|
Josh: I know this must be a hard decision for you folks. One one hand, you have the boards prior reputation as a fun, light-hearted place - a good way to build a customer base and customer relations. A good deal of what attracted me, and I suspect many others, here is the open nature of the boards.
But on the other you have long-term valued customers losing touch because of new board members, who may or may not be customers.
So do you clamp down and get rid of the trouble-makers at the expense of the spirit of the boards? Or do you stick to the founding spirit, potentially alienating some followers?
Whatever you guys decide, I hope it works out for all our sakes.
|
It was getting better, but the general trend is going downhill. I suggest you take another look at that thread.
It's my favourite thread in the forums, so I've read it more than once.
Is this a new crisis? The anti-4e stuff seemed worse to me, particularly in terms of driving people away. God knows, I really don't like 4e and I hate what WotC have done to the Forgotten Realms (leaving it so that I am not even interested in rules-light Forgotten Realms fluff) but the personal anguish some seemed to feel (and wished to share through infliction) didn't make much sense to me. I gather that moderation took place in that case but wasn't too heavy-handed (of course, at rpg.net some people complained about it not being heavy-handed enough and even said they wouldn't buy Paizo products any more as a result, so opinions will vary), but that also differs from the playtest stuff because the playtest input has generally had some value even when it's phrased indecorously.
I am wary of the idea that concerns about who is and isn't a customer might affect the moderation decisions. Of course, I understand the logic, but not everyone buys from Paizo direct (and, in any case, I bet that a lot of them bought Dragon and Dungeon when it was out, even if they didn't get it from Paizo). Also, it does feel a bit like 'pay-to-play' and although I am paying -- I'm only recently a subscriber/superscriber, but I am nearly up-to-date on all the stuff that I missed (hard copy, bought from Paizo but also FLGS and Amazon) -- I don't want my opinions to mean more as a result.
On the 'stop buffing the fighter' thread, I'm glad it didn't get locked, because it's calmed down, pretty much, and also continues to be very interesting.
Sometimes I think all the warm, fuzzy feelings on this board cause people to lose touch with the fact that this is the internet.
If someone called an open playtest for a roleplaying game and a hundred jerks didn't show up, I would fire the publicist.
|
Sometimes I think all the warm, fuzzy feelings on this board cause people to lose touch with the fact that this is the internet.
If someone called an open playtest for a roleplaying game and a hundred jerks didn't show up, I would fire the publicist.
True, this may be the internet, but this is Paizo's specific corner of the internet. As Josh said:
Be warned: this is our sandbox. If we don't like you playing here, we don't have to let you play here. Be nice or leave.
D*mn, I lost my cookies..
|
|
When I use the internet, I expect myself to be polite and cordial. I do not think this is asking too much of myself.
I also expect that of myself. However, whilst there is a pleasing symmetry in expecting of others what I expect of myself, I am not convinced that it's logical. After all, the people that don't act in the way that I'd expect of myself have their own standards of behaviour and will often expect from others the same treatment they hand out, so that standard isn't very helpful. In the end, board policy has to be done by fiat and, as I have said more than once, that's entirely up to the Paizo people to decide (and Joshua's post makes clear that the Paizo people are entirely aware of that too, which they would be, of course). My personal preference is that they don't moderate so that CoL, for example, stops posting, because I like what he posts enough to ignore the rest, but that's just my personal preference based on my own priorities (I don't generally take personal offence in real life, let alone in the internet, and my priorities in this case have 'improved PFRPG' at the top and 'poster feelings' somewhere rather lower; because I think that the posters in question are generally contributing valuable stuff, my own personal priorities then convince me that the costs are outweighed by the gains).
To everyone who is calling for moderation, are you sure you are not just holding a personal grudge against someone who did not agree with you the way you wanted them to?
|
|
To everyone who is calling for moderation, are you sure you are not just holding a personal grudge against someone who did not agree with you the way you wanted them to?
It's a tricksy thing, calling for moderation, particularly calling for bans. I think that if I wanted someone banned, I'd just shut up, personally (and in over 50 000 forums posts on different forums with different levels of moderation, I've never called for a ban of any poster); I'd feel somewhat spiteful calling for bans.
Of course, forum mods can, will and presumably should ban people sometimes. I just wouldn't want to call for it, myself, because it's a big step (wheras not banning someone is not). I don't envy the mods that responsibility -- I'm a mod elsewhere on a moderately busy forum and it's a hard thing to judge -- and I understand that a forum run by and for a business is a completely different thing.
