[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.

That very specific question was: ":So... Just as an academic exercise, let me ask you; "Where should members post about their dislike of 4th edition?"

If it doesn't belong in the 4th edition forums, where does it belong?"

Your very specific responce was "Nowhere"

Now I don't know if English is your second language, but when you say that the place for dislike of 4th edition forums is 'nowhere' that does seem to mean they don't deserve a place. Since 'a place' would be a 'where' last time I looked.

I'll disagree with you, I'll argue you. Heck I'll support you when I agree with you. but to say 'I never said that' That would be called a lie where I come from. Would you like to check what you said, and re-evaluate your statement? Because I do take it personally when you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

I am not a huge poster on these boards. I am not a fan of 4th ed. I have views about the way it changes the basics of the game I grew up with. I very rarely go to the 4et boards because of Scott. I find it ironic that a person comes to the website of a competitor. Posts in the 4ed board but also watchies every other thread and looks for an opurtunity to step in when somone displays thier dislike of the new edition. It seems like a game sometimes, whe I am reading a thread and I can guess when Scott will step in and tell everyone how wrong they are. It seems to me like he is somone that realizes that he is a minority out here in the pathfinder threads, and so staked a claim for himself in the 4ed and let the one who misteps beware.
Now before you think this is a rant on Scott post (it is but there is more to the point), it is that kind of mentality that causes people to push boundries. When you tell somone don't step on my street unless you play by my rules (regardless of wha the rules are) people are going to step on your street and NOT play by your rules. If instead the posters ignore the post that dosen't bring anyhting to the conversation, you will find a lot less people wanting to step in unless they really have something to say.
There are no other people on this board whoes post I usually just skip over without reading. Unfortunatley, once he starts things usually go to crap. Now, to make this less personal, (Though what I have said might get me banned already) I don't know what scott is like in real life. (from his posts, I would not want to hang with him, but that is ok, I have relatives I would not want to hang with, but are very nice people) but this is my observations from the way he posts. It is how his posts make me feel, and I have a feeling I am not alone.

It takes two to argue, even on a messageboard.
As always, this is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

That very specific question was: ":So... Just as an academic exercise, let me ask you; "Where should members post about their dislike of 4th edition?"

If it doesn't belong in the 4th edition forums, where does it belong?"

Your very specific responce was "Nowhere"

Yes, people who want to voice nothing but their dislike of the new edition should, in my opinion, keep their opinions to themselves. They offer nothing constructive. But what you accused me of saying was claiming that people who have issues with 4th Edition don't have a place and I never said that. Most people here have issues with 4th Edition. I have issues with 4th Edition, minor as they are. Having an issue with the game is not the same as disliking the game. Disliking a portion of the game is not the same as disliking the whole game. And posting that you dislike the game in order to deliver a constructive point about how you think the game would be better is not the same as posting that you dislike the game for no constructive purpose at all, in a place where such discussion is off-topic. You are trying to make it not only sound like I've said something that I didn't say, but also that I've contradicted myself.

Now I don't know if English is your second language, but when you say that the place for dislike of 4th edition forums is 'nowhere' that does seem to mean they don't deserve a place. Since 'a place' would be a 'where' last time I looked.

Nice. Alter the question so it sounds like I said something I didn't, and when I call it out deflect by questioning my understanding of English. Awesome.

I'll disagree with you, I'll argue you. Heck I'll support you when I agree with you. but to say 'I never said that' That would be called a lie where I come from. Would you like to check what you said, and re-evaluate your statement? Because I do take it personally when you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

You should. And since, y'know, you are putting words in my mouth, are you going to re-evaluate your statement?

I find it ironic that a person comes to the website of a competitor. Posts in the 4ed board but also watchies every other thread and looks for an opurtunity to step in when somone displays thier dislike of the new edition.

This is the only portion of your post that merits regard.

I'd love for you to explain to me how it's ironic that I come to the website dedicated to a product that I spend quite a bit of time working on projects to support. Paizo is not a "competitor" to me. Their Adventure Path products are just as important to what I do as 4th Edition D&D is.

Furthermore, this thread was on the 4th Edition forums before it was moved. It's not like I spend my time scouring the forum for people expressing their dislike of the game in other places where it isn't on-topic either.

I guess one of the things that frustrates me a bit is that even when I point out that while I prefer 3.5, and I want to run 3.5 for the most part as a GM, I was playing in a regular 4E game, and there were elements of it that I liked, when I point out some of the things that keep me from liking 4E more, that keep me from being able to want to embrace 4E more fully as a GM as well as a player, I feel like I'm being told that I can't "partially" like 4E, if I don't prefer it, then I just don't "get" it, as if its all or nothing, which, if its put like that, then its nothing because I like 3.5 better.

Honestly, for the most part, I feel like I've been pretty fair about 4E and what I've said about it, and have been pretty careful to point out when my opinion is based on a "feeling" or a preference, and this isn't going to apply across the board to everyone.

