Recent Posts
You know, I've seen a lot of Avenger posts. I can't recall one instance where I thought they were unreasonable, or where they spread misinformation themselves. Now, I'm aware that I may have missed something very important amongst the perpetual dozens of active threads there, but holistically they have struck me as a very positive force on the WotC boards.
I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
And yeah, some of the people there (and elsewhere in the community) deride them as blind fanboys, but those people are often the very same people that post the rants and spread the misinformation they're trying to correct.
I have found that they are sometimes the very same people, not often though.
Guys, 90% of this boils down to:
Quit threadcrapping.
That's it. If you want to make a thread about why 4E sucks, go for it! Just stop derailing other conversations.
Anyone who won't do that isn't being censored or victimized...they're just being rude.
More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
The same 4e avengers that if I remember correctly Titanium Dragon (The man who described Paizo as leeches and parasites) was a member of?
Last I recall he has not attached himself to that group. I don't recall significant instances of them opposing him when he says those things, but he doesn't wave their banner or anything like that.
Would these be the same 4e avengers I have seen mentioned on several forums being criticised for there bullying tactics, willingness to insult and general ganging up on anyone who had anything remotely? negative to say about 4E?
Really, though, that's where the whole "4th Edition Avengers"
As I pointed out, the people accusing them of "bullying" and the like were usually the same people creating the problem the Avengers were trying to deal with. Of course they're going to view them as big fat meanies when it's their posts that are targeted for being misleading or hostile. I've always found the Avengers quite reasonable, on the whole. They certainly don't react with the same level of hostility as those who post vitriolic rants against 4th Edition and then promptly leave complaining of being "unwelcome here," or what have you.
The same 4e avengers that if I remember correctly Titanium Dragon (The man who described Paizo as leeches and parasites) was a member of?
He referred to them as "parasites" in the technical sense, which despite the negative connotation associated with it is, I believe, mostly accurate. Not to dive into an off-topic discussion, but Paizo's staff will be the first to acknowledge that their well-being during the Dragon and Dungeon days was completely dependent upon WotC's success and business decisions - they lived or died by their "host". They have since removed themselves from that situation by creating their own line of role-playing products, though the argument can certainly be made that they remain dependent on the "fruits" of WotC's labor - a fanbase that desires to make use of the D&D 3.5 game they designed.
And I'm not sure if TD ever identified himself as one of the Avengers. He and Seeker always kind of seemed above all of that. I could be wrong, though.
More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.
Yes Scott. Telling people to go to other message boards or that this isn't the place for posting dislike of 4x, would never lead anyone to think you might be a self appointed moderator.You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police. What I told people was that if they didn't want to be constructive and just wanted to rant against 4th Edition, that this isn't the place. That's nothing extraordinary, I think. If that's what you think a "self-appointed moderator" is, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. At the same time, I don't think it's out of line at all.
That's easy. Note the word 'self' in self-police. I've told Pax (for example) in the past that he needs some of my zoloft but never said that he has no place for his opinions.
Declaring that the 4x boards are only for people who like 4x and that those who have issues don't deserve a place anywhere isn't.
I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
In all likihood the same would be true in reverse. If no one pays attention to bad posts those who make them disappear. But as I said, one bad post doesn't end a thread, but acting as a self appointed moderator more often does. So really being a self appointed moderator only makes a bad situation worse.
I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but what portion of the post in question did you find misleading or factually incorrect? At a glance, it looks like the worst sin of the poster in question was accusing Paizo of "anti-4e marketing". And I mean, yeah, of course they're marketing to the anti-4e crowd. It's a significant part of their potential playerbase.
That's easy. Note the word 'self' in self-police. I've told Pax (for example) in the past that he needs some of my zoloft but never said that he has no place for his opinions.Declaring that the 4x boards are only for people who like 4x and that those who have issues don't deserve a place anywhere isn't.
I think Scott went too far there. People who dislike 4E and want to discuss it should post in the 4E forum...but without using unrelated threads as soapboxes for their dislike. That has been going on long enough.
Kevin Mack
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
In all likihood the same would be true in reverse. If no one pays attention to bad posts those who make them disappear. But as I said, one bad post doesn't end a thread, but acting as a self appointed moderator more often does. So really being a self appointed moderator only makes a bad situation worse.I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
Yeah I actually suspect a lot of these situations are being created by people trying to moderate.