I would say, though, that I think that a lot of the people calling for moderation aren't doing it for their own benefit -- they're still mostly, for example, persevering in the threads in question -- but rather for what they feel is an important ethos and general tone (even though I personally disagree with them about the importance of either).
That is good to know. Lead by example. Do not engage the trolls. They will get bored and wander away if they do not get enough attention.
...but that also differs from the playtest stuff because the playtest input has generally had some value even when it's phrased indecorously.
Thing is, there is absolutely no reason for it to be phrased that way. The responsibility for what is written lies solely with the person who writes it. It is not the responsibility of the reader to ignore any insulting aspects because the other person's input is "worth it."
If the input were that good, the author of it should be capable of presenting it without resulting to anything that could even potentially be considered a borderline insult. The inability to do so inherently undermines the validity of the input since it reflects on the source of said input.
I am wary of the idea that concerns about who is and isn't a customer might affect the moderation decisions. Of course, I understand the logic, but not everyone buys from Paizo direct (and, in any case, I bet that a lot of them bought Dragon and Dungeon when it was out, even if they didn't get it from Paizo). Also, it does feel a bit like 'pay-to-play' and although I am paying -- I'm only recently a subscriber/superscriber, but I am nearly up-to-date on all the stuff that I missed (hard copy, bought from Paizo but also FLGS and Amazon) -- I don't want my opinions to mean more as a result.
No one presented any such idea in this discussion, and it certainly wasn't even so much as hinted at in what Joshua said. I guess it's a misunderstanding, but presenting a "defense" against a non-existent issue paints it as a plausibility which really isn't fair.
|
|
No one presented any such idea in this discussion, and it certainly wasn't even so much as hinted at in what Joshua said. I guess it's a misunderstanding, but presenting a "defense" against a non-existent issue paints it as a plausibility which really isn't fair.
I was making a comment on something Jal Dorak had said:
But on the other you have long-term valued customers losing touch because of new board members, who may or may not be customers.
However, I didn't mean to suggest that he'd implied what I was talking about; at most, he's imputing more value to long-term valued customers than new board members that may or may not be customers. I was thinking about the idea in general, that customers might be valued more on the boards, and was concerned that it's impossible to assess who is, and isn't, a long-term valued customer (wheras I doubt that anyone would disagree that customers are in some sense more valuable to Paizo than non-customers, because customers are giving them money and they need money to continue as a successful business).
|
|
Thing is, there is absolutely no reason for it to be phrased that way. The responsibility for what is written lies solely with the person who writes it. It is not the responsibility of the reader to ignore any insulting aspects because the other person's input is "worth it."
Well, firstly, different people write things out differently. The reasons I post the way I do are, underneath it all, based on my personal preferences and priorities. I obviously feel that those are right and justified but then, most people think that about the way they act themselves, too...
I am not saying that it's the responsibility of the generic reader to ignore anything, although I personally find that it significantly enhances my own enjoyment of internet communities; for me, however, responsibility, lies with the doer, as I pretty much feel it always does. I am someone that tends to ignore that stuff in real life too, and for the same reason I ignore it online; as a result, I am just not easily offended and in particular I am hardly ever offended on my own account. I am not expecting or demanding that everyone be like me, however much it might make my own life easier (so long as some of these me-clones diverged enough to, say, have more enthusiasm for loading the dishwasher than do I).
What I have been saying is that my own personal priorities put PFRPG improvement ahead of other people's feelings. Those are not priorities widely shared by posters in this thread (and some people also think that the posts in question aren't advancing PFRPG in any case, although I tend to disagree there as well) and I think that it's fair to say that I put the balance point in a different place than do the Paizo staff, as well. But then, as I said, I'm not calling for everyone else to be like me or have my priorities, I'm just explaining what my priorities are and explaining how they shape my opinions, opinions that I have expressed in this and other threads.
OMFG!!!1 TEH SKY IS BLUE AND ANY 1 WHO DISAGREES IS A BIG, FAT, GROGNARD DOO DOO HEAD!!!11!!
Does the above ‘sentence’ make the sky any less blue?
|
OMFG!!!1 TEH SKY IS BLUE AND ANY 1 WHO DISAGREES IS A BIG, FAT, GROGNARD DOO DOO HEAD!!!11!!
