Maybe it's just my limited experience but I've always found boards where those particular topics are banned to be much more peaceful. Hence why I seem to be one of the very few who find Paizo a much more hostile place than most forums I frequently attend. I'm regularly told that if I think Paizo is anything but welcoming and peaceful I've clearly not spent enough time on the internet; I think I've just been fortunate enough to avoid the places that are worse.
Maybe it's just my limited experience but I've always found boards where those particular topics are banned to be much more peaceful.
On the other end, I find moderaters(and sometimes users) on those much more hostile and quick to pounce on things they don't have to. This is one of the less hostile ones I've been too, not that I entirely agree with moderation. Security vs. Freedom talk, probably best not to delve too deep.
|
There should be a rule banning your account after your 5th "Why do people think the Fighter sucks", "Which is better, Ranger or Fighter", etc. thread.Could imagine size of the list of hot topics to fill that though?They'll always be something. GitP has a rule against discussion of real world politics and religion. Conveniently, this also has the side effect of banning most alignment threads, since for all the cries about 'objective alignment', no one seems to be able to discuss it without letting their personal religious/political beliefs slip in.
So other hot topics fill the void:D
Would you be able to talk about something like Science/technology without relating to any real world mathematics, statistics, or history. It's especially hard when Golarion is obviously intended to be very modeled after cherry picked real world areas, cultures, beliefs, and time periods. If you try to discuss say Andoran and/or Galt without any sort of reference to US/France/real world revolts/religious turmoils it really just becomes meaningless and boring, as those things are all huge inspirations for and also the intended "in" for those game settings.
Likewise, alignment has always been very much based on real world religious and ethical ideals. I just don't see individuals using that as a basis to explain points of view as bad, outside of demanding that something is universal or that their particular religious/political belief is the one true way, (which sadly tends to happen a lot in those "hot button" topics), and devolving into a more than a little name calling and self-righteous hypocrisy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Name three."It is better to employ an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."To be fair, though, there have been an awful lot of topics which, upon getting a FAQ or other definitive answer, proved that the "absurdly strict" camp was actually completely right while the "as they are intended to be played" camp was wrong; that is, sometimes what gets labeled as an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules actually IS how the rules were intended to be played.Just three? Too easy. Here's seven.
On every one of those topics, the people who interpreted the rules correctly were called all sorts of nasty things by the folks who believed the opposite to be the obvious intent. All the folks who were wrong about the rules on those topics believed themselves to be witnessing what Lincoln Hills described, when in fact they were witnessing skilled adjudication of the rules.
Being called all sorts of nasty names is something endemic to the Rules Forum.
Just going over the first 4, archetype, trip, vital strike and TWF, I don't see where the FAQ went against RAI or common sense in 3, of those only the double AOO on a trip was something that - to me at least- went against what I'd consider "common sense" or RAI". Mind you, often BOTH sides think they have "Obvious intent" on their side.
So, yes, there was heated debate on those four issues, no doubt. But in almost all cases, when the FAQ comes down it is in favor of "common sense" or RAI".
And there's 165 FAQ for the CRB alone. Would you claim that more that 10% of those FAQ fly in the face of common sense or what everyone thought was RAI?
And that's not even considering the dozen & dozens of Rules Questions with many FAQ hits where the Rules team just decided that no answer was needed.
Mind you, I do think that if there's serious debate, with respected posters and good arguments on both sides- that even if I feel the RAI is clear, I will still hit the FAQ button if I think the RAW is unclear and some reasonable % of people actually play that way.
However, for instance- the debate that cleric/wizards can cast Cure spells by burning their wizard slots is silly. No one actually plays that way, despite the fact the the wording is not 100% proof boilerplate.
In fact, i don't want the rules to be 100% boilerplate, each written by a team of lawyers. I don;t want a 50# $500 CRB.
DrDeth, I don't think you have any idea what my post was about.
Was not your post in response to my question?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth, I don't think you have any idea what my post was about.Was not your post in response to my question?
Yes. And my post contained a fair bit more discussion than just "here's some links" to prove that the situation I described was not just made up. (And let's not even get started on how "name three" suddenly became "name 16" when your trap failed.)
The point is not who's right more often. The point is not whether a given FAQ matches my or your idea of common sense or obvious intent. The point is that there are a lot of topics where one side's entire argument is "the intent is obvious, you're being absurd", and those who use that argument are neither right nor wrong with enough consistency for a reasonable, intelligent listener to act on it.
The point is that it's not consistent enough (in either direction, right or wrong) to be a meaningful contribution to a discussion about how the rules work. Instead of solving anything, it just frustrates people who want to understand (even if those people really are wrong).