Yes Scott. Telling people to go to other message boards or that this isn't the place for posting dislike of 4x, would never lead anyone to think you might be a self appointed moderator.You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police. What I told people was that if they didn't want to be constructive and just wanted to rant against 4th Edition, that this isn't the place. That's nothing extraordinary, I think. If that's what you think a "self-appointed moderator" is, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. At the same time, I don't think it's out of line at all.
That's easy. Note the word 'self' in self-police. I've told Pax (for example) in the past that he needs some of my zoloft but never said that he has no place for his opinions.
Declaring that the 4x boards are only for people who like 4x and that those who have issues don't deserve a place anywhere isn't.
That's the thing - I never said that. What I was asked was where people who want to post that they dislike 4th Edition should go to say that. I answered that I don't think that a post that does nothing but voice dislike for 4th Edition has a place here at all, because it contributes nothing to discussion.
But people who have issues with 4th Edition absolutely have a place here. Heck, just like with previous editions of D&D, half the 4th Edition playerbase has issues with 4th Edition.
I think you're taking a response I made to a very specific question and inadvertently blowing it out of that scope.
Yeah I actually suspect a lot of these situations are being created by people trying to moderate.In all likihood the same would be true in reverse. If no one pays attention to bad posts those who make them disappear. But as I said, one bad post doesn't end a thread, but acting as a self appointed moderator more often does. So really being a self appointed moderator only makes a bad situation worse.I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
And, in turn, the situations are being created by people trying to stop the moderation.
A man is taking a leisurely walk through a meadow admiring the sky when he is suddenly struck by a viper. Cursing, the man picks up a rock and crushes the head of the vile serpent. Within minutes, the man succumbs to the poisonous venom and dies himself.
A snake is sunning itself when a clumsy human comes charging towards it. In self defense, the hapless snake strikes out. The humans snatches a large rock and crushes the head of the snake, ending its life.
Which is in the right?
I don't intend any insult - and yet, the wording in one of my posts suddenly seems like I'm commanding you to act disengenously, the very thing that frustrates you. And you don't intend any offense in response, and yet suddenly I'm feeling like I'm under attack and being accused of something I'm not trying to do.
No... That isn't quite right. I didn't read any command, or attempt at offense. It started out as a point, and degenerated - after a fashion - into a mini rant about society in general. I would have explained further up thread, but I was going for brevity.
A different reading of one single word... that's all it takes to suddenly have both of us potentially at each other's throats,
You can blame that on Gallagher. His little skit about the stupidity of the English language still resurfaces in my mind from time to time. Such as students sent to the principles office for "acting smart."
Well, I'd start by not referring to it as "forum vigilanteism." :)
Heh. :-) What do you call it when someone takes the law, or rules, into their own hands? ;-)
But it's a good question. Let's see if we can focus this thread on more than my initial little tirade up top, but seeing if we can come up with some solutions ourselves.
I hope you realize, I've been waiting about a year for this to happen... Ever since the threat to moderate the forum, I've been waiting for someone - more skilled than me - to address the issue of what is considered appropriate, or not, in the manner of posting rather than whining and crying for others to do it for them...
Where have you been? :-P
So: To those who feel Scott is too aggressive in his defense of 4E, what do you feel would be an acceptable response, from him or any other defender of 4E, to when someone presents misinformation about 4E? What do you feel would be a fair response to someone attacking players of 4E? When someone presents what is meant as constructive criticism of 4E, are you ok with people presenting what they feel are legitimate explanations for those criticisms? Do you feel that at some point - when two sides have gone back and forth 5-6 times with neither one changing their mind - the two should simply agree to disagree?
Well, here is where we get into a dangerously gray area... I haven't read every word of every thread in the 4e forums, but somehow I seem to find every thread that Scott Betts is "directing traffic" in. (Is that an acceptable term? :-) )
I see very little misinformation thrown about, and far less constructive corrections.The majority of what I have read of "two sides [going] back and forth 5-6 times with neither one changing their mind" usually starts with someone throwing out their dislike, hatred, vitriol if you will about 4e. I don't agree with all of those adjectives, but others take it that way.
So why does it continue to happen? My guess is, those who are angry, disappointed, frustrated, et al, about the new edition and the way the company handled everything need to vent. Someplace where it isn't moderated into oblivion to at least acknowledge the validity of the feeling.