On the other hand, I do feel that sometimes, some posters present their opinions and preferences as empirical fact.

All of that having been said, while I have seen posts that I felt moved to address, I have, and fairly recently, addressed said posts in a manner that continued to take a thread off topic. While I won't say that the post that prompted me to reply didn't call for a response, I will say that the thread in question was not the place for that response, and for that derailment, I do want to apologize.

Yes, people who want to voice nothing but their dislike of the new edition should, in my opinion, keep their opinions to themselves. They offer nothing constructive.

Hahahahahahahahah

What a joke. Sorry but with him on your side you've lost this fight to end threadjacking before it ever starts. He wants threadjackers to show so he can amaze them with his arrogance, so he can mystify them with his ego, and so he can soak in all of your praises. He has nothing of true value to add, but he needs his ego stroked so he looks for ways to make it happen.

Basically you need to control your own self appointed moderator before you can hope to deal with those who threadjack in the 4e boards.

I find it ironic that a person comes to the website of a competitor. Posts in the 4ed board but also watches every other thread and looks for an opportunity to step in when somone displays their dislike of the new edition.

How, then, is it justified for any person who has zero intention of playing 4E, to spew bilious vomit over a thread where people were expressing their like of the new edition?

How, then, is it justified for any person who has zero intention of playing 4E, to spew bilious vomit over a thread where people were expressing their like of the new edition?

Well, not to justify spewing bilious vomit, but I can point out that even someone that has no intention of playing the game can contribute something of value to a thread in the forums of said game.

While its not productive to pop in and say, "yeah, game X is for stupid people that can't handle a real game system, and its designed for little kids and the mentally deficient," I do think there is value to someone, in a well reasoned manner, saying that what they have liked about edition X, Y, or Z was (this) and what they feel edition ZZ doesn't do well is (this) and that is why they don't want to give the game a try.

Its a specific criticism, that, while it may not be agreed to, is a concise explanation that has a point. In fact, so long as no one says that that poster doesn't have a right to say what they have said, anyone is perfectly within their rights to analyze what the first poster said and point out that maybe edition ZZ does do what they don't think it does, but does it (this) way.

One of the things I give WOTC credit for is that Scott Rouse has been discussing how WOTC does feel like they put off some previous edition players when 4E came out and that they want to work on some of the impressions that they gave at the time. Its nice to read something like this instead of a laundry list of deficiencies of past editions, or even proclamations that isn't already on the 4E bandwagon just doesn't "get" it.

I can point out that even someone that has no intention of playing the game can contribute something of value to a thread in the forums of said game.

I do think there is value to someone, in a well reasoned manner, saying that what they have liked about edition X, Y, or Z was (this) and what they feel edition ZZ doesn't do well is (this) and that is why they don't want to give the game a try.

I agree. And those sort of posts aren't the ones being objected to.

I do think there is value to someone, in a well reasoned manner, saying that what they have liked about edition X, Y, or Z was (this) and what they feel edition ZZ doesn't do well is (this) and that is why they don't want to give the game a try.

I've posted to that effect myself; some might even say some of my posts have been sarcastic. I'll hold my hand up to that. But in each case, I've been on topic, and I've limited any scorn to the individual rule element in question, not carpet-bombed the entire ruleset, or flamed the entire fanbase.

Another consideration is that posters should be even-handed in their criticism, of any edition. No playing favourites. If you think something's dumb, over/underpowered, or not true to the genre, then you should call it out, no matter which company is responsible.

(To give an example that no-one should have a problem with)The 'Efreeti Wish-Factory' was an awful idea in 3.5, and rightfully denounced. If it exists in 4E, it should be denounced, as well. And if Paizo haven't fixed it in PF come August, then it remains an awful idea in PF, and should be denounced again. No free pass on bad rules loopholes, just because they're nice people with jolly avatars, who host a (mostly) friendly website.

Some posters seem to have a blind spot, where they deride an aspect of 4E, while ignoring, or being somehow oblivious to, the same thing in 3.5/PF.
How many have slammed 4E wizards' at-will missile attacks, calling them 'video-gamey', 'World of Warcraft' or such, while ignoring the very same thing in PF?
I dislike it; it doesn't fit the style of fantasy I grew up reading.
Fritz Lieber's Grey Mouser (who is a wizard, after all) doesn't get 'infinite pew-pew lazors'. He hurls his daggers through people's necks. Even Gandalf has to get down and dirty, and he wears an artifact.

