I've noticed in my own internet behavior that I tend to join an online community (like Paizo) and spend a year or so with them, and then my interest wanes and I dissapear from the message boards. However, I've been here at Paizo for a long time. I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm an original or anything, but its been a long time. In that time, I've noticed that many of the original posters are either gone altogether or post only very rarely. I think I might be one of those that will be quietly riding off into the night as well. But not because of any ill will on anyone, any company or any game. I think it might be because my interest in the game is waning.
All that said, I don't see the logic in associating a company and its products with its message boards. Sorry. Makes no sense to me. Thats like me not buying Big Macs because someone flamed me on the Super Sized thread. After all, if Pathfinder is good, its good, right?
BTW, what would help these threads in the future is to adopt a format that shows which threads a user has posted to.
Sorry for the slight tangent.
Wow. A lot of bad blood building up. I won't belittle anyone who has made an emotional response on either side of the fence/argument, but I will honestly say I will miss those posters who have decided they are actually leaving this great community. That includes people I wouldn't otherwise "agree" w/ on a given issue. I certainly respect your rights to have an opinion, and an emotional one at that.
Hopefully you'll take a break and come back refreshed. No hard feelings!
I also respect Paizo's right to insist on a modicum of civility in this small portion of the overall forums. Maybe we've been a little spoiled here, and now that the voice(s) of authority are trying to rein us in, we resent that lack of perceived "total freedom" that internet anonymity can breed.
I hope this isn't a true farewell, but to Disenchanter, Cory Stafford, Kevin Mack & Frank Trollman, in case it is, thanks for your posts and contributions to the community. Did I mention I'll be sad to see you go?
Thanks Vic.
Just that some threads have cool little "X"'s, open envelopes, or something of that ilk to show you posted and/or someone else has posted also.
I personally plan on staying... though I hate to see the others go.
My deal is this... I feel that WotC (*gasp!* I said a company name) is personally neglecting their own advantage point by surpressing the open complaints of their customers because quite frankly, its the customer dollars in the end that keeps the company alive but that's their decision... or perhaps the decision of their overseeing parent company. If a company wants to be ignorant to the outcries and needs of their client that is their decision... they just need not to complain to us when their product line fails or falters on sales down the road.
I understand the situation that Paizo is in... in order to possibly pursue a license they need to keep a sense of stability about their boards, and I also understand that their measures would indeed cause some of the backlash that we see here.
Could we, perhaps say, that 4th edition... like it or not... has placed the industry in some aspects between a rock and a hard place? (In Paizo's case carry insult to one of the main companies of the scene or cause their customers to feel a bit potentially oppressed.)
After a bit of thinking, I decided that my departure was too telegraphic and should have gotten some more explanation. So here it is.
You can say, "I think Company A has done a terrible job with their PR re: the new edition."
You can say, "I think Company B shouldn't moderate at all."
You can say, "I disagree with Company C's decision to make their own game."
Those are criticisms and you don't see those listed in the rules for this particular forum.
You can not say, "I think the Company A designers are [expletive]."
You can not say, "Company B's a bunch of [expletives] for moderating their boards."
You can not say, "The Company C guys are idiots for not supporting 4E."
I can't understand how the rules of this sub-forum are at all confusing.
The problem with this is that it stifles debate. It stifles debate extremely rigidly and makes real conversation essentially impossible. Imagine for the moment that people are having a discussion about whether 4th edition will be good or not (I know, a very difficult leap of imagination, but bear with me). Now Person A is in favor of 4e (sight unseen), and Person B is against it (also sight unseen). All they really have to work with is the admittedly somewhat skewed marketing releases and the past work of the designers to go by.
Person A: might say something along the lines of "The press release said that 4th edition was going to be easy, fast, and fun! Also that it will be 'cool,' 'awesome,' and 'the best edition of D&D yet!' So 4th edition will be great!"