As Scott is proud of saying, those feelings aren't allowed anywhere else.
Do note, I'm not suggesting the method of sharing is appropriate.
As you say, the method of handling things is important. An honest effort to correct the posting patterns, rather that complete derision of the thoughts and opinions behind them, will go long strides toward fixing the majority of problems in these forums.
But again, that is just me.
Yes Scott. Telling people to go to other message boards or that this isn't the place for posting dislike of 4x, would never lead anyone to think you might be a self appointed moderator.You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police. What I told people was that if they didn't want to be constructive and just wanted to rant against 4th Edition, that this isn't the place. That's nothing extraordinary, I think. If that's what you think a "self-appointed moderator" is, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. At the same time, I don't think it's out of line at all.
That's easy. Note the word 'self' in self-police. I've told Pax (for example) in the past that he needs some of my zoloft but never said that he has no place for his opinions.
Declaring that the 4x boards are only for people who like 4x and that those who have issues don't deserve a place anywhere isn't.
That's the thing - I never said that. What I was asked was where people who want to post that they dislike 4th Edition should go to say that. I answered that I don't think that a post that does nothing but voice dislike for 4th Edition has a place here at all, because it contributes nothing to discussion.
But people who have issues with 4th Edition absolutely have a place here. Heck, just like with previous editions of D&D, half the 4th Edition playerbase has issues with 4th Edition.
I think you're taking a response I made to a very specific question and inadvertently blowing it out of that scope.
In fairness Scott, whatever your intention, it was easy to draw the wrong inference from a few of your posts.
And I am now officially done trying to play mediator. This whole mess (and my tendendency to take it too seriously) was a big part of what drove me away in the first place.
A man is taking a leisurely walk through a meadow admiring the sky when he is suddenly struck by a viper. Cursing, the man picks up a rock and crushes the head of the vile serpent. Within minutes, the man succumbs to the poisonous venom and dies himself.
A snake is sunning itself when a clumsy human comes charging towards it. In self defense, the hapless snake strikes out. The humans snatches a large rock and crushes the head of the snake, ending its life.
Which is in the right?
Oh man, answering that question requires delving into issues of applying moral judgment to actions taken within a state of nature, and that's just a big fat barrel of off-topic.
Can I just say "Both," and leave it at that?
Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but what portion of the post in question did you find misleading or factually incorrect? At a glance, it looks like the worst sin of the poster in question was accusing Paizo of "anti-4e marketing". And I mean, yeah, of course they're marketing to the anti-4e crowd. It's a significant part of their potential playerbase.I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
I suppose the slightly less facetious "that's not strictly fair" comment is simply that not everyone who dislikes 4e was a gullible moron that got pulled in by Paizo's anti-4e marketing, and a fair number simply found an edition (or other stand-alone game) that they liked best, and stuck with it.
I've seen similar posts to this, but if you didn't note this, then that would go quite a way to explaining the disparity between my view of the Avengers and yours.
I found that it ("...a gullible moron that got pulled in by Paizo's anti-4e marketing,") similar to the similar accusations against 4e players here.
In fairness Scott, whatever your intention, it was easy to draw the wrong inference from a few of your posts.
I know. Making oneself clear online is something of an art, it seems. I think it's good policy to assume that the poster you're responding to means what he's saying in the least offensive way possible, and going from there. That's something I've been trying to adjust to myself.
Kevin Mack
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
And, in turn, the situations are being created by people trying to stop the moderation.Yeah I actually suspect a lot of these situations are being created by people trying to moderate.In all likihood the same would be true in reverse. If no one pays attention to bad posts those who make them disappear. But as I said, one bad post doesn't end a thread, but acting as a self appointed moderator more often does. So really being a self appointed moderator only makes a bad situation worse.I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
Actually someone else summed the moderation up as the guy running around with a blow torch complaining about other people starting flame wars
Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but what portion of the post in question did you find misleading or factually incorrect? At a glance, it looks like the worst sin of the poster in question was accusing Paizo of "anti-4e marketing". And I mean, yeah, of course they're marketing to the anti-4e crowd. It's a significant part of their potential playerbase.I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
I suppose the slightly less facetious "that's not strictly fair" comment is simply that not everyone who dislikes 4e was a gullible moron that got pulled in by Paizo's anti-4e marketing, and a fair number simply found an edition (or other stand-alone game) that they liked best, and stuck with it.I've seen similar posts to this, but if you didn't note this, then that would go quite a way to explaining the disparity between my view of the Avengers and yours.
