Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 4840981" data-attributes="member: 1">I don't think that's it. What I think is that folks notice things relevant to themselves, and not other stuff going on. A person who gets a warning, for example, is focused on that warning, and not on the half-dozen others that may have been given out that day. Combined with - as I've illustrated a couple of times in this thread - the nature of threads (new game gets criticised a lot, old game doesn't; perfectly natural - same with movies or anything else, but we're talking about games here) and the fact that a critical thread is by its nature more provocative and negative than a complimentary thread. The stats simply play out exactly as you would expect them to based on basic laws of probability. So, quite naturally, more people get into trouble criticising 4E than those who get into trouble criticising 3E, because more people criticise 4E. it's simple maths. If a given percentage of critical threads step over the line, the game which attracts the higher number of criticised threads gets a higher number of people being moderated when they criticise it. And that game, movie, album, TV show, whatever, will nearly always be the "new" one. People then comlpetely mistake the line of causality; they believe that the action was taken because of the poster's opinion (even when the moderator explicitly posts otherwise - they'll just claim he/she is lying) and not because of the real reason, the one they can't see in themselves, which is that, at that moment, they were simply being an ass. For many, it's always someone else's fault, not their own. I know; I'm guilty of it, too. It's human nature. It can be hard to see one's own failings and mistakes. Human nature will tend to look elsewhere for an explanation - any explanation, including unjust accusations of others' motives - than admit they're in the wrong.  And - let's be frank here - those accusations of moderator bias, dishonesty, financial motives, etc. are wrong.* A Star Trek site will have had the exact same problem with the new movie, and if it had been around would have had the exact same problem when The Next Generation was launched.  Ascribing undue motives and so forth to the situation is natural, of course; but that doesn't make it rational.  I can't think of a way which wouldn't be humiliating to the posters involved. We're not about to create a pillory so everyone can point and laugh at anyone who got a warning for something.    *You can even apply logic to the ad dollars accusations; it's not in WotC's interests to spend money preaching to the converted.  I'd suspect that they'd be more interested in advertising if they felt they had an audience to convert.  They're a business.  They don't spend money if they don't need to, and any pro-4E bias, if it existed, amongst the moderation would be contrary to that aim.  It doesn't even make sense!  Our motive is "make everyone like 4E so WotC doesn't need to advertise here"?!  I mean, the logic of the accusations isn't even internally consistent! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> </blockquote>

Verification