Does the above ‘sentence’ make the sky any less blue?
I am sorry, were you saying something? I just heard an annoying buzzing sound. There might have been words in there, but I can't be sure. Could you clarify, please?
OMFG!!!1 TEH SKY IS BLUE AND ANY 1 WHO DISAGREES IS A BIG, FAT, GROGNARD DOO DOO HEAD!!!11!!
Does the above ‘sentence’ make the sky any less blue?
No, but regardless of the topic of discussion, I'd suppress your post and email you a warning. The sky is still blue. You still have to be polite. (And I mean the royal you, not anyone specific.)
You might want to check the Off Topic Discussion area then. I am sure I said less nice things about Teter in there.
I look foward to hearing from you.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I am wary of the idea that concerns about who is and isn't a customer might affect the moderation decisions.
It doesn't. As you correctly point out elsewhere, we have no way of identifying who's a customer and who isn't. (Of course, we can easily see who's a subscriber, and if we really wanted to take the effort—which we don't—we could see who buys directly from us, but we have no idea who's buying what at their FLGS.)
Further, to paraphrase myself from earlier in this thread, being a customer does not give you the right to be a jerk on the messageboards.
It's a tricksy thing, calling for moderation, particularly calling for bans.
I'll tell you that we don't particularly like it when people suggest banning other people. Calling our attention to threads that are getting out of hand is great, but telling us what we should do about is presumptuous at best.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
It's a tricksy thing, calling for moderation, particularly calling for bans.I'll tell you that we don't particularly like it when people suggest banning other people. Calling our attention to threads that are getting out of hand is great, but telling us what we should do about is presumptuous at best.
I think that banning Bagpuss is the best course of action given the above cited evidence. Make it so, Vic.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You might want to check the Off Topic Discussion area then. I am sure I said less nice things about Teter in there.
I look foward to hearing from you.
I prefer lighter moderation. I find moderators to be as likely to rachet up the tension as uniformed cops at a Class of '69 Flashback Reunion Picnic.
That being said, I'm sure Josh knows how to tell the difference between a harmless humourous post and a (humourous?) post that is likely to be insulting. There may be confusion between the two sometimes but a combination of gentle warnings, time outs, and only in the case of repeat offenders, bans might be appropriate.
The approach Paizo has taken to moderation in the past gives me confidence that they'll make appropriate decisions in the future.
You might want to check the Off Topic Discussion area then. I am sure I said less nice things about Teter in there.
I look foward to hearing from you.
As I have a brain and make full use of it, I'm aware of the difference between humor and not humor.
Your response above? Not humorous.
I am wary of the idea that concerns about who is and isn't a customer might affect the moderation decisions.It doesn't. As you correctly point out elsewhere, we have no way of identifying who's a customer and who isn't. (Of course, we can easily see who's a subscriber, and if we really wanted to take the effort—which we don't—we could see who buys directly from us, but we have no idea who's buying what at their FLGS.)
I should also point out that I have never suggested nor will I ever suggest that we moderate on the basis of who is or who isn't a customer. Suggesting, even slightly, that I have done so redirects the argument from the point of my post: this is our sandbox and folks will play nice or they will leave.
|
|
I should also point out that I have never suggested nor will I ever suggest that we moderate on the basis of who is or who isn't a customer. Suggesting, even slightly, that I have done so redirects the argument from the point of my post: this is our sandbox and folks will play nice or they will leave.
I was the one that raised the subject and as I said in a post above above, it was an extrapolation from what Jal Dorak had said (so no one said it, I was just musing on a general principle); it wasn't in response to your post. So far as I am aware, you've never discriminated against people based on how much money they've spent with the company (and, of course, as I mentioned earlier and Vic pointed out too, you couldn't even know...). My personal experience supports the claim that Paizo treats everyone very well, incidentally.
Regarding your other point (which I assume is directed generally) you won't hear any argument from me; indeed, in the (now-locked) "flame war imminent" thread I said (to Vic, in I think the 189th post in the thread):
I should be clear that I was just saying what my preferences are ... my point is just that I, personally, don't care if other people do insult each other, or me. Regarding the actual forum rules and moderation policy: it's your sandpit, you're paying for it and it's here in furtherance of your business, so you can obviously have whatever rules you want (regardless of my preferences...).