The point is not how often "you're being absurd, the intent is obvious" is wrong. The point is that such a statement is never helpful but always thrown around. It's an argument starter, not a question answerer. Even when it's true, it just belittles the incorrect party without helping them understand anything.
Better to either proficiently wield the rules to demonstrate the correct answer or just not participate in the discussion, rather than just tell people they're obviously wrong (no matter how sure you might be).
Remember, what matters is identifying things that could be addressed to reduce hostility around the forums. Continually challenging me to find ever-increasing numbers of things you want to be dismissive of until you finally name a number I can't match just so you can say "Ha! I win!" is kind of the opposite of that, and I'm not interested.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends somewhat on how you play the game, jiggy. For me, those kinds of posts are helpful, because I don't really care what the actual, real, true, platonically existing rules are. I just want an answer and I'm happy to outsource the debate and thinking about it to others.
I know a lot of rules gurus on the forums thrive on cross referencing, deducing from context, tracking down indirectly relevant FAQs and so forth. I don't really have any interest in that and am happy to just take one of the posters I trust's word on "what the designers meant".
That's probably not satisfying to those looking for debate leading to clarity, but I don't think it's an illegitimate way to approach the rules forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly agree that those advocating what they think RAI is should still remain polite. I think there's a lot of muck thrown in both directions. Nonetheless, I think both approaches (idolising RAW or RAI) have their place.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it depends somewhat on how you play the game, jiggy. For me, those kinds of posts are helpful, because I don't really care what the actual, real, true, platonically existing rules are. I just want an answer and I'm happy to outsource the debate and thinking about it to others.
I know a lot of rules gurus on the forums thrive on cross referencing, deducing from context, tracking down indirectly relevant FAQs and so forth. I don't really have any interest in that and am happy to just take one of the posters I trust's word on "what the designers meant".
That's probably not satisfying to those looking for debate leading to clarity, but I don't think it's an illegitimate way to approach the rules forum.
To be clear, when I talk about the "obvious intent" argument, I don't mean times where the intent can actually be shown; I myself keep a whole library of links to designer commentary. The problem posts I'm talking about are where we're supposed to just take the poster's word on the "obvious intent" when they've given absolutely no indication that they have any more idea what was intended than any other random person who just read the rule on the page. THAT is the kind of post that isn't helpful, but gets screamed into lots and lots of debates, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, never meaningful.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But useful to someone like me. I'll often peer into a rules debate and see poster A list a whole bunch of references from FAQs, developer comments, rule books, etcetera. Then someone I trust says "yeah but that's not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be like this..." and I can just go with that.
It is useful and meaningful. I don't care who's right - I get value from you guys arguing for a while then advancing a few positions. I take the one I like and it doesn't matter how well justified it is.
What I don't like is when people comment on the other side's character or motivation ("you're just out to break the game", "you're wrong, you just won't admit it", "you just suck at this stuff", etcetera). I presume thats what youre refering to with being "screamed into the debate". That kind of stuff has no place in a rules forum but unjustified (or thinly, handwavingly justified) statements of opinion about the rules have utility to me, at least.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But useful to someone like me. I'll often peer into a rules debate and see poster A list a whole bunch of references from FAQs, developer comments, rule books, etcetera. Then someone I trust says "yeah but that's not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be like this..." and I can just go with that.
It is useful and meaningful. I don't care who's right - I get value from you guys arguing for a while then advancing a few positions. I take the one I like and it doesn't matter how well justified it is.
In that case, it's a matter of respecting the way Paizo organizes their forums. As Paizo staff has had to remind people more than once, what the Rules forum is for is to answer rules questions. That's not the same as coming up with an assortment of alternatives from which to select one that you like. There's nothing wrong with doing that (I've got some fairly substantial houserules of my own), but that's something that's supposed to be in maybe Advice or Suggestions/Houserules/Homebrew.
If you were in one of those forums asking for ideas on how to do X so you could pick the one you like, would it be appropriate for someone to come into that thread and describe why none of the ideas presented are supported by the rules? No, because answering rules questions belongs in the Rules forum, not in Advice or S/Hr/Hb.
What I don't like is when people comment on the other side's character or motivation ("you're just out to break the game", "you're wrong, you just won't admit it", "you just suck at this stuff", etcetera). I presume thats what youre refering to with being "screamed into the debate". That kind of stuff has no place in a rules forum but unjustified (or thinly, handwavingly justified) statements of opinion about the rules have utility to me, at least.
It's very hard to say that a position you don't hold is "obvious" and that your view requires an "absurd" interpretation of the rules, without implying some things about your character and motivations, you know?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't mean to contradict your main point really. I agree that those kinds of posts generally do lead to a downhill spiral unless phrased very, very carefully.