If Person B disagrees, what are they to say? Obviously they don't think that the press release is truthful, which means that if they choose to respond at all they are pretty much forced to say so. And yes, if you say that the press release is untruthful, you have just called the company and the people releasing the statement for the company liars. Whether you say so explicitly with a statement such as "But Hasbro are a bunch of liars, why would I believe a biased press release?" or something more constructive along the lines of posting up copies of WotC press releases extolling the virtues of various subsystems that you personally didn't like (I, for example, might dig up the puff pieces for Magic of Incarnum) and then make a point about WotC putting out consistently positive press releases for everything they put out regardless of quality; you're still saying that the marketing staff tell lies. That's not even a revolutionary statement, telling attractive sounding truths, half-truths, and lies is pretty much a marketer's actual job.
But what if Person A decides to make it more "personal" if you will? He comes up with something relatively simple like "Andy Collins (or Mike Mearls, or whoever) is a great designer, so 4th edition is going to be great!" What then? Person B still wants to disagree, are they really supposed to answer with a non-sequitur?
We'll all admit that the flippant reply "Andy Collins (or Mike Mearls, or whoever is a #$^%!" is not going to win Person B any converts. It's a bad argument, made entirely on an emotional level and it isn't particularly effective or convincing as an emotional argument. It's a valid opinion which a number of people have, but it's not a good argument. But what if someone does make a decently supported argument?
Something like this:
Person B:
- Required you to draw the line of your charge into the target's square rather than to a square that you could attack from.
- Eliminated the option to overrun as part of a charge.
- Prevented you from drawing the line of a charge through an occupied square.
We could argue game balance all day, but game function is laid bare in Mr. Collins' actual changes to Charges, Cover, and Concealment. Things which were functional in 3rd edition required house rules after they were rewritten by Andy Collins. Andy Collins is not a good designer and I have no confidence in a product that he designed which did not even start with functional mechanics to begin with.
Does it directly target a designer? Of course it does! It's written in a somewhat persuasive manner, and it's directly on topic. It is a direct rebuttal to a previous on-topic statement. And people must be able to say things like this or discourse isn't real.
If someone says that Andy Collins is a good designer, someone has to be able to respond that he is a bad one. If someone describes Mike Mearls as a man with many achievements, someone else has to be able to go back through his record with Iron Heroes, the Quintessential Wizard, and the Villain Design Handbook to describe his works as a litany of failure filled with non-functioning magic rules, improperly integrated subsystems, and deliberately unbalanced character options which explicitly punish organic characters at the expense of pre-designed "builds" that pop into existence at high level.
These guidelines are wrong. They would be wrong if they also forbid people to praise specific companies and designers, but at least they would be fair.
So Disenchanter is completely right. And you sir, are completely wrong.
-Frank
I had a morbid sense of curiosity about this thread... I peaked back in to see what had become of it. Was it suppressed? Was it deleted? Did I get a long line of people calling me childish or whiny? And it turns out that I see quite a few kind words to me. And I am stunned. I'd like to point those of you out by name, and thank you each... But I am about to sully that mood. Just know that I am stunned.
I hear ya. I did not want it to come to this either. You have actually been quite civil.
I hope you didn't think you were going to get off that easy. Maybe you believe you didn't want this. But I believe you did.* After all, you were one of the loudest voices calling for this. *Then again, you weren't really calling for civility moderation, you were calling for people you felt were unworthy of posting about 4th Edition to leave... Maybe that is the little loophole that allows you to claim you didn't want this and still be honest with yourself.
And I should not be the civil one. I should be the extremist that everyone chooses to ignore. I don't say that out of any sense of pride, but because I don't care if I step on anyones toes. Well, I guess that I check to make sure I am not intentionally stepping on anyones toes...
On the other hand, if someone's only response to Paizo lightly moderating the 4e is to take their toys and go home, I don't have alot of sympathy for them.