I think that the majority of us here (indeed, probably everyone) don't deny your right to make rules even if we don't agree with them.
As I have a brain and make full use of it, I'm aware of the difference between humor and not humor.
Your response above? Not humorous.
I apologize.
|
|
Well, firstly, different people write things out differently. The reasons I post the way I do are, underneath it all, based on my personal preferences and priorities. I obviously feel that those are right and justified but then, most people think that about the way they act themselves, too...
I am not saying that it's the responsibility of the generic reader to ignore anything, although I personally find that it significantly enhances my own enjoyment of internet communities; for me, however, responsibility, lies with the doer, as I pretty much feel it always does. I am someone that tends to ignore that stuff in real life too, and for the same reason I ignore it online; as a result, I am just not easily offended and in particular I am hardly ever offended on my own account. I am not expecting or demanding that everyone be like me, however much it might make my own life easier (so long as some of these me-clones diverged enough to, say, have more enthusiasm for loading the dishwasher than do I).
What I have been saying is that my own personal priorities put PFRPG improvement ahead of other people's feelings. Those are not priorities widely shared by posters in this thread (and some people also think that the posts in question aren't advancing PFRPG in any case, although I tend to disagree there as well) and I think that it's fair to say that I put the balance point in a different place than do the Paizo staff, as well. But then, as I said, I'm not calling for everyone else to be like me or have my priorities, I'm just explaining what my priorities are and explaining how they shape my opinions, opinions that I have expressed in this and other threads.
I'm sorry Bagpuss, but this sort of special pleading really doesn't cut much ice. The rules of polite social discourse are pretty obvious. To suggest otherwise (as you have implied on a number of occasions - you often state that you are expressing "your opinion", as if polite conduct is simply that when it clearly isn't) is deeply disingenuous. People post that way not because they don't know it is wrong, but because they simply choose to for whatever reasons they have. Whether you feel offended (or not) isn't really the point. The issue is that some people do, and then we have to decide whether it is an issue for the broader community and the Paizo staff, and their interests. Many people's interests (the majority?) go far beyond the PFRPG - I post here because I like "hanging out" with the people here. To be honest, I don't care that much about PFRPG as I never had much problem with 3.5 and will probably be playing 4e on an ongoing basis. But I do care about being able to post pretty much where I like on the boards and not be assailed by someone with a single-issue axe to grind and where my opinion will be respected and, if I am wrong (and yes, it happens occasionally), politely informed of such. It isn't rocket science.
EDIT: Actually, to be fair, I have somewhat misrepresented your post above, and gone rather with a melange of your previous posts. I think that saying "the project" is more important that people's feelings is, to be frank, a bit odd. D&D is a social game - people matter. People differ on their views about how broken 3.5 is/was but even then, it's about hanging with friends rather than mathematical purity.
Being a genius is practically worthless if you are unable to communicate your thoughts in ways which other people are unprepared to take the time to try to understand.
Uhhh. So I've heard.
|
|
I'm sorry Bagpuss, but this sort of special pleading really doesn't cut much ice.
My intent is not to 'cut ice' (by which I presume you mean to influence other people; if you just mean to say that what I'm saying doesn't make sense, then fair enough, we disagree) or, indeed, to 'plead', it really is just to express my opinion. I guess that what addicts me to the internet is, indeed, that I like expressing my opinion even without the intention or expectation of changing minds; I find that the debate tends to help me arrange what I think into a more consistent whole. Thus, I admit to selfishness -- I'm enjoying this conversation! -- but not to failure in a mission I haven't set myself.
The rules of polite social discourse are pretty obvious. To suggest otherwise (as you have implied on a number of occasions - you often state that you are expressing "your opinion", as if polite conduct is simply that when it clearly isn't) is deeply disingenuous.
I haven't meant to claim that the rule of polite discourse are not known or relatively widespread and I if I have, that was an error on my part. My intent has been to say that I don't much care about them, at least in comparison to other issues at hand. When I say that I feel that my own opinions are "right and justified", in light of the fact that Nervous Jester felt that the manner of address used wasn't, I was certainly not claiming that Nervous Jester was in error as to the description of "polite discourse" in some generally accepted way but rather considering the nature of justification. Whilst I would contend that what passes for "polite discourse" does vary from forum to forum and place to place, I am not claiming that this forum has an unconventional definition thereof. Finally, when I point out that I am offering my opinion, it is to make clear that I am not claiming to have an objective truth; the intent is to weaken what some might erroneously see as a claim on my part to be dispensing The Truth. I am not, in any case, attempting to engage in a deceit (which is the implication of 'disingenuous'), although it does perhaps appear that I am failing to make clear my meaning.