Just being a bit contrary perhaps, but I think there is a reasonably significant cohort of gamers who view all rules as a set of interpretations rather than an objectively determinable body of laws. As such, I think the rules forum is a place to ask or answer a "what do you think they meant" question and I don't discount the views of those who base their answer on "gut feel".
DrDeth, I don't think you have any idea what my post was about.Was not your post in response to my question?Yes. And my post contained a fair bit more discussion than just "here's some links" to prove that the situation I described was not just made up. (And let's not even get started on how "name three" suddenly became "name 16" when your trap failed.)
The point is not who's right more often. The point is not whether a given FAQ matches my or your idea of common sense or obvious intent. The point is that there are a lot of topics where one side's entire argument is "the intent is obvious, you're being absurd", and those who use that argument are neither right nor wrong with enough consistency for a reasonable, intelligent listener to act on it.
The point is that it's not consistent enough (in either direction, right or wrong) to be a meaningful contribution to a discussion about how the rules work. Instead of solving anything, it just frustrates people who want to understand (even if those people really are wrong).
The point is not how often "you're being absurd, the intent is obvious" is wrong. The point is that such a statement is never helpful but always thrown around.
I didn't ask you to name 16. I said "Would you claim that more that 10% of those FAQ fly in the face of common sense or what everyone thought was RAI?" Would you so claim? I didn't ask for nor do I want 16 or 8 or 165. I did ask for three, and I disagree on 3 of your first 4.
I agree that " The point is that there are a lot of topics where one side's entire argument is "the intent is obvious, you're being absurd", and those who use that argument are neither right nor wrong with enough consistency for a reasonable, intelligent listener to act on it." We are both in 100% agreement on that. However, there are a good number of arguments here where BOTH sides agree on both the intent and common sense (or at least one side uses that as a point and the other side never challenges it) vs "the language of the line is only correctly parsed as "xxx" thus that's the RAW."
In a lot of the rules arguments one side knows full well that no-one plays that way, that no sane DM would allow it, that it's not allowed in PFS and that the RAI is against them. Their whole point is that the rules were worded in such a way to allow their interpretation. Now, yes, that has some value in "This rule can use some re-wording." A LOT of the rules were cut and pasted over wholesale and could use better language. OTOH, I am not going to pay $500 for a rulebook written in legalese boilerplate just to make a tiny minority of nigglers happy... for about ten seconds.
My point isn't that the side of RAI is always right. It's that it's upheld far more often than the crowd who stoops to parsing comma placement but ignores IRL gaming. But yes, just making that claim doesn't make you right, and even if you are right about common sense and what appears to be RAI once in a while the DT does throw us a curveball. Generally it's because we didn't understand what was intended.
Now, "you're being absurd, the intent is obvious" is wrong. The point is that such a statement is never helpful"? Never?
Generally, yes, calling the other side "absurd" is a bad idea and rarely helps, to that we agree. But OTOH, pointing out the RAI or the way it's played IRL or common sense *IS* helpful Parsing commas is RARELY helpful as neither 3.5 nor PF was written by that kind of boilerplate writers. Too often, they knew EXACTLY what they meant , but their wording is in-exact. Parsing commas is fine in legal or Talmudic debates, but it's rarely useful or helpful here as our authors are gamers first and few if any are trained to write legal boilerplate. (Not to mention, most gamers can't understand legal boilerplate, it even gives me a headache sometimes.)
You claimed "there have been an awful lot of topics which, upon getting a FAQ or other definitive answer, proved that the "absurdly strict" camp was actually completely right while the "as they are intended to be played" camp was wrong". That sets the "RAI camp" vs the "strict constructionist camp". Now yes, just because you SAY you are in the "as they are intended to be played" that doesn't make you right, no one claimed that, especially as (as you correctly pointed out) sometimes BOTH sides claim that. OTOH, often BOTH sides claim to be correct as to "strict constructionists". So, just claiming that doesn't make you right. Just claiming "strict constructionist " doesn't make you right either.
But when one side only gives "strict constructionist " arguments vs the IRL, common sense and RAI camp- I find I am rarely surprised that the FAQ comes out in favor of how it's really played, not the parsed comma camp ( I think about three FAQ actually surprised me.) Mind you, if the RAW is then re-written, the parsed comma camp can legitimately claim a victory of sorts, that does show the rule wasn't well worded. Heck, that can be said of a LOT of the rules. No doubt.
But there's no need for such anger & hostility Jiggy, we are mostly in agreement here.
But useful to someone like me. I'll often peer into a rules debate and see poster A list a whole bunch of references from FAQs, developer comments, rule books, etcetera. Then someone I trust says "yeah but that's not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be like this..." and I can just go with that.