Among the things I disliked in 4E was the Paladin's Marking ability, which, as initially described in the pre-releases, seemed to allow the PC to mark, then run away to hide behind his henchmen, leaving the enemy to slowly drop dead from failure to engage the paladin. That just fails any definition of chivalry, honour, or 'paladinhood' that I'm aware of, and I was mightily sarcastic of it at the time, in posts that were seen by WotC staffers. I believe it no longer works like that, but whether that is due to the rule just not being explained well in the preview, or whether posts like mine forced a rethink, I don't know. It would be nice to think I had a positive effect on the finished game.
And being even-handed, I also dislike similar mechanics in 1st to 3rd Edition, such as the Knight's Challenge class ability, or the Kender racial taunting from Dragonlance.
And during the Beta-test, there was a lot of discussion took place on the Paladin thread, to create Vows/Oaths/Smites/etc that were balanced and thematically appropriate, while disallowing the kind of abuse mentioned above.

So, I may be snarky, but I'm an equal-opportunities snark.

I believe it no longer works like that,

In case you were still wondering, that's correct. The Paladin's Divine Challenge expires at the end of the Paladin's turn unless the Paladin attacks the target of the Challenge or ends its turn adjacent to it.

Vigilante "moderators" are bad for everyone, no matter the topic. I find it laughable that anyone who is not a moderator appointed by the forum owner would even dare to call their bullying "moderating".

I have several questions about 4e that are borderline criticisms at best.

Just curious, but...what do you hope to achieve by asking those questions? Are you hoping someone will convince you to change your mind? Are you hoping you have misinterpreted some things and want clarification? Do you want to clarify a rule you hope to port over to another system? If so, state that in the same post as your question, and I doubt you'll get the violent reaction you're expecting.

If, however, your question is just a thinly veiled criticism and you're hoping to hear how every 4E hater out there agrees with you so you can feel smug and superior...then you deserve the flame war you're bringing on yourself. (Please understand that I am not accusing you of doing any such thing. I wouldn't dare to presume I know your intentions.)

The "fellow ideologue hunt" is prolific on every message board on the internet, and, personally, I think we might as well just start making sub-forums just for that purpose so it doesn't clog up forums for other discussion.

Hmm, just stumbled on this and failed my Will save not to post ...

I have found the little triangle right by the forum heading works well to keep you from posting. I used to cruise the 4E threads trying to get everyone to get along (which obviously failed), but when I closed up the forum I found it was a lot easier not to try and 'jump in' with my opinion. I haven't looked at the 4E threads in a while, and I have to say I am a happier poster for it.

As for the cry for more moderation. I have seen what other RPG boards are like with heavy moderation, and quite frankly, most of them are much worse in tone than this one. I personally will not ever go back to post on the WoTC boards after seeing the total smeck some folks were posting about Paizo. Paizoites are for the most part very good at self-moderation. That being said, those who enjoy 4E you can't expect to get a free pass on this board. There are too many people who took the edition change personally. If you wanna post, wear your fire suit. Sad fact but true. 4E boosterism here is going to attract trolls, just as if I started a Paizo-friendly thread on Gleemax/whatever the heck it is now. Be the bigger person and let the trolls starve.

A quick word to the 4E detractors. Anyone who posts the tired internet memes '4E is WoW on a table', '4E is not D&D' , blahdy blah should just thank Rovagug that we have other RPG options, and that they are good ones. WHO CARES WHAT HASBRO/WOTC DOES? If you've moved on without going to 4E, then stop biotching about it. You aren't doing anyone any good, and you aren't making any friends, especially when you are a new poster. There are much more positive things to do than argue about a freakin' game for chrissakes.

So now Scott you back away from your initial statement that those who have a dislike of 4e shouldn't be allowed to post at all, hiding behind the weasle words of 'in my opinion' which doesn't change that you said they shouldn't be allowed to post at all.

Pointing out where you said something in the past, then pointing out that you have to resort to calling me a liar to hide your own lies is pathetic.

As to the ESL question, I don't know where you are, nor really do I care. I was offering an explination for you to explain how saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post disagreements doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to post disagreements.

IF you can't admit a mistake, then there's no point in dealing with your lies any further. I'm done with this thread so no worries about me escallating it in a fit of anger, Josh :-)

Matthew Koelbl,

I agree that 'D&D 4e sucks' isn't constructive. The initial poster that triggered this apologized. This puts him one ahead of Scott. 4e does have flaws. Every system has flaws. Whether it be D&D or Global Warming models, nothing can fully emulate reality. Scott's answer of 'nowhere' was to the question of dislike of 4e. Not just unreasoning hatred, dislike. I don't like that 4e killed the skill set. There are somethings of Pathfinder Beta I don't like about their skill set (search being part of perception, lack of concentration, etc.) When I get the final version, I'll likely rewrite the skills to my own liking, and post them on my LiveDocs. If Scott wants to control the content of a board, then build his own forum.

I also want to be able to post to the question of a weakness of 4e that even I as a non-player can see w/o the wrath of Scott coming down on me because the boards that he (and I) are guests on aren't moderated to his standards.

To use the Paladin example above, the 'Mark and run' tactic wasn't pointed out until after game day, IIRC. Several posters had commented to the effect "This sucks, the Paladin can mark the target, go back to the inn, have a beer and wait for the monster to keel over." This was fixed. To Scott, this post would have been supressed and monsters all over 4e would be dying while Paladins are drinking taverns dry.