For all that is... Oh I wish we were face to face, so that I could use the language I would normally use in such a situation... But we need to be "civil" after all...
First, this could be construed as a personal attack. I am not calling it such... But this is the type of phraseology that people have claimed is indirectly insulting. I am, however, capable of taking it in stride.
I am not reacting to the moderation. I am not taking my toys and going home. And, as I am sure this will not surprise you, I don't give a dead rats ass about your sympathy.
There are others that posted similar concerns. Please forgive me for not calling you out by name, but I will address them all at once.
It is the "mini-mods" that I fear the most. The little <non-expletive adjective voluntarily censored> that follow around the staff and company employees and yip at all those they feel are breaking the rules their handlers have set down. And perhaps Paizo will be different, but these sort of <non-expletive adjectives voluntarily censored> are usually allowed to get away with it since it is "an attempt to help the community."
It is the people who now have the feeling that it is alright to cry to Daddy Erik, Mommy Lisa, and Uncles such as Joshua and Gary to "make the bad meanies go away."
There is a general opinion of "can't we be adults and act civilized here?" And while I can't find fault with that sentiment, part of being adult is accepting responsibility for your own actions. You (as in the generic you) chose to read the posts. You (still generic) chose to take offense at them. Now you (still generic) should chose how you (last generic one for a while) should handle it. Asking others to do it for you (I lied, another generic) is not being adult.
It has started. And wizards has already won.
How so? (Really curious about what you mean!)
Cheers! :)
I am guessing KaeYoss is referring to one of the skeptics (me) that hold wizards to the level of integrity that they should maintain is "giving up."
And to that, I am not giving up. I am trying to take a break from it all. I am still very angry, and full of hatred and loathing. Good thing I am already walking the path of the Dark Side. I am trying to not make this place worse. For the state I am in, I am very tempted to quote Paizo staffers posts in these very forums (within the last day even) - point out how they are "violating" their very own rules - and question them about if they can't follow their own rules, why should the rest of us care about them. But that wouldn't be helpful, would it?
|
You can view each poster's recent posts at their profile page—click on their name to go there.
Oh, that rocks! Thanks for the tip! I spend thirty minute trying to track down one of my *own* posts, and this would have been so much simpler.
Of course I tested it with yours. Now I wonder who the Indigo Girls are. :)
|
|
It is the "mini-mods" that I fear the most. The little <non-expletive adjective voluntarily censored> that follow around the staff and company employees and yip at all those they feel are breaking the rules their handlers have set down. And perhaps Paizo will be different, but these sort of <non-expletive adjectives voluntarily censored> are usually allowed to get away with it since it is "an attempt to help the community."
It is the people who now have the feeling that it is alright to cry to Daddy Erik, Mommy Lisa, and Uncles such as Joshua and Gary to "make the bad meanies go away."
I think they're called 'concern trolls' on teh intarwebs.
"Oh, he said something I don't agree with. So I'll bait some threads with passive-aggressive subtly worded insults that totally call him out without actually using his name, so it can't be called a 'personal' insult, wait for someone to say something just that much more over the line than I went, and then report them to get them in trouble."
It's disheartening to see posters who may otherwise have valid opinions I respect expressing relief that someone has gotten banned or moderated or suppressed or whatever. I don't think that the situation degenerating to the point of 'adult intervention' being required is a cause for celebration, so much as shame.
There is a general opinion of "can't we be adults and act civilized here?" And while I can't find fault with that sentiment, part of being adult is accepting responsibility for your own actions. You (as in the generic you) chose to read the posts. You (still generic) chose to take offense at them. Now you (still generic) should chose how you (last generic one for a while) should handle it. Asking others to do it for you (I lied, another generic) is not being adult.
A nice read. Sorry to see ya go.
...
Wow, that was good reading.
Enjoy your vacation, come back soon.