It is useful and meaningful. I don't care who's right - I get value from you guys arguing for a while then advancing a few positions. I take the one I like and it doesn't matter how well justified it is.
What I don't like is when people comment on the other side's character or motivation ("you're just out to break the game", "you're wrong, you just won't admit it", "you just suck at this stuff", etcetera). I presume thats what youre refering to with being "screamed into the debate". That kind of stuff has no place in a rules forum but unjustified (or thinly, handwavingly justified) statements of opinion about the rules have utility to me, at least.
I agree on both counts. To me, and to JJ, RAI trumps RAW. Still, sure- it's sometimes hard to discern RAI. OTOH, if one has a post from JJ saying "this is how I play" then altho that doesn't mean you have a " I WIN!" button for RAW, but it does lend a lot of credence for arguing that's RAI. For example "Scry & Fry".
BUT, you are 100% completely right about personal comments of that sort. Those *ARE* "never helpful". Hostile comments, rude comments, personal comments (of that sort)- all not helpful.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't mean to contradict your main point really. I agree that those kinds of posts generally do lead to a downhill spiral unless phrased very, very carefully.
Just being a bit contrary perhaps, but I think there is a reasonably significant cohort of gamers who view all rules as a set of interpretations rather than an objectively determinable body of laws. As such, I think the rules forum is a place to ask or answer a "what do you think they meant" question and I don't discount the views of those who base their answer on "gut feel".
I really don't look as the rules forum as anything more of a curiosity than anything all that useful. Within my home game, I'm rule-savvy enough to make my own interpretations that work for my table. What the designers intended is really a secondary academic point of interest. What other players think is a distant third.
IMO, PFS drives most of the hand-wringing in the rules forum.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth, I don't think you have any idea what my post was about.Was not your post in response to my question?Yes. And my post contained a fair bit more discussion than just "here's some links" to prove that the situation I described was not just made up. (And let's not even get started on how "name three" suddenly became "name 16" when your trap failed.)
The point is not who's right more often. The point is not whether a given FAQ matches my or your idea of common sense or obvious intent. The point is that there are a lot of topics where one side's entire argument is "the intent is obvious, you're being absurd", and those who use that argument are neither right nor wrong with enough consistency for a reasonable, intelligent listener to act on it.
The point is that it's not consistent enough (in either direction, right or wrong) to be a meaningful contribution to a discussion about how the rules work. Instead of solving anything, it just frustrates people who want to understand (even if those people really are wrong).
The point is not how often "you're being absurd, the intent is obvious" is wrong. The point is that such a statement is never helpful but always thrown around.
I didn't ask you to name 16. I said "Would you claim that more that 10% of those FAQ fly in the face of common sense or what everyone thought was RAI?" Would you so claim? I didn't ask for nor do I want 16 or 8 or 165. I did ask for three, and I disagree on 3 of your first 4.
I agree that " The point is that there are a lot of topics where one side's entire argument is "the intent is obvious, you're being absurd", and those who use that argument are neither right nor wrong with enough consistency for a reasonable, intelligent listener to act on it." We are both in 100% agreement on that. However, there are a good number of arguments here where BOTH sides agree on both the intent and common sense (or at least one side uses that as...
I hate to speak for Jiggy, as he speaks for himself quite well, but I think you missed his original point in this discussion. I do not believe he was advocating a strict reading of RAW over RAI but rather a more conservative interpretation over a more liberal interpretation. If a rule could be read one of two ways, that the Moar Power interpretation was generally ruled against. The "if it seems to good to be true, then it probably is" adage. At least that was my understanding.
On his other point, I believe he is talking about the difference between: "it's common sense, here's why" and "it's common sense, you're an idiot." One of those is far more helpful (and probably more reliable ) than the other.(Jiggy, feel free to tell me what I got wrong.)
Yeah, I don't mean to contradict your main point really. I agree that those kinds of posts generally do lead to a downhill spiral unless phrased very, very carefully.
Just being a bit contrary perhaps, but I think there is a reasonably significant cohort of gamers who view all rules as a set of interpretations rather than an objectively determinable body of laws. As such, I think the rules forum is a place to ask or answer a "what do you think they meant" question and I don't discount the views of those who base their answer on "gut feel".
I really don't look as the rules forum as anything more of a curiosity than anything all that useful. Within my home game, I'm rule-savvy enough to make my own interpretations that work for my table. What the designers intended is really a secondary academic point of interest. What other players think is a distant third.
IMO, PFS drives most of the hand-wringing in the rules forum.
-Skeld
I think there's a large number of people who feel the same way, especially in the rules forum. (FWIW, I think the "but what about PFS?" lament is overplayed. The game needs adjudication and handles that through the DM. PFS imposes a higher authority over the adjudicator - that's inevitably going to cause problems, in my view and doesn't imply we should ditch the adjudication role of the DM).