People post that way not because they don't know it is wrong, but because they simply choose to for whatever reasons they have. Whether you feel offended (or not) isn't really the point. The issue is that some people do, and then we have to decide whether it is an issue for the broader community and the Paizo staff, and their interests. Many people's interests (the majority?) go far beyond the PFRPG - I post here because I like "hanging out" with the people here. To be honest, I don't care that much about PFRPG as I never had much problem with 3.5 and will probably be playing 4e on an ongoing basis. But I do care about being able to post pretty much where I like on the boards and not be assailed by someone with a single-issue axe to grind and where my opinion will be respected and, if I am wrong (and yes, it happens occasionally), politely informed of such. It isn't rocket science.
I don't have a problem with what you're saying; indeed, it's an opinion that I would say is as valid as my own in that it's a personal opinion (one counter, in some part, to mine but then, such is the nature of opinions). Furthermore, I suspect that it's a much more popular one than my own...
|
|
Actually, to be fair, I have somewhat misrepresented your post above, and gone rather with a melange of your previous posts. I think that saying "the project" is more important that people's feelings is, to be frank, a bit odd. D&D is a social game - people matter. People differ on their views about how broken 3.5 is/was but even then, it's about hanging with friends rather than mathematical purity.
Ah, didn't see this when I made my previous post. I guess what I'm saying about the project versus the community is that I am putting myself and my immediate community (my players), whose interests are strongly contingent on a 'good'* version of PFRPG, before the feelings of community here. In large part that is predicated on my opinion that the posters in question are mostly helping drive the PFRPG mission, of course, which is also a bone of contention. To the potential accusation that this is a me-centric approach, I gladly confess.
Although I still don't much care about the posting style issue in general, where it spills over outside of the PFRPG forums my argument about PFRPG improvement would obviously no longer apply.
*One we like but is also popular enough to be commercially sustainable.
|
|
Although I can see I'm probably disastrously naive in thinking that humour/comic-opera 'punishments'* could solve problems.
It's the internet, so yeah, probably. We'd like to live in a world where gentle humorous pokes could be taken as constructive hints that someone might be a little over-the-top, but we are stuck in this one.
Gosh, I wish we had PMs on this board. I had a really witty response, but I had to edit all the funny out, because 'funny' is in the eye of the beholder.
Which is kinda topical, strangely.
Uh, PostMonster General/Josh, I'm getting some sort of policies reminder appearing under my post box.
Whew! I thought it was just me, and was getting awful paranoid. "The beach ball is out to get me!"
you too? man, we're in t-r-o-u-b-l-e-!
I want to be on double secret probation.
Josh has a new title now, right?
only if i can call you "flounder" ;)
I'm sure you thought long and hard about that name. "Why Flounder" "Why not?"
["...did we give up when the germans bombed pearl harbor?"
"Thank you, God!"
plays "william tell overture" on his adam's apple
Wife just informed me that I'm sick of Paizo and want to go to bed. Must... obey...
To make the best of a bad situation everyone should sit around the flames and roast marshmallows and sing camp fire songs.
I'm probably disastrously naive in thinking that humour/comic-opera 'punishments'* could solve problems.
At our ren faire here, one of the vendors sells marshmallow catapults. One of my retainers suggested I should outfit our entire retinue with them...
{daydream}
Elven Defense Fleet, transfer all marshmallows to the wave motion guns! Target: The Comment Empire!
{/daydream}
/me wakes up and realizes he's advocating pelting trolls with marshmallows
Um... maybe if we set the marshmallows on fire first?
|
|
Well, the friendly reminder is a nice first step. It certain relieves Josh and Gary from having to remind people every few months of the rules. If you posted, you saw the rules.
As for my previous comments that Bagpuss extrapolated on, by no means was I suggesting any sort of preference between customers and non-customers (those who remember my arrival on the boards may recall railing against exactly such a thing). I was merely pointing out that if a confirmed customer leaves the boards in dissatisfaction (for any reason really) then Paizo needs to find out how to stop that from happening.