But like I said, I'm done with this thread. I don't need the agrrivation.

noretoc wrote:

I find it ironic that a person comes to the website of a competitor. Posts in the 4ed board but also watches every other thread and looks for an opportunity to step in when somone displays their dislike of the new edition.

How, then, is it justified for any person who has zero intention of playing 4E, to spew bilious vomit over a thread where people were expressing their like of the new edition?

It isn't. If the poster has something to say about it, and it has merit, then you should reply or not reply. When it dosen't have merit, you should move along. If the poster continues, Flag him. People who do not have others jumping on thier attempt to threadcrap will go away. When you do jump in and start yelling with the holy vengence all you do is irritate other people reading or posting and cause them to either jump back, or leave without making thier point. (In some cases posters who do that prefer the latter because then they feel they "won" and complain when they get the former.)

Is it right to threadcrap? No. Not at all. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have ever been in a movie theater where somebody is talking in th backgrouns, yea it is annoying. When someone tells them to please be quiet, sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. When somone tell them "If you are gonna keep talking all movie, why don't you leave" then the chance of that being an argument, and ruining the whole movie for everyone is that much greater. If your someone in another row, you might as well just leave because you know your movie time has just been screwed. That is how I feel sometimes when certain people post in threads. It like "Well there goes another one I was enjoying" because it goes down to one person saying what they believe loudly, and another telling them they are wrong, and no real discussion happens.

Whether it be D&D or Global Warming models, nothing can fully emulate reality. Scott's answer of 'nowhere' was to the question of dislike of 4e. Not just unreasoning hatred, dislike.

Matthew, I have to say - you are taking Scott's answer out of context and outright ignoring his clarification of what he meant, along with all his other similar answers elsewhere. Keep in mind your original question wasn't about simply "dislike" of 4E, it was about dislike of 4E that "doesn't belong on the 4th Edition forums." Which Scott has already indicated are the posts that are disruptive, unreasoning attacks that are only designed to invoke hostility. I agree with him - if a post crosses the line such that is doesn't belong on these forums, than it doesn't belong anywhere. And I certainly know that just by saying it, that doesn't make it happen - but Scott wasn't proclaiming some universal policy, just giving an honest answer to a question. Interpreting that as saying that anyone who isn't in love with 4E isn't welcome is disingenuous at best.

Now, I don't think you are trying to mislead about what he said, but I think you do already have a perceived view of him and seem unwilling to consider it might not be accurate. Which... well, you don't have to change it, especially as you have stated you have left this thread, but I think you should take a long hard look at what Scott has actually been saying all along, before next choosing to confront him.

It isn't. If the poster has something to say about it, and it has merit, then you should reply or not reply. When it dosen't have merit, you should move along. If the poster continues, Flag him.

I should chime in here - this is pretty good advice, at its core. I think a lot of people have been trying it - but generally not everyone at once, so it hasn't been very effective. We've seen that the flagging system isn't especially useful, but that could change if enough people are using it - they've said that it is based less on the content of the offending post itself, and more on how many people actually complain about it. So if enough flag it in the system, that might be enough to get them to take an action.

I think the rest of the discussion we're having is also still valuable, but that doesn't mean this method isn't still worth keeping in mind.

No the flagging system work fine. It is not for posts you don't like, it is for overly hostile posts, posts that call folks names,say they are to dumb to post and the like.

It is not for one post saying 4e is not D&D. Saying 4e is a retard game, or only people to dumb to game play 4e are things that should be flagged.

If you do not like a post, DO NOT respond to it. Trying to police the boards causes much more drama then just over looking one post.

So again the flag system works as it should, maybe not as you want it to but it does work as it was meant to work

monsters all over 4e would be dying while Paladins are drinking taverns dry.

You say that like it's a bad thing. ... Although, such an ability should probably be preserved exclusively for paladins of Cayden Cailean.

No the flagging system work fine. It is not for posts you don't like, it is for overly hostile posts, posts that call folks names,say they are to dumb to post and the like.

It is not for one post saying 4e is not D&D. Saying 4e is a retard game, or only people to dumb to game play 4e are things that should be flagged.

Yes. And there are posts like that, which have been flagged, and gone ignored. That's the problem.

Just because it was not erased or the like does not mean it was ignored

Just curious, but...what do you hope to achieve by asking those questions? Are you hoping someone will convince you to change your mind? Are you hoping you have misinterpreted some things and want clarification? Do you want to clarify a rule you hope to port over to another system? If so, state that in the same post as your question, and I doubt you'll get the violent reaction you're expecting.

Honestly, non of the above, really.

The closest is the looking for clarification one you suggested.

I don't like what I read of the rules. I am pretty certain I won't really like the system if I had the chance to play it. But that doesn't mean I won't enjoy a game of it. I have played many games with systems I don't like. Hell, I never really liked AD&D 2e once I found out there were other systems out there, but still played games in it.