I'm not entirely sure why it is ok to say, "...a gullible moron that got pulled in by Paizo's anti-4e marketing," and bad to say, "...not everyone who doesn't like Pathfinder RPG isn't a gullible moron that fell for WotC's marketing."
If that is ok, then I would suggest that the anti-4e posters on these forums are matching the standards of the Avengers.
Isn't that other person's point that many people who like Pathfinder have good reasons for it? It strikes me that he was actually attempting to defend Pathfinder fans in the face of criticism against them. Is that not how you see it?
Actually someone else summed the moderation up as the guy running around with a blow torch complaining about other people starting flame warsAnd, in turn, the situations are being created by people trying to stop the moderation.Yeah I actually suspect a lot of these situations are being created by people trying to moderate.In all likihood the same would be true in reverse. If no one pays attention to bad posts those who make them disappear. But as I said, one bad post doesn't end a thread, but acting as a self appointed moderator more often does. So really being a self appointed moderator only makes a bad situation worse.I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
And everyone else's solution to dealing with the guy with the blowtorch seems to be lighting him on fire.
Kevin Mack
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Actually someone else summed the moderation up as the guy running around with a blow torch complaining about other people starting flame wars*chuckle* Well so long as he isn't running around with a Jug of Gasoline....
err actually the person then went on to say blowtorch in left hand can of gasoline in the right
Matthew Morris - I notice you have called Scott out a few times now for proclaiming that these forums aren't a fit place for people that don't like 4E. As Scott explained to Courtfool, he's not looking to kick out anyone who doesn't devotedly love 4E, he just doesn't see this as a place for those who aren't looking to be constructive and just want to rant about the edition.
Do you actually disagree with this? That is, do you actually feel this should be a place for people to simply share how much they hate 4E? Or do you instead feel that Scott is speaking out against some milder level of disliking 4E that you feel is appropriate, such as constructive criticism or discussion about various aspects of the rules? And do you feel that even those do belong in threads that are about entirely unrelated elements of the game?
You are calling Scott's viewpoint out here, but I'm not certain you actually disagree with him, or if you just have a mistaken impression of what his actual view is here.
I'm a little curious about this, too.
err actually the person then went on to say blowtorch in left hand can of gasoline in the rightActually someone else summed the moderation up as the guy running around with a blow torch complaining about other people starting flame wars*chuckle* Well so long as he isn't running around with a Jug of Gasoline....
Then I guess the flame war would be over pretty quickly then, when he accidentally blows himself up ;)
And, in turn, the situations are being created by people trying to stop the moderation.Yeah I actually suspect a lot of these situations are being created by people trying to moderate.In all likihood the same would be true in reverse. If no one pays attention to bad posts those who make them disappear. But as I said, one bad post doesn't end a thread, but acting as a self appointed moderator more often does. So really being a self appointed moderator only makes a bad situation worse.I think you'll find that if the threadcrapping stops, the self-policing will no longer be necessary.More like 45% is quit threadcrapping, the other 45% is quit pretending to be a forum moderator.
Since more then once threads are destroyed by self appointed moderators coming in to tell others to post elsewhere then it breaks down into a big fight. One bad post doesn't derail a thread, but 20 do, and acting as a forum moderator always doubles the number of bad posts at least, from 1 to 2, but in practice it starts a fight which kills the thread.
That is wrong. The person who put up the bad post left one entry on the thread. If no one replies to it, it ends there. When a self appointed moderator comes along and tries to bully them, then the thread dies. Because first the poster of the bad entry replies, now one bad entry is 3, but of course the self appointed moderator jumps in now with others who share his/her PoV, 3 bad posts now become many many more. The thread is dead at this point. It doesn't matter whether haters of self appointed moderators show or not, the thread was dead anyway. Killed by...you guessed it the self appointed moderator.
I went to that WotC board you linked in this thread, boy 4e people there are very concerned that 4e haters don't like their game. I counted what 3 threads down and two were crying about how people hate 4e or don't think it is D&D. (( one was is 4e D&D and the other is 4e WoW or something like that.)) They need to let it go already, sure there are people who hate 4e, but seriously you would think someone ruined their favorite game or something the way they are carrying on.
