Why has WotC stopped posting on ENWorld?
Shudder. You quickly learn not to post anywhere using your real name, even if you are very courteous all the time, because others will hound you from the safety of their anonymity. The only way to protect yourself from the rampant stench of the unwashed hordes of social media is to use an alias.
Using your personal accounts makes for a saner discussion, but it also makes you self-censor. This is why uniquitous spying is so pernicious. (what would they think of me?) It limits personal growth to have your private thoughts constrained by the (often idiotic) social norms of the day.
It's funny that we're discussing in this thread how bad things were on forums like these during the height of the 3e/4e divide, but on social media the hatred for 4th edition burns quite hot and unrestrained to this very day. Forums at least have moderators (as imperfect as they may be). It's an interesting contrast in that people using their real life accounts and without aliases but yet feel far more free to insult and put down 4th edition, proudly and forcefully and without reservation than they are at places like this.
Telling others what they can or can't think publically or on a forum, to limit what kind of opinions they are allowed to have or not, is a kind of mental attack against the very integrity of another person's being. You're only really free to hold an opinion if you're not beaten over the head when you express it.
That's why the Wizards forums are a terrible place, they actually believe they can demand that you apologize for hating a game they love, invalidating your entire gaming experience and personal judgement to be subservient to their ego. This is a forum of abuse and bullying.
If I say I hated 4th edition, and I get attacked just for saying that, that's on them, not me. Stating my personal opinion is not "edition warring", because I'm not at war with myself or my own opinions or experiences, and I am not trying to win anything or change people's minds about it. What I do on the other hand, demand is equal right to share my opinions without personal attacks or abuse or bullying.
Which is why the premise of this thread misses the mark completely.
The question is not why Wizards reps no longer regularly post here (Twitter is a good theory), but why aren't they even posting on their own website?
They've created a monster due to their cowardice and inability to ban dittoheads who gang up and force others out by coherent report post baiting and retaliation. Worse than that, they've allowed the haters to create such a hostile environment there where the majority of posts are negative, and then attack those who like the game differently than they do until they leave.
It's surprising that any company can be successful when they give a megaphone to their flagship product's naysayers and doomsayers on their very own forum in the months leading up to its launch, and allow people who actually do enjoy the game to be subjected to constant verbal abuse by the 4venger hate troll squad.
I've seen people there call others terrorists and making physical threats, and insinuating they beat their wives in between posts, during an argument about warlord healing powers!
Those posters only get those posts deleted, but never any significant sanctions or reprimands. Their post count goes ever on upward as the forums descend ever downward into the muck of irrelevance.
Well, no, it isn't, as you note. If it isn't about in-depth back-and-forth, it isn't a discussion forum. All social media (FB, G+, messageboards, or what have you) are just blobs of information, linked together. But, the arrangement and experience matters.
A community on Facebook or G+ is still more about announcement than discussion, because the underlying architecture and display* is about the top-level short-form broadcast statements, with a focus on the individual making the statement. It is, "Morrus' post about X."
Whereas a discussion forum is about the thread, belonging to nobody in particular, comprised of frequently longer-form statements. It is, "A thread about X, that happens to have been started by Morrus".
*Column width matters! G+ and FB narrow columns are a definite disincentive to anything over a few sentences in length. Ability to quote segments also matters a great deal in fostering discussion.
Last edited:
As Umbran has already said in response to your earlier rant in this thread, this isn't the place to bring your beefs with WotC's moderators. If you have an issue with another forum, you'll need to take it up with them. We are very much not fans of cross-board drama.
Emerikol
Adventurer
While I manage to survive on these boards, if I were King, I would only moderate out personal attacks, foul language, and harassment. I wouldn't care about "edition warring". A game is an inanimate object.
And Morrus I totally recognize your right to run these boards how you want. You pay the light bill as they say. So I am not questioning that authority at all. I'm just saying I would do it (slightly?) differently. I will say that moderation seems more even handed here than other places.
And Morrus I totally recognize your right to run these boards how you want. You pay the light bill as they say. So I am not questioning that authority at all. I'm just saying I would do it (slightly?) differently. I will say that moderation seems more even handed here than other places.
But the people engaged in the conversation are not. We don't come down on edition warring to protect the gentle sensibilities of a stack of books, you know. We do it because of *people*. Warring (over any dichotomy - editions, new/old school, publishers, whatever) generates a large chunk of the personal attacks and harassment. Our moderation of warring is merely recognition of that empirical point.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I have to disagree in regard to column width. A wide measure is a detriment to conversation in all ways but one: A wide measure, by making longform text more difficult to read, culls those of only passing interest from the community.
Quoting, though, is essential.
Halivar
First Post
If *I* were king, I'd rename the site to HalivarWorld, and I would pit posters against each other in the Arena sub-forum, made specifically for the worst, most vitriolic arguments over the most inane, pedantic, and petty matters. All would glorify me in their sigs and despair.
Probably better that Morrus run the place, actually.
There is a commonly stated "fact" that optimum line length is 50 to 60 characters. However, research doesn't seem to support this:
The Effects of Line Length on Reading Online News
In which, they test lines of various lengths: 35, 55, 75, and 95 characters.
The results?
Line length did not impact reading comprehension, or satisfaction with the material. However, reading speed increased with line length, even among those who reported preferring shorter lines, stating that a shorter line meant they read faster. Their subjective impression of speed was simply inaccurate.
Last edited:
Grazzt
Demon Lord
If *I* were king, I'd rename the site to HalivarWorld, and I would pit posters against each other in the Arena sub-forum, made specifically for the worst, most vitriolic arguments over the most inane, pedantic, and petty matters. All would glorify me in their sigs and despair.
Probably better that Morrus run the place, actually.
Would said sub-forum be called "The Arena"? Or maybe "The Abyss"? "Pandemonium"? "Enter At Your Own Risk?"
Similar Threads