Nonetheless, the only point I wanted to make is that a comment along the lines of "the rule must be X, just based on common sense. I can't imagine the designer meaning anything else". Is useful to some of us, even if not to you (or to most of the rules sub forum).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
@DrDeth - You still don't seem to get what I'm saying. From the get-go you've tried to make this a "RAW vs RAI" thing, and it's not. But you're referring to any form of rules interpretation more precise than your own with hyperbole ("parsing commas", "$500 rulebook in legalese") and condescension (describing it as something to "stoop" down to), and apparently can't see how jerkish it is to talk down to people like that.
You accuse me of "such anger & hostility", but I haven't talked down to you or to folks who aren't interested in thorough rules interpretation the way you've talked down to anyone who approaches the rules differently than you do.
Your inability to see past who might be right or wrong and recognize the true issue of how we relate to those who approach the game differently than ourselves, is itself a perfect example of why the Rules forum is so hostile.
Every rules debate involves a right party and a wrong party; that's not the issue. Every rules debate involves both parties believing they're right and the other is wrong; that's not the issue either. The issue is people who can't separate "I think your assertion is wrong" from "Your way of approaching the game is something I won't stoop to".
It's okay if "My gut tells me X" is enough for you (or for Steve Geddes or whoever else). But it's not okay to blame the hostility of the rules forum on the fact that someone saying "my gut tells me X" isn't enough for someone else.
The game is big enough both for people who want to know what the rules actually say AND for people who just need something usable enough to keep their game moving. Neither party is the problem; the problem is the people who believe one party or the other IS the problem. That's when you get comments like "stoop to your way of doing things", which is where hostilities begin.
@DrDeth - You still don't seem to get what I'm saying.
No, I don't, apparently. If what you're saying is that when you present your viewpoint you should not be a jerk, I think just about everyone is in agreement.
But to me your posts seem to indicate strongly that to you, "rules" are what they actually "say" as opposed to what they intend. That to properly "answer" a rule question, one should stick to a conservative "strict constructionist" argument as much as possible? To "Better to either proficiently wield the rules to demonstrate the correct answer "?
Let me put it this way. Due to a typo there's a new spell or feat that allows a 1st level spellcaster to cast unlimited Wishes. (The writer forgot the word "Not" but of course we don't know that.)
My viewpoint is that it is unreasonable that a 1st level spell could allow unlimited Wishes. It matters not what the actual wording is. That it's unbalancing, no sane DM would allow it, and doesn't appear to be RAI.
Do you think it's proper to point that out, or should the Rules Forum be limited to the actual printed rule?
To me, the "rules' are much, much more than what is actually printed. Intent, balance, the way they are actually played IRL, and so forth are all part of 'the rules".
And, I do want to point out that I never said anything like "stoop" to the strict constructionist viewpoint. I said that "parsing commas' is "stooping" i.e. extremism in one side is a bad idea. Rarely do the conservative "strict constructionists" do that. I was pointing out that extremism is "stooping" no matter what side you take. The RAI crowd 'stoops" also- in fact yes, they sometimes "stoop" to using that term "Your argument is absurd" . Do I use hyperbole at times to make a point thru humor? Yes.
Neither side should "stoop'. Neither side should resort to personal comments. Both sides should try to remain calm.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hiring a full time moderator would be a really good idea.
It's worthy of a full time job, and isn't as closely related to customer service as most people tend to think.
Paizo has some of the best customer service I've experienced, and after enormous success still maintains relationships with the fan base as well as anyone, but there comes a point where moderation can't just be tacked on anymore.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think it's proper to point that out, or should the Rules Forum be limited to the actual printed rule?
To me, the "rules' are much, much more than what is actually printed. Intent, balance, the way they are actually played IRL, and so forth are all part of 'the rules".
That is a topic that isn't really relevant to the issue of hostility on the forums, and is a debate which you are the only one attempting to have. That you even want to HAVE that discussion just goes to show that you believe in a One True Way for approaching the game; and that belief (especially among those who don't seem to realize they hold such a belief) is one of the most significant sources of all this hostility we're all seeing.
No thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty much just going to sit back and say anything Jiggy says on this subject I'm 99% likely to agree with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But to me your posts seem to indicate strongly that to you, "rules" are what they actually "say" as opposed to what they intend. That to properly "answer" a rule question, one should stick to a conservative "strict constructionist" argument as much as possible? To "Better to either proficiently wield the rules to demonstrate the correct answer "?
He's not said anything about INTENT. He even explicitly said a post ago "this is not about RAI vs RAW".