That is wrong. The person who put up the bad post left one entry on the thread. If no one replies to it, it ends there. When a self appointed moderator comes along and tries to bully them, then the thread dies. Because first the poster of the bad entry replies
Aaaaand stop there.
This is my point - the people responding to the moderation keep it going in exactly the same way that the moderator responding to the initial rant keeps it going. Every post shares equal responsibility in continuing the cycle of derailment. The best place to stop that cycle is before it can begin by ending the perception of this forum as a place where rants against 4th Edition can just be deposited in any thread, regardless of topic (or that non-constructive rants against 4th Edition are acceptable here in the first place).
nothing really to quote just getting your attention
You know a long time ago before your self imposed exile and before your dissappointment at the GSL you and I had a go at it, I don't know if you remember, but I do. We got past it, and I was actually glad to see you come back.
The same thing has happened with Scott B. him and I have had tiffs, usually when I say I can at least see the point some anti 4e hater is trying to make (as long as it isn't that WotC is moneygrubbing, or that 4e isn't DnD, or Just for children, I ignore that kind of thing)but I just take the long view, after harsh words are spoken step back and ask yourself, is this something I'll remember in 10 years? if the answer is no, and you've already said your piece, just let it go. I for one don't want to see you take another self imposed exile :D
Kevin Mack
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
nothing really to quote just getting your attentionYou know a long time ago before your self imposed exile and before your dissappointment at the GSL you and I had a go at it, I don't know if you remember, but I do. We got past it, and I was actually glad to see you come back.
The same thing has happened with Scott B. him and I have had tiffs, usually when I say I can at least see the point some anti 4e hater is trying to make (as long as it isn't that WotC is moneygrubbing, or that 4e isn't DnD, or Just for children, I ignore that kind of thing)but I just take the long view, after harsh words are spoken step back and ask yourself, is this something I'll remember in 10 years? if the answer is no, and you've already said your piece, just let it go. I for one don't want to see you take another self imposed exile :D
Yep. The reality is that if most of us knew each other in real life, we'd probably get along swimmingly. The nature of the internet simply focuses our disagreement in such a way that we appear one-dimensional to each other, and a one-dimensional caricature is easy to dislike.
Isn't that other person's point that many people who like Pathfinder have good reasons for it? It strikes me that he was actually attempting to defend Pathfinder fans in the face of criticism against them. Is that not how you see it?
No, it would seem that he is defending people who don't like 4th edition from being attached to Paizo.
Here "But. Someone, somewhere must like it on its merits, and not simply out of anti-4e butthurt. ...Er, right?" the suggestion is not "that many people who like Pathfinder have good reasons for it", rather, there might be a few that that do so... maybe.
Then following that is the calling Pathfinder players gullible morons, followed by him suggesting that non-4e players might be not morons as they play other games.
His post was not suggesting that most Paizo players are not "haters." Rather, he was suggesting that all "haters" were not Paizo players, as if that were worse.
Isn't that other person's point that many people who like Pathfinder have good reasons for it? It strikes me that he was actually attempting to defend Pathfinder fans in the face of criticism against them. Is that not how you see it?
Haha no, not at all, it seems that guy says that the people here have a stick up their ass.
His paizo defense seems more of a rhetorical than an example. Saying there must be some who aren't x. isn't saying that there aren't x, it's implying that most, if not all, are x. that whole quote was quite offensive to me, and because while I am one of those people who isn't x. His whole post implies that I actually am x and don't realize it. Then later on he edited to say that guys like me are there, just more live and let live. which is true, but remember it was added in after the fact.
That is wrong. The person who put up the bad post left one entry on the thread. If no one replies to it, it ends there. When a self appointed moderator comes along and tries to bully them, then the thread dies. Because first the poster of the bad entry repliesAaaaand stop there.
This is my point - the people responding to the moderation keep it going in exactly the same way that the moderator responding to the initial rant keeps it going. Every post shares equal responsibility in continuing the cycle of derailment. The best place to stop that cycle is before it can begin by ending the perception of this forum as a place where rants against 4th Edition can just be deposited in any thread, regardless of topic.
It only takes two to fight.