My questions are more for clarification if I am reading it right... If pressed (and I'm not suggesting you are pressing me), I'd describe it more as "does this rule suck as bad as I think it does?"

So yeah, as of right now, I expect severe resistance to my line of questioning. I don't do subtle well, and I am fairly certain my disdain for the rules will come through. Problem is, I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm not trying to dump on 4e. But I'll probably succeed anyway.

Just to touch upon something, yes I have considered giving the game a try. I am the only one in my group that has. I haven't done an exhaustive search of my area, but there really aren't that many people that play 4e. And those that do, that I have found, will spend too much of my time explaining to me how heretical I am for choosing to live with 3.X.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

No the flagging system work fine. It is not for posts you don't like, it is for overly hostile posts, posts that call folks names,say they are to dumb to post and the like.

It is not for one post saying 4e is not D&D. Saying 4e is a retard game, or only people to dumb to game play 4e are things that should be flagged.

Yes. And there are posts like that, which have been flagged, and gone ignored. That's the problem.

So, unless the real moderators follow your rules there's a problem? For you maybe. But once you or anyone else tries to do vigilante moderating, then you and everyone else who does so becomes a problem for the whole forum.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

No the flagging system work fine. It is not for posts you don't like, it is for overly hostile posts, posts that call folks names,say they are to dumb to post and the like.

It is not for one post saying 4e is not D&D. Saying 4e is a retard game, or only people to dumb to game play 4e are things that should be flagged.

Yes. And there are posts like that, which have been flagged, and gone ignored. That's the problem.

So, unless the real moderators follow your rules there's a problem?

Well, we seem to be caught at something of an impasse. Lisa Stevens has a note in the 4th Edition boards asking us to engage in self-policing. That only goes so far, as demonstrated. When efforts at getting the 4th Edition boards cleared of trolling, flame-baiting or simply flaming are met with open hostility (as some posts in this thread show), it is clear that the 4th Edition community's ability to police itself is impotent.

Now, what would be nice is if the moderation staff here followed its own rules and removed posts that engaged in flaming, abusive language, etc. We'll see if that happens; I've flagged a couple posts in here for such behavior, and it's just a matter of whether the staff wants to act on it.

For you maybe. But once you or anyone else tries to do vigilante moderating, then you and everyone else who does so becomes a problem for the whole forum.

No one is trying to engage in "vigilante moderation" (as much as some people might want to label the actions of certain posters as such). That's not even possible, as the most any person can do is say the equivalent of "Please take posts like this somewhere else because I don't think they belong here." This is, of course, nothing like actual moderation, but attaching labels like "self-appointed" or "vigilante" to it help make the behavior sound bad.

So now Scott you back away from your initial statement that those who have a dislike of 4e shouldn't be allowed to post at all, hiding behind the weasle words of 'in my opinion' which doesn't change that you said they shouldn't be allowed to post at all.

It's like you didn't even read what I just said.

Look, follow Matthew Koelbl's advice and actually take a careful look at what I've been saying. I bet you don't even disagree with me. I'll sum it up again because it keeps getting lost in repetitions of vitriol.

People who are here to post nothing beyond that they dislike a game - any game - while in a forum dedicated to that game should just keep quiet. Sharing their opinion is not going to be constructive (since they don't care to talk about why they dislike the game, and aren't going to stick around to elaborate anyway), and will simply invite flames from others on the board. People who are here to discuss issues they have with the game are just fine. Everyone has issues with games they play; even I have issues with 4th Edition, minor as they may be. If the person is willing to post their opinion in a way that allows for constructive discussion instead of an open flame-war, then they should be encouraged to post and have it discussed. Now, that doesn't mean their opinion will be necessarily be free from criticism; part and parcel of posting an opinion in a public place is having it out there for everyone to share their opinion of your opinion. But that discussion will, at least, be constructive.

And, if it makes you feel better, consider the entire above paragraph to have giant [IMO] tags around it.

I bet you don't even disagree with me.

I'll take that bet.

No one is trying to engage in "vigilante moderation" (as much as some people might want to label the actions of certain posters as such). That's not even possible, as the most any person can do is say the equivalent of "Please take posts like this somewhere else because I don't think they belong here." This is, of course, nothing like actual moderation, but attaching labels like "self-appointed" or "vigilante" to it help make the behavior sound bad.

Yes you are engaged in "vigilante moderation". Does anyone really think otherwise?

Less deception, more truth, try it even just as a change of pace for a bit.

You know, I would like to point out something. While it is certainly a problem when a thread cannot stay on track to allow the people that wish to speak about the original topic, when the disclaimer was first put on the 4E boards, there were far worse problems going on.

We had posters saying that designers had no talent, that they were intentionally trying to ruin the game, etc. While there may still be some annoying things going on, in the grand scheme of things, people taking a thread off topic is no where near as bad as the name calling attacks on various designers and executives that was going on at the height of the frenzy.