We'll miss you. Hopefully the "late unpleasantness" will be over and the jackboots will be off.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
And I should not be the civil one. I should be the extremist that everyone chooses to ignore. I don't say that out of any sense of pride, but because I don't care if I step on anyones toes. Well, I guess that I check to make sure I am not intentionally stepping on anyones toes...
See... i think therein lies a lot of the problem with the board. A lot of people seem to think they should be the ones to step on toes. What results is all too frequently not a debate, but a group of people each screaming on top of their lungs.
I hope you'd agree with me that this is not a good thing for any community, nor company.
On the other hand, if someone's only response to Paizo lightly moderating the 4e is to take their toys and go home, I don't have alot of sympathy for them.
For all that is... Oh I wish we were face to face, so that I could use the language I would normally use in such a situation... But we need to be "civil" after all...
First, this could be construed as a personal attack. I am not calling it such... But this is the type of phraseology that people have claimed is indirectly insulting. I am, however, capable of taking it in stride.
I am not reacting to the moderation. I am not taking my toys and going home. And, as I am sure this will not surprise you, I don't give a dead rats ass about your sympathy.
So what are you mad about then? Forgive me for becoming personal for a second here, but you do seem extremely angry right there and then. About what?
It is the "mini-mods" that I fear the most. The little <non-expletive adjective voluntarily censored> that follow around the staff and company employees and yip at all those they feel are breaking the rules their handlers have set down. And perhaps Paizo will be different, but these sort of <non-expletive adjectives voluntarily censored> are usually allowed to get away with it since it is "an attempt to help the community."
It is the people who now have the feeling that it is alright to cry to Daddy Erik, Mommy Lisa, and Uncles such as Joshua and Gary to "make the bad meanies go away."
Uhmm... ok. I don't recall anyone doing this - instead, quite a few posters we know have bloodied their noses on this topic (VG and Dead Horse, for example). But even if this were the case - are you honestly claiming that someone trying to douse this flame-war is doing a bad thing?
There is a general opinion of "can't we be adults and act civilized here?" And while I can't find fault with that sentiment, part of being adult is accepting responsibility for your own actions. You (as in the generic you) chose to read the posts. You (still generic) chose to take offense at them. Now you (still generic) should chose how you (last generic one for a while) should handle it. Asking others to do it for you (I lied, another generic) is not being adult.
It also means acting in a responsible manner - or facing the consequences. One such consequence is now being enforced on this board. So you (generic) choose to post something you know will offend a lot of people - thereby you accept the possible consequence of the post being deleted.
All in all i am a huge fan of unfettered free speech - but even i must admit shouting matches get old after a while. You can still post whatever you like.But you must live with the consequence of being taken up to task for what you do. You can write on your personal weblog whatever you want - but here you are a guest.
I saw Cory's post before it was deleted and he was being a troll on purpose to poke buttons. I appreciated your team stepping in and deleting the post.
That can be considered a personal attack
And if that means less twits and more constructive, interesting discussions then more power to you.
Now you're calling him a twit. That IS a personal insult.
The door swings both ways. Now Paizo has to step in and delete your post, or they show that they're being one-sided.
Hmm. What was that about "mini-mods" again? :)
|
|
I saw Cory's post before it was deleted and he was being a troll on purpose to poke buttons. I appreciated your team stepping in and deleting the post.That can be considered a personal attack
And if that means less twits and more constructive, interesting discussions then more power to you.Now you're calling him a twit. That IS a personal insult.
The door swings both ways. Now Paizo has to step in and delete your post, or they show that they're being one-sided.
KaeYoss,
I understand the point you're trying to make here. I thought that my terms were sufficently negative to convey my feelings, but not sufficiently rude to be offensive. "Troll" and "Twit" are much better then some of the many alternatives. If you, or Cory, (if he's still reading - which he said he wasn't), or any other reader, is offended I certainly do apologize.I also thought that since this is a thread discussing unpleasant behavior it would be somewhat different from someone jumping into the midst of a otherwise positive thread to start insulting people. In other words, in a thread where you're talking about people being troll's, using the term "troll" is appropriate to the context.