Guy one comes looking but it isn't a fight yet. Guy two our self appointed moderator though comes in and now it is a fight. Anyone else who jumps in now only adds to the mess, but the fight is started no matter what at that point. All they do is speed the thread to it's death.
Yep. The reality is that if most of us knew each other in real life, we'd probably get along swimmingly. The nature of the internet simply focuses our disagreement in such a way that we appear one-dimensional to each other, and a one-dimensional caricature is easy to dislike.
I'll be the first to state that we won't get along well. I'm much more gruff and abrasive when not on the net.
You know a long time ago before your self imposed exile and before your dissappointment at the GSL you and I had a go at it, I don't know if you remember, but I do. We got past it, and I was actually glad to see you come back.
The same thing has happened with Scott B. him and I have had tiffs, usually when I say I can at least see the point some anti 4e hater is trying to make (as long as it isn't that WotC is moneygrubbing, or that 4e isn't DnD, or Just for children, I ignore that kind of thing)but I just take the long view, after harsh words are spoken step back and ask yourself, is this something I'll remember in 10 years? if the answer is no, and you've already said your piece, just let it go. I for one don't want to see you take another self imposed exile :D
The funny thing is, I don't remember that specifically, which just underscores your point about remembering something in 10 years (or even 6 months). And I do love to get my knickers in a twist, though, don't I?
Thank you for the kind words.
Yep. The reality is that if most of us knew each other in real life, we'd probably get along swimmingly. The nature of the internet simply focuses our disagreement in such a way that we appear one-dimensional to each other, and a one-dimensional caricature is easy to dislike.I'll be the first to state that we won't get along well. I'm much more gruff and abrasive when not on the net.
Either of you going to be at Gencon? We can test this theory. ;-)
I have not read this whole thread but my name was brought up by the OP. The only thing I said to scott in that thread was to flag or ignore the post, the I moved back to talking about the thread subject.
Threads drift it's easy enough to ignore off topic bait. Scott just catches flack because he trys to one man mod the boards and he gets very,very gun-ho about it. Threads dift roll with it or ignore it, that simple
Either of you going to be at Gencon? We can test this theory. ;-)Yep. The reality is that if most of us knew each other in real life, we'd probably get along swimmingly. The nature of the internet simply focuses our disagreement in such a way that we appear one-dimensional to each other, and a one-dimensional caricature is easy to dislike.I'll be the first to state that we won't get along well. I'm much more gruff and abrasive when not on the net.
LOL! (Deep throated laugh at that.) I always liked you, or perhaps your posting style would be more accurate. :-)
But, no. I won't be attending. And many con goers are rejoicing right now. :-D
I have a sneaking suspicion that law enforcement would be involved, sooner or later. Scott Betts and I do have at least one thing in common. We are both stubborn to the point of needing to be physically separated, I'm afraid.
Either of you going to be at Gencon? We can test this theory. ;-)Yep. The reality is that if most of us knew each other in real life, we'd probably get along swimmingly. The nature of the internet simply focuses our disagreement in such a way that we appear one-dimensional to each other, and a one-dimensional caricature is easy to dislike.I'll be the first to state that we won't get along well. I'm much more gruff and abrasive when not on the net.
Nope, but I'll be at PAX later in the summer.
I wince every time someone refers to Titanium Dragon as 'TD'.
And I'm not sure if TD ever identified himself as one of the Avengers.
Thats a Canadian thing.
Back on the topic at hand. Trying to make threads stay on topic is both near impossible and often not even particularly desirable. As often as not the off topic place a thread wanders into is at least as interesting as the original topic. I feel that threads evolve naturally for good or ill and that trying to control the process is mostly a waste of time.
As to the moderation...I'll let the staff decide how much they want in this regard. Trying to control what others say and how they say it is a game thats really not worth the candle. If something is really off the reservation flag it and move on. If its not so bad it needs to be flagged I'd generally just allow the other regulars judge the merits of the posts and those that post in response. Sometimes what evolves is very much worth reading, other times...not so much.
Certainly I'm biased, I might just ignore a post in one case and in another feel that its time to don my edition warrior armour and participate in the battle. Thats the nature of the game in the 4E forum and I can live with that. While more moderation is possible its been decided by the powers that be that its not desired. Expecting the forums to work in some other way strikes me as unrealistic at this point under the present circumstances and, in truth, I'm not really unhappy with the situation as it stands. It has its down side to be sure but it has its upside as well.