It's like you didn't even read what I just said.

Look, follow Matthew Koelbl's advice and actually take a careful look at what I've been saying. I bet you don't even disagree with me. I'll sum it up again because it keeps getting lost in repetitions of vitriol.

People who are here to post nothing beyond that they dislike a game - any game - while in a forum dedicated to that game should just keep quiet. Sharing their opinion is not going to be constructive (since they don't care to talk about why they dislike the game, and aren't going to stick around to elaborate anyway), and will simply invite flames from others on the board. People who are here to discuss issues they have with the game are just fine. Everyone has issues with games they play; even I have issues with 4th Edition, minor as they may be. If the person is willing to post their opinion in a way that allows for constructive discussion instead of an open flame-war, then they should be encouraged to post and have it discussed. Now, that doesn't mean their opinion will be necessarily be free from criticism; part and parcel of posting an opinion in a public place is having it out there for everyone to share their opinion of your opinion. But that discussion will, at least, be constructive.

And, if it makes you feel better, consider the entire above paragraph to have giant [IMO] tags around it.

Well Here is an example of doing the opposite of what you preach. This is from the thread that this discussion came from. You replies had been fine up until this one in my opinion. Balderstrom explains how he did not think the current version of d&d was made to appeal a younger audience and was not nessecary to get people to buy new books.He explained how other companies have done this without major changes, and why this version of D&D is not just a new version but a new game. There is a line in there that I will admit is uneeded about sheep, but it is certainly no reason he should be told to post elsewhere. Your reply follows.

balderstrom wrote:

Balderstrom wrote:
I really don't see how the 4th Edition is any more accessible to a "younger audience". A number of fans here seem to think WOTC needed to release new Core books so that their (wizards) customers would have something to buy... that makes no sense?

Gygax and crew released the first AD&D DMG in 1979 (1st printing) and the 14th printing in 1990. Over that period of time many different AD&D books were released right alongside the original Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters rulesets. TSR built upon their fan base, and they built upon the intrinsic core concepts of Dungeons and Dragons.

Fans bought Dragon Magazine, Figures, Modules, Supplemental Campaign Settings, novels, etc.

Other game companies like Hero Games, GURPS (just to name a few) have gone through 5 Editions of their rules. Yet if you compare their beginnings to the current rulesets then you will see the core of the game remains the same. The changes are rule refinements, expansions, clarifications and improved game mechanics.

4th Edition is D&D in name only. A "Fighter" is a fighter in name only. WoTC hasn't built upon and refined the game, they've thrown the past away and made the fans years of investment worthless going forward.

I was reading the 4th ED PHB today, and was wondering "strange I haven't gotten to the spells yet...glanced at the page number, did a double-take, flipped forward through the book. OH there are none." There's a lot of that in 4th ED, a lot of oh that doesn't exist anymore.

Good for WoTC's pocketbook if the sheep fall for it. Like MTG fans.

Thankfully there are still gaming companies around like Hero Games, Paizo, Steve Jackson Games (GURPS), WhiteWolf, et al.

I will admit 4th edition would probably make for a good MUD engine though. It aint D&D thats for damned sure. If you want something for a younger audience give them the Basic Set :-)

A company that wants to keep its customers would stop ripping the guts out of the game every 4 years. Wont be much left soon.

Maybe Paizo should incorporate a...

Let's see:

1) D&D in name only
2) No spells
3) Fans are sheep
4) "Guts ripped out of the game every four years"

Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.

That sound like someone saying what they felt and you telling them to go away.

To be honest, I didn't think that post really did do anything to contribute to the topic, because it was kind of a summary of anti-4E complaints, but that not withstanding, it would make more sense, if there wasn't anything of value in the post according to another poster, to simply not respond to the post.

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing anything as "flag worthy" unless its really vitreous towards a person or group and goes way outside of analyzing something that said person or group has done, especially when it starts ascribing motives to them that are not in evidence. Just regurgitating old arguments and taking a thread off topic really doesn't demand a deletion or punishiment, just someone ignoring the off topic comment and perhaps someone popping in to say, "hey, let's get back on topic here . . . "

To be honest, I didn't think that post really did do anything to contribute to the topic, because it was kind of a summary of anti-4E complaints, but that not withstanding, it would make more sense, if there wasn't anything of value in the post according to another poster, to simply not respond to the post.

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing anything as "flag worthy" unless its really vitreous towards a person or group and goes way outside of analyzing something that said person or group has done, especially when it starts ascribing motives to them that are not in evidence. Just regurgitating old arguments and taking a thread off topic really doesn't demand a deletion or punishiment, just someone ignoring the off topic comment and perhaps someone popping in to say, "hey, let's get back on topic here . . . "

When talking about relevence of that post, That isn't the issue. If you go to any other board or even Topic here you will the occasional post that swings off and may not further the discussion. The poster however probably feels it does. However, if somone in the beta thread puts up a post about mages, and somone while in that discussion mentions how a bard's music should not be classified as magic, and people who play bards are really just attention hounds, that person would never receive a responce like the one scott gave out. If he did everyone would be shocked. instead most people would ignore ir. On a rare occasion it would derail the thread, but unfortunatley that is normal. It the thread lets itself get derailed, it is time to put it to bed anyway.

