag firmly one way or the other, ensuring a more harmonious membership more in tune with each other.

Seriously? I don't know if being moderators pushes the worst of the site in your face, but personally, this is the most civil RPG messageboard I've found that also has a large wealth of edition neutral material. I don't know about others, but the edition war vehemence seems pretty rare, and when it does arise, it's really easy to spot and avoid. The vast majority of what I see on EN World is no different than the civil discussion that has been happening here for years.

Yeah, unfortunately there will be some who will complain about biases (and nearly always biases against them, of course), but I'm quite comfortable believing that they are the minority and the vast majority appears to be people like me who just like to talk D&D and other RPGs. I doubt EN World "picking a side" would increases civility at all, and just drive traffic of those interested in the losing side away. Plus I could see edition neutral discussions being diminshed by everything having the filter of one edition.

Maybe I'm wrong and EN World is made up of more complainers and haters who want to talk about one system only than fans like me that quietly enjoy EN World and don't rant and rave and complain. But planting a flag and choosing a side would make EN World less useful for me, and as the only messageboard I still visit multiple times a day (the nastiness on others have driven me away from them), EN World would lose a lot of use to me, which obviously I'm against.