Also, to be clear, I felt I was describing how Cory was acting, not who he is. I don't know him. I'm sure in person, we'd have a delightful time because we both like the same games and the same RPG company. I do hope he comes back and hangs around on the boards. Just, you know, nicer, cause at the end of the day we're all just DnD folk. (Bill & Ted: Be Excellent To Each Other)
But, you are quite correct, two wrongs don't make a right. And so if the wise Paizo folks feel I've stepped over the bounds of propriety, I shall have to live with the consequences. So be it!
-Pete
Just a suggestion, but if folks have something to say directly TO another poster, is the content of that correspondance appropriate for our community? Is the subject matter better served by creating a private discourse?
Consider the use of arguing in public, fighting in public, debating in public, and even apologizing in public. What do those things accomplish? When are they appropriate?
Perhaps the obvious needs to be stated again here: Everything that gets posted (and now stays posted) is public. If you find yourself engaged in a one-way post thread with one or two individuals, consider that others are reading and choosing either to respond publicly or not at all.
To a degree it is understandable that folks will get upset about a topic that is affecting all of us in a community (here the RPG community). It should never have to be spelled out what that threshold is for appropriate discourse, but in this case it needed to be.
When i get as upset as some folks have over the past few months i take a break from whatever it is that is upsetting. My advice: if you find yourself highly angered about anything in life, if possible, stop - step back from whatever it is that is upsetting - do something else for a while - come back when you are level headed and can approach whatever WAS upsetting you with measured responses.
As ever,
ACE
well smurf it
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Just a suggestion, but if folks have something to say directly TO another poster, is the content of that correspondance appropriate for our community? Is the subject matter better served by creating a private discourse?
Consider the use of arguing in public, fighting in public, debating in public, and even apologizing in public. What do those things accomplish? When are they appropriate?
But Ace, how will we ever determine objectively who is right and who is wrong?!?!?! That's what these public shamings are about, illustrating that your opponent is a horrific hypocrite by twisting their words to fit what you want them to say, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt your moral high ground and absolute righteousness. How can we determine who is the better person unless everyone is witness to our opponent's many faults?
That being said, I think you've got a good point, if you just want to have a pissing contest, take it somewhere else.
Of course, the best thing would be to just avoid entirely the whole "he's on my side of the car" arguments that entertain children on long drives and get back to actually discussing something of substance. This incessant whining about who should be banned or who was really the biggest meanie first is obnoxious.
|
This incessant whining about who should be banned or who was really the biggest meanie first is obnoxious.
I'm staggered by the amount of emotional energy being spent on this debate.
Debating the merits of 4e, what Paizo's course should be, whether or not you and (by extension) your group will switchover ... I can usnderstand people getting excited about the debate on those topics.
But all the arguements over who's feelings are hurt, who whines the most, and who wants to give who a cussin' (as we say in the South) is all just mind-boggling.
-Skeld
this board is so emo...
Chief Technical Officer
|
I understand the situation that Paizo is in... in order to possibly pursue a license they need to keep a sense of stability about their boards, and I also understand that their measures would indeed cause some of the backlash that we see here.
Could we, perhaps say, that 4th edition... like it or not... has placed the industry in some aspects between a rock and a hard place? (In Paizo's case carry insult to one of the main companies of the scene or cause their customers to feel a bit potentially oppressed.)
This has nothing to do with any edition or any license. This is about some of our customers—and some of our employees—feeling that this particular section of the boards has become an unpleasant place lately. (It's absolutely not just a reaction to the original poster, either—that was just sort of the last straw. I know some of you think he's a troll or a plant, but whether he is or isn't, a lot of us think there was a lot of truth to what he said.)
this board is so emo...