What it IS about is someone popping into an ongoing discussion and saying "You're wrong! It's obvious that you're wrong! I don't have any reasoning for you being wrong other than that I think you're wrong, but you're wrong!" and expecting that to settle things instead of people rightly getting riled up by this one guy who ignores everything set before him and expects a simple assertion of his correctness to suffice as PROOF of his correctness.
That's it. Everybody in this thread got that but you, apparently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's not said anything about INTENT. He even explicitly said a post ago "this is not about RAI vs RAW".What it IS about is someone popping into an ongoing discussion and saying "You're wrong! It's obvious that you're wrong! I don't have any reasoning for you being wrong other than that I think you're wrong, but you're wrong!" and expecting that to settle things instead of people rightly getting riled up by this one guy who ignores everything set before him and expects a simple assertion of his correctness to suffice as PROOF of his correctness.
While I think there's certainly room for feedback/debate over the usage of the Rules Forum, I'm leaning towards agreeing that this thread is not the place for it. This should be about the amount of hostility in general on the forums.
While the two may be related in some cases, addressing the hostility issue feels like it ought to be the priority here - the problem certainly isn't with how the forums are being used, the problem is hostility, or attempts to provoke it. Anything posted with a modicum of politeness and respect ought to be absolutely fine. I really don't see why expecting people to tone down the type of response Rynjin has illustrated above to "That isn't the way I read it. However as I'm not prepared to explain why, you should feel free to go with your own interpretation." (or indeed, not making such a thoroughly useless post in the first place) is too much to ask of a society that supposedly has realized for a while that clubbing one another over the head isn't acceptable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I think there's certainly room for feedback/debate over the usage of the Rules Forum, I'm leaning towards agreeing that this thread is not the place for it. This should be about the amount of hostility in general on the forums.
While the two may be related in some cases, addressing the hostility issue feels like it ought to be the priority here - the problem certainly isn't with how the forums are being used, the problem is hostility, or attempts to provoke it. Anything posted with a modicum of politeness and respect ought to be absolutely fine. I really don't see why expecting people to tone down the type of response Rynjin has illustrated above to "That isn't the way I read it. However as I'm not prepared to explain why, you should feel free to go with your own interpretation." (or indeed, not making such a thoroughly useless post in the first place) is too much to ask of a society that supposedly has realized for a while that clubbing one another over the head isn't acceptable.
Exactly. The snarkiness, the "fixed that for you" commentary and general irritation that someone would dare to post something different or dissenting doesn't help anyone out, it just makes the place seem petty and vindictive.
This is not just the Rules Forums, but everything from how sexuality should be viewed in the game to whether or not you are doing a Paladin's code right. And the sad part is that this is all opinion. No one has the One True Way and I would hope that people can discuss things without having to be rude for no real reason.
If you don't agree or don't agree and cannot be cordial about it, try not to post. No one is forcing anyone to do so -- believe me, I post far less often than I could. If you cannot be nice or at least reasonably polite, maybe you are better off taking a walk until you can be.
The Rules forum is essentially a community project. It is inevitable that people will, from time to time, overpersonalize the discussion. This can manifest as person-to-person hostility or an unwillingness to broaden one's viewpoint. In either case, all we can try to do is extend the same understanding we would want, if the situation were reversed.
Do you think it's proper to point that out, or should the Rules Forum be limited to the actual printed rule?
To me, the "rules' are much, much more than what is actually printed. Intent, balance, the way they are actually played IRL, and so forth are all part of 'the rules".
That is a topic that isn't really relevant to the issue of hostility on the forums, and is a debate which you are the only one attempting to have. That you even want to HAVE that discussion just goes to show that you believe in a One True Way for approaching the game; and that belief (especially among those who don't seem to realize they hold such a belief) is one of the most significant sources of all this hostility we're all seeing.
.
One True Way? The opposite. I think the printed rules come first, but that the RAI, balance, playability and and the way the game is actually played IRL, all must be considered in rules discussion. I do agree that *SOME* folks around here do believe in a "One True Way" and it is a source of hostility. You also seem to be rather hostile here yourself, or is it just the way posts are hard to read emotion into that's the issue?
Jiggy, I am actually rather puzzled and slightly hurt by your hostility. I respect your viewpoints, even tho we don't always agree.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think it's proper to point that out, or should the Rules Forum be limited to the actual printed rule?
To me, the "rules' are much, much more than what is actually printed. Intent, balance, the way they are actually played IRL, and so forth are all part of 'the rules".
That is a topic that isn't really relevant to the issue of hostility on the forums, and is a debate which you are the only one attempting to have. That you even want to HAVE that discussion just goes to show that you believe in a One True Way for approaching the game; and that belief (especially among those who don't seem to realize they hold such a belief) is one of the most significant sources of all this hostility we're all seeing.