Well, that's kind of what I was saying in the second part of that post . . . ;)

Well, that's kind of what I was saying in the second part of that post . . . ;)

Your think-fu is the same color as my think-fu. hmmm.. Do you have an uncle in jersey?

Nope, all of my uncles are accounted for here in Illinois . . . but my wife is from Pennsylvania, so maybe I'm getting this third party . . . ;)

Hell I can point you to threads in the beta where I outright insult a poster who insulted me, we flamed each other once and then went on with the discussion, no one came in and told either of us we need to take our posts elsewhere and even though I think both of us said things that were flagworthy and I know for a fact that both of us got flagged. none of the posts were erased and I can go back and reread the argument now.

Does this mean that moderation is a failure. No I don't think so because neither of us got to the point where moderation was necessary, we both used insults and got flagged but in the end we both just got our peace out and moved on. Later in other discussions we even openly stated how we got past it.

On the other hand I've seen people practically screaming racist vitriol and threatening to beat each other to death if they ever meet and the discussion has gotten closed and the poster banned. I don't know if it was temporary or permanent.

Anywho my point is that nothing I have seen on the 4e boards is stuff that needs moderation. Usually it's flyby threadcrapping. easy enough to ignore. So I don't feel at all that moderation is a failure here. I think some people think that the level of moderation isn't enough, but really a threadcrap doesn't harm anything or anyone.

Also What if there was just a thread specifically where everyone who hated 4e and wanted to come express their nerd rage to get it out of their system. Is it constructive, no, but is it helpful I think yes because then the people who need to threadcrap have a place to go where they can do it where it isn't derailing the thread. I think that the 4e boards is where I'd expect something like that to exist. The problem is that I don't think the pro 4e could ignore it and let it lie as it grew to a thousand needless ranty posts.

You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police.

I'm not Matthew, but I'd interpret an instruction to 'self-police' as an instruction to police myself and my own actions, not an instruction to tell other people what they should say and think.

Want some constructive posts in the 4E forums? Make some.

Want the flame-bait to fail to ignite and smolder away into oblivion? Stop feeding it. Let it die without a single response.

My questions are more for clarification if I am reading it right... If pressed (and I'm not suggesting you are pressing me), I'd describe it more as "does this rule suck as bad as I think it does?"

I have no problem answering that type of question, and I'm pretty sure I can be unbiased in my responses, as well. Unfortunately, there is no PM utility here (that I know of), but if you'd like to converse via email I'd be happy to give you my address.

I doubt you'd have much success with those questions in any public forum. Inevitably, such threads will devolve into a flame war between supporters and detractors, and your original question will be forgotten by everyone.

I'm against post deletion. This opens a can of "You're censoring my posts" posts whether the deletions are justified or not.

I'm also against calling people out in NEW threads about OLD threads. It's bad taste. If you can't make a point without pointing fingers at people, then the issue is less important then you're making it out to be. You're on a crusade and that's all.

Lastly, Paizo has better thing to do then be hall monitors. Off topic happens, welcome to the internet.

No one is trying to engage in "vigilante moderation" (as much as some people might want to label the actions of certain posters as such). That's not even possible, as the most any person can do is say the equivalent of "Please take posts like this somewhere else because I don't think they belong here." This is, of course, nothing like actual moderation, but attaching labels like "self-appointed" or "vigilante" to it help make the behavior sound bad.

Look, you just haven't been around here much if you think there's no moderation. What's the point of harping about it. (No question mark there)

Now, on the subject of vigilante moderation, the real point of this post is to ask: what happened to Crosswiredmind?

I'm not Matthew, but I'd interpret an instruction to 'self-police' as an instruction to police myself and my own actions, not an instruction to tell other people what they should say and think.

Want some constructive posts in the 4E forums? Make some.

Want the flame-bait to fail to ignite and smolder away into oblivion? Stop feeding it. Let it die without a single response.

Well said Set (who would have thought I would ever have a chance to say that to the Egyptian God of the Desert and Chaos?). ;)

Best line of defense against trolls is not fire (as we have all been lead to believe through years of game play), but just ignoring their existence. While the "offending" post in question was off topic, I, for one, did not get the feeling that it was trollish in nature. But if you are one who did, then just ignore it and continue your discussion.

The same rule holds true in actual face to face discussions. If someone hops in a discussion with the obvious goal of being an obnoxious boor, the best thing to do is ignore them and continue the discussion as if they were not there. It has a double payoff, in that the original discussion continues and you tick off the person who hoped to get a rise out of you by ignoring them.