Did you just insult me??!?!? ;-)
Maybe Paizo should do what we did on Nutkinland way back in the day and set up an Angry Chair. You get access when you want (if you want) and inside that forum people say what they wish. Then you put that forum away in the corner and people can go vent and it doesn't hurt discussion in any way.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Now Paizo has to step in and delete your post, or they show that they're being one-sided.
C'mon, guys—don't make us play that game. We don't *want* to moderate—we just want you to be nice to each other, and this week was about showing you where the line is. Yes, it's a blurry line. But there's no reasonable need to be near it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yes, it's a blurry line. But there's no reasonable need to be near it.
And that's also my answer to Frank Trollman. It's perfectly fine for you to say that you don't particularly believe Statement X from Company A, but it's not ok to say that Company A is a bunch of liars. Not only is it not acceptable, but frankly, more people will listen to your arguments if you take the first approach.
|
I hear ya. I did not want it to come to this either. You have actually been quite civil.I hope you didn't think you were going to get off that easy.
Of course not. Easy=Boring
Maybe you believe you didn't want this. But I believe you did.* After all, you were one of the loudest voices calling for this. *Then again, you weren't really calling for civility moderation, you were calling for people you felt were unworthy of posting about 4th Edition to leave... Maybe that is the little loophole that allows you to claim you didn't want this and still be honest with yourself.
I was hoping for self moderation. I was hoping that the 4E board would be like the other ones here. I read them and enjoy them (even though I just lurk there). When I started that thread it was with the hope that the 4E board could be like the rest of Paizo's discussion space.
And yes, to put it bluntly, I was hoping for some people to either leave the 4E boards if they could not keep it civil. I like the back and forth of point counter point, but I dislike the point counter spew that was all to common.
I like disagreement. I believe that a clash of differing opinions is the only path to truth. But when it gets personal and nasty then we just get farther from the truth - not closer.
I hope you stay or come back very soon - without a sharp contrasting counter point to one's own point we can never really learn.
...And the moral of the story is, the camps will NEVER agree. Moderation will quiet the worst offenders, while the debate continues it's agonizing crawl toward the release date. Then and only then will we discover that all of EVERYONES suspicions were correct. It is oversimplified, overstreamlined, totally irreveret to the iconic tradition of the game in general, yet it STILL sells like gold and is a breeze to play.
Turns out we all wanted what WE wanted, and never thought for a second about what people who have never played before wanted.
Now. If you will excuse me, the villagers are going to burn me for being an aspiring prognosticator. With this kind of turnout, I'd hate to keep them waiting.
|
But Ace, how will we ever determine objectively who is right and who is wrong?!?!?! That's what these public shamings are about, illustrating that your opponent is a horrific hypocrite by twisting their words to fit what you want them to say, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt your moral high ground and absolute righteousness. How can we determine who is the better person unless everyone is witness to our opponent's many faults?Just a suggestion, but if folks have something to say directly TO another poster, is the content of that correspondance appropriate for our community? Is the subject matter better served by creating a private discourse?
Consider the use of arguing in public, fighting in public, debating in public, and even apologizing in public. What do those things accomplish? When are they appropriate?
Sebastian, I think your post here violates the very idea Ace is trying to make. You are posting directly to him publicly and I believe he is encouraging (and you are supporting) that this sort of thing should be done privately.
Err...I just realized, now I am posting directly to you and also running counter to Ace's suggestion. How will this ever end? How?
:hand slaps forehead:
|
lots of really, really good stuff that I wish I had been able to put into words; you are my hero today sir
Mini-mods. Check. (this concept has been on the tip of my tongue for awhile now).
It reminds me of your little sister or brother dancing around behind your Mom's back, after they got you into trouble for reacting to something THEY did. They got away with something and you are paying the price for it. Man, that kind of stuff just makes you want to throttle the sibling that did it to you; which of course would get you into even more trouble.