.
One True Way? The opposite. I think the printed rules come first, but that the RAI, balance, playability and and the way the game is actually played IRL, all must be considered in rules discussion. I do agree that *SOME* folks around here do believe in a "One True Way" and it is a source of hostility. You also seem to be rather hostile here yourself, or is it just the way posts are hard to read emotion into that's the issue?
Okay. Lemme spell this out plainly:
What people have been trying to tell you is that the thread here is discussing the hostility.
You are instead attempting to have a totally unrelated debate.
Please stop that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
End scene.
Thank you Jiggy and DrDeth for acting out how two reasonable people can escalate a minor online discussion over a niggling subpoint of a topic and mushroom it into a potentially sticky and personal encounter where feelings can get hurt.
This is your brain on internetz, people.
Actually, I think you guys did okay, but had this been a random thread that wasn't about e-decorum in the website feedback thread this last discussion would have probably gone to hell, too.
I can only imagine how difficult it is for a public facing company to deal with this much traffic to their boards. Unfortunately, the usual response of adding unpaid mods from the community also has major drawbacks/risks in a community whose methods related to product use are so subjective and often so entrenched in people's nostalgia, hence highly subject to opinion and debate.
Whoever mentioned adding mods with the *limited* ability to delete multiple posts and scrub spammers, with the idea of taking workload off of staff and freeing them for matters that involve deeper policy decisions, may be on to something, but I wonder if that would even work within the website's framework. It also is still pretty far from foolproof.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To refocus the topic on the Rules forum specifically, rather than civility on the messageboards as a whole:
One relatively objective metric for the rules forum is post count. Most rules questions resolve themselves on the first page e.g. "Can my rogue sneak attack undead?" or "How does delivering a spell with a touch attack work?"
Sometimes rules threads go a little longer, but peter out on the second or third page. Maybe there's more than one valid viewpoint. Maybe the rule is unclear. Maybe there was a minor derail.
But some rules threads just keep going, even though all the arguments on both/all of the sides have been reiterated ad-nauseum. Maybe the topic is contentious (alignment, perceived to be overpowered, whatever). Maybe the derail didn't resolve itself or spin off into a new thread. Maybe people just got emotionally invested and keep trying for the last word, even though it's been going in circles for 400 posts. And as long as people keep circling in a relatively civil manner, it doesn't get locked.
The first two categories are pretty harmless, but third is pretty awful. It pollutes the usefulness of the rules forum archives, because answers or useful arguments get buried. It generates ill-will because both sides think the other is being unreasonably stubborn. They create memes and arguments that end up infiltrating other threads active during the same time period.
I'm not sure what can be done about that, specifically, because while a thread with 10 posts is clearly doing fine and one with 1,000 posts probably needs to be euthanized, there is no hard limit where a thread has outlived its usefulness. But it is something to consider.
End scene.
Thank you Jiggy and DrDeth for acting out how two reasonable people can escalate a minor online discussion over a niggling subpoint of a topic and mushroom it into a potentially sticky and personal encounter where feelings can get hurt.
Actually, I think you guys did okay, but had this been a random thread that wasn't about e-decorum in the website feedback thread this last discussion would have probably gone to hell, too.
My pleasure - and of course that was my cunning and subtle plan all along. (Channeling Joe Izuzu for that last part).
I do engage in hyperbole and satire, perhaps too much. But I also try to be civil and get the thread back on track. I give credence to the other side, even when we don't agree. Jiggy, for example, is a definite board treasure. Thanks for all your contributions, Jiggy!
I'll add my voice to the list of people who have suggested more transparency from the moderators as to why a post was deleted. I'm not interested in WHO has had their posts deleted, but I would like to know WHY they were deleted. This allows me to modify my posting style if necessary to avoid getting my own posts deleted.
In addition, if I post a lengthy post with quotes in it, and one of the quotes is objectionable and so my entire post is deleted, it gets irritating. It would seem to encourage many short posts by a poster, with each reply in its own post. In other forums I have been a part of, double-posting is frowned upon, so I tend not to do that.
One of the issues I have seen is that people here seem to take themselves way too seriously. They're essentially trying to build up poster credentials or something and so any disagreements with them spark over the top or hostile responses. High school behavior.
In regards to the Rules forum, it should either be eliminated, or changed to one question and one answer only per thread. As in, if you have a question about a rule, you post it in Advice.
If the rule gets enough FAQs to require a staff response, the OP and the answer to the OP are created as a thread in the Rules forum. This would provide a forum of all staff-responded FAQs. If not, take some or all of the advice provided to you by other posters.