[EDIT] If it turns out they are not trying to be an obnoxious boor, but have jumped in with something that is off topic, one can engage them with their initial query and bring them into the conversation, thereby increasing the value of the initial discussion by adding additional viewpoints. Of course, one needs to first ascertain that this is the case for their OP or not.[/EDIT]

The one other question I have is this: if one is concerned about having the posts for a thread to remain on topic, how does calling out off-topic posts help this goal in any way, regardless of if they are troll post or not? If there is a legitimate claim for this, please enlighten me, but in this instance it seems to have just fanned the flames and let the original thread burn like a forest in a wildfire.

Scott Betts wrote:

You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police.

I'm not Matthew, but I'd interpret an instruction to 'self-police' as an instruction to police myself and my own actions, not an instruction to tell other people what they should say and think.

Want some constructive posts in the 4E forums? Make some.

Want the flame-bait to fail to ignite and smolder away into oblivion? Stop feeding it. Let it die without a single response.

Excellent post.

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.

You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police.

It's actually quite simple. If you come across a post you deem in violation of the general rules of the forum, just flag it and move on. Don't respond to it, don't encourage others to respond to it (or even respond to others who have responded to the original post). Just ignore it.

I apologize if this has been addressed later in the thread, I just had to respond while still on page 1

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

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.

Scott Betts wrote:

You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police.

It's actually quite simple. If you come across a post you deem in violation of the general rules of the forum, just flag it and move on. Don't respond to it, don't encourage others to respond to it (or even respond to others who have responded to the original post). Just ignore it.

That way at least YOU (general you) don't contribute to either side of any "dangerous" issue.
That's all there is to it. Don't try to police the boards, that's what the people at Paizo do.
If you feel that someone time and again violate the board rules, write a short note to Customer Service, don't write anything in the thread.

I apologize if this has been addressed later in the thread, I just had to respond while still on page 1

Just to add my support, after I had an "outburst" at one of the posters here and was contacted by Paizo staff via e-mail I pretty much started "self-policing" either by staying out of certain threads or not posting when I was fired up.

It just seems that there are one or two posters here who get off on passive aggressive arguing and should really just be ignored (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THATS HOLY, an IGNORE OPTION. It's the only way I survive on the ENWorld boards these days...).

But I really think that self-policing means monitoring YOUR OWN behavior and not exacerbating an already volatile situation for the sake of proving moral or intellectual superiority.

It just seems that there are one or two posters here who get off on passive aggressive arguing and should really just be ignored (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THATS HOLY, an IGNORE OPTION. It's the only way I survive on the ENWorld boards these days...).

There are a number of features missing from the Paizo boards, features that have become fairly standard in the last few years. It's likely the code required to upgrade the boards is far too work intensive.

There are any number of BB packages out now, that are next to feature complete - something akin to civfanatics.com or the like.

It would then of course be a matter of bringing the state of the boards into the new DB ... which can usually be accomplished with grep/(g)awk perl or the like :-)

Balderstrom, you would be right... Except the forums here are all custom code.
This was decided as the way to go so that the forums and store could integrate seamlessly. I'm not entirely certain what is meant by that... But I guess it is so they can display the product discussion threads with the product store page.

What this means is that there won't be a switch to any forum software, and that any features to be added have to be custom coded.

That would be bad enough, but it gets a bit worse. ;-) Their IT department consists of one poor soul that has to keep everything purring. (There was some mention of the fellow getting some help a while ago, but I haven't noticed any mention of that happening yet.)

Disenchanter wrote:

My questions are more for clarification if I am reading it right... If pressed (and I'm not suggesting you are pressing me), I'd describe it more as "does this rule suck as bad as I think it does?"

I have no problem answering that type of question, and I'm pretty sure I can be unbiased in my responses, as well. Unfortunately, there is no PM utility here (that I know of), but if you'd like to converse via email I'd be happy to give you my address.

I doubt you'd have much success with those questions in any public forum. Inevitably, such threads will devolve into a flame war between supporters and detractors, and your original question will be forgotten by everyone.

I thank you for your offer, but respectfully decline. It has nothing to do with trusting you or not. I just feel that if I need to "hide" the discussion it isn't worth the effort.

And I agree with your assessment of my chances of success. When I get bored enough, I might post them in the 4e forums anyway. Maybe there can be some humor to be had. :-) And I don't mean at any one else's expense either.

I've long operated under the policy that troll posts that aren't clearly there to be ridiculous are deserving of response if only to demonstrate to others that they are, in fact, trolls, and that their posts should be perceived as such (in other words, their opinions given some serious skepticism before being accepted as true). If most of you think that this isn't necessary, though (and it appears that a lot of you do), I'd be happy to give not responding a shot.

I'd be happy to give not responding a shot.

As a fellow 4E supporter, Scott, I have to say, "It's about time." :) Ignore the trolls and save yourself, and others, the headache.

I agree.. threads should be kept on track!