The reasons Dis stated are all the reasons that I am bummed about this whole chain of events. It means that things have changed around here. It means that whining is rewarded; it means that those of us that don't want 4th Edition have to find another venue to express our unhappiness (at least to the degree that a lot of us want to express it). Some may say that we are handling it immaturely or in a way that we shouldn't be allowed to. Is it immature to be angry about what is happening? Maybe, maybe not. But the choice has been taken out of our hands. And it was ultimately in response to someone's little brother crying to Mommy. And now a lot of little brothers are hovering around just waiting to pounce on someone that wanders a little too close to the line; just in case Mom isn't paying close enough attention.
That kind of stuff rankles people like Dis and me. Sorry to those of you that think this is not that big of a deal. To some of us, this is possibly the beginning of the end. Sounds melodramatic I know, but we've seen it before. And since we're the older brother that just got burned; it kind of sucks for us.
I'm letting this metaphor go now.
Rock on Disenchanter!
Now Paizo has to step in and delete your post, or they show that they're being one-sided.C'mon, guys—don't make us play that game. We don't *want* to moderate—we just want you to be nice to each other, and this week was about showing you where the line is. Yes, it's a blurry line. But there's no reasonable need to be near it.
You already started playing that game. Now you play it badly. You delete things you admit to be borderline, but when someone comes out with over-the-line insults (twit might not be the worst offense, but it's an offense), you don't.
You put yourself into this situation when you started moderating, especially admitting to moderage borderline cases. Now you seem like a hardliner, and an inconsistent one at that.
It does not bode well.
If the moderation is cut back trastically in the next couple of days, it might not be so bad. But if it keeps up...
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Haven't Josh and Gary said repeatedly that they will be mellowing out the moderation over the next little while?
The speed with which posters are ready to turn their back on Paizo because of this is really eye opening.
We have been fair and friendly since the day these boards were posted several years ago. Some folks took advantage of that and posted flame after flame after flame.
We asked nicely, and people continued to post flame after flame after flame.
Now we decide to do something about it and people are freaking?
I should think that Paizo's moderation and the open nature of these boards over YEARS would gain us a little respect and a little slack from you guys.
To see the distrust and the vitriol from some folks who I consider valuable members of this community here on this thread is, as the OP said, sorely disappointing.
Please give us some credit.
I think we've earned it.
--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Eric, I don't think you've earned credit. I KNOW you, and the rest of the Paizo staff, have earned it. Your word is as good as gold with us. In time, this will blow over and be left in the annals of history. Till then, we toe the line, so to speak.
|
Erik,
It also must be said that much of the anger and frustration seen on these boards of late especially since the moderation decision, are likely examples of displaced anger.
We are all very agitated waiting to hear what the GSL holds and where Paizo will go. Many stand to 'lose' their favorite publisher if your decision goes one way or the other.
I think since many can't vent on the source of our frustration, that irritation leaks out on the boards. Please in no way consider this an attempt at an excuse. I offer it only as a possible explanation.
Ya know, this whole thread seems so utterly childish to me. If you don't like hanging out at a particular forum you just stop going. But the melodramatics and posturing here is sickening. "I don't like it here anymore so I won't be coming back EVAR... and I'm taking my ball with me!"
Gimme a break, man! Paizo has moderated these boards regularly and consistently regarding the same things for years. The only difference here is that the 4E threads stagnated in their own vitriol a bit longer than other threads have been allowed to. And, honestly, it's because the staff, by their own admission, stopped looking through those threads. Much of it is theories, hateful opinions, and rhetoric about the new edition. And because the Paizo staff (the last I heard) has been just as in the dark about the new rules/system as everyone else, it's seems rather obvious why they would prefer to monitor threads about stuff they DO have answers for.
Disenchanter and Corey Stafford (and whoever else has jumped on the wagon heading out), have a great life. I'm sure you contributed some nice things during your time here and I'm sure you'll be missed. I'm guessing you'll get over it and be back, though, once you realize how ridiculous you're being and how it isn't really Paizo and it's messageboards that you're angry with, but something bigger that's affected the whole gaming industry.
Self-censorship is a good thing. Its what keeps a lot of married men married, after all. :-)
Greg
QFT!
I say AMEN and HALLELUJAH, brotha!
Folks can play semantics with our sentiment all they like. The fact still remains, though, that if you can't talk about a subject without lazily resorting to personal attacks on other companies and other members of our boards, then this isn't the place for you. If you feel debate is stifled because you're no longer allowed to blatantly tell someone they're an idiot, then this isn't the board for you.
I make no apologies for what Gary and I have done and once everyone chills out and there's more time between Heavy Moderation Day of Doom XZ-70 and the current day, these boards will be a nicer place to talk about the merits (or lack thereof) with 4E.
I'm done explaining myself.
Folks can play semantics with our sentiment all they like.
What rules system is everyone using for that?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Erik,
It also must be said that much of the anger and frustration seen on these boards of late especially since the moderation decision, are likely examples of displaced anger.
We are all very agitated waiting to hear what the GSL holds and where Paizo will go. Many stand to 'lose' their favorite publisher if your decision goes one way or the other.
I think since many can't vent on the source of our frustration, that irritation leaks out on the boards. Please in no way consider this an attempt at an excuse. I offer it only as a possible explanation.
I hear you and I think in part you're correct. I suspect some people are reading a bit into this, too. Since we're clamping down on flames about Wizards and 4e, we simply _must_ be planning to convert our stuff to 4.0.
Well, the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
No one is more frustrated by the GSL situation than I am, I assure you.
All I ask is that people remain patient (and pleasant) a little while longer.
--Erik
this board is so emo...You win the thread.
Woo Hoo!!!
Folks can play semantics with our sentiment all they like.What rules system is everyone using for that?
I can't say as we haven't received the Semantics GSL, yet.
Folks can play semantics with our sentiment all they like.What rules system is everyone using for that?
And these types of responses are why The Jade is one of my favorite messageboard regulars. Well played.
Please give us some credit.I think we've earned it.
--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Hey Erik,
My love for all thing's Paizo hasn't been diminished by this overblown nonsense. You guys rock and have been put in a crappy position as a result of the 3rd/4th edition rift which, sadly, appears to be growing.
While there are irrational and fickle customers out there, try to remember that there are many others who still look to Paizo for the best quality supplements out there.
Hopefully those who have stormed off in a fit of pique will return once they've settled down and realized the error of their ways.
While we're speaking of being sorely disappointed, I just want to lighten the tone by complaining about how disappointed I was in the thread... there were absolutely zero genies from the elemental plane of Earth.
With this in mind, please cancel all my stuff and never expect to hear from me again.
And please take this thread in the lighthearted manner in which it was written. :)
This was not a troll, nor a flame, more like a clod. With internet access.
I should think that Paizo's moderation and the open nature of these boards over YEARS would gain us a little respect and a little slack from you guys.
To see the distrust and the vitriol from some folks who I consider valuable members of this community here on this thread is, as the OP said, sorely disappointing.
Please give us some credit.
I think we've earned it.
--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Erik -
I love these boards... even when I'm reading the Wolf didn't like my spoon because the spoon of the witch queen should be supercool. Even when people are screaming that Wil Save needs to die. I still love the boards. I'll be frank... I've mostly stayed away lately because the vitriol on both sides of the 4e debate was making me sad.
But I hate moderation, because it scares me. The best of intentions in censorship still results in a loss. Josh makes the point that calling an individual a liar (even if it is clear that they have lied) is not acceptable. But what if it IS clear. Is that a personal attack, or a statement of fact. This is dangerous ground that makes people, even people who trust you (and I do, I trust all the paizo staff) very nervous.
It is precisely because you've earned our trust that we're willing to be open about the fact that this move scares some of us, rather than just leaving.
- Ashavan