The way the rules forum currently exists seems to encourage the worst behavior in people all trying to be right and "win" the argument. Seeing as how the only people that can answer definitively as to a rule are certain Paizo employees, allowing others to chime in with their opinions on a forum titled "Rules" seems askew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much this. From what I've seen and what I've read by some of the community managers/moderators for some of the more successful communities, there's a lot of thought that goes into things such as atmosphere and the nature of the community. As Pathfinder grows and becomes more successful, if Paizo is going to continue to have forums, they will need to decide what direction they wish to take or their community will develop in a direction they don't want and their ability to influence the community will be lessened.I didn't take from Caedwyr's posts that it promoted mod-access to non-employees.
Now I haven't reads the linked posts, but I thought Caedwyr was talking more to the lack of "community manager-focus" in the moderation by Paizo staff.
If there are steps in community building and community building that can be implemented, then there will be less moderation needed, or the nature of moderation will change as the community moderates itself - not through hard-code and ban-hammering (regardless of who does it), but through etiquette, mindful behaviour and subscription to social tenets more conducive to positive and creative discussion.
I just wanted to add to this in a somewhat tangential way. Kirk Hamilton recently reviewed Kotaku's own policies and approach, as well as reviewing a related Wired article on the topic (handling internet trolling).
This process led them to a surprising insight—one that "shaped our entire approach to this problem," says Jeffrey Lin, Riot's lead designer of social systems, who spoke about the process at last year's Game Developers Conference. "If we remove all toxic players from the game, do we solve the player behavior problem? We don't." That is, if you think most online abuse is hurled by a small group of maladapted trolls, you're wrong. Riot found that persistently negative players were only responsible for roughly 13 percent of the game's bad behavior. The other 87 percent was coming from players whose presence, most of the time, seemed to be generally inoffensive or even positive. These gamers were lashing out only occasionally, in isolated incidents—but their outbursts often snowballed through the community. Banning the worst trolls wouldn't be enough to clean up League of Legends, Riot's player behavior team realized. Nothing less than community-wide reforms could succeed.Some of the reforms Riot came up with were small but remarkably effective. Originally, for example, it was a default in the game that opposing teams could chat with each other during play, but this often spiraled into abusive taunting. So in one of its earliest experiments, Riot turned off that chat function but allowed players to turn it on if they wanted. The impact was immediate. A week before the change, players reported that more than 80 percent of chat between opponents was negative. But a week after switching the default, negative chat had decreased by more than 30 percent while positive chat increased nearly 35 percent. The takeaway? Creating a simple hurdle to abusive behavior makes it much less prevalent.
...there's more there, including how the focus on and treatment of an online space as a "community, so act like it" is one of the more effective measures you can have against negative behavior, combined with "those solutions which defuse the Internet’s power to amplify abuse but also encourage crucial shifts in social norms."
One thing I would like to see (which I'm sure will never happen) is the acknowledgement that some posters are treated differently than others. Maybe a "no jokes about this poster, he's too sensitive" or "this poster is allowed to insult you because she's been here longer."
I think the first post I had deleted was a joke about a poster, who has repeatedly discussed how much they disliked certain DMs, not liking a DM. While the post calling me Hitler because I said humans don't have tails is allowed to stay.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to the Rules forum, it should either be eliminated, or changed to one question and one answer only per thread.
.....If the rule gets enough FAQs to require a staff response, the OP and the answer to the OP are created as a thread in the Rules forum. This would provide a forum of all staff-responded FAQs.
Um, what you just described as your ideal Rules forum is actually exactly what the existing collection of official FAQs already is. Are you wanting a second one, or were you perhaps unaware of the existing FAQ? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Um, what you just described as your ideal Rules forum is actually exactly what the existing collection of official FAQs already is. Are you wanting a second one, or were you perhaps unaware of the existing FAQ? Or am I misunderstanding you?In regards to the Rules forum, it should either be eliminated, or changed to one question and one answer only per thread.
.....If the rule gets enough FAQs to require a staff response, the OP and the answer to the OP are created as a thread in the Rules forum. This would provide a forum of all staff-responded FAQs.
I believe, like me, he's saying a forum isn't really the best tool for handling a question/answer format. Currently it's far more "rules discussion and arguments" than "rules questions and answers". A typical player coming here for an answer and searching the forum is unlikely to want to trawl through X00 pages of conversation just to find out how a rule works.
Being able to automatically filter out the chatter and see what the suggested answers are (and they can only ever really be suggestions, unless made by Paizo staff, because half the time the player base can't agree on a single answer) would be a huge benefit. It may also have a beneficial side-effect of cutting down on the hostility in said arguments if it focused on providing answers rather than shooting other people's answers down.
Again I point to StackExchange's system, which at a glance shows you the proposed answers and how popular each one is (without the hassle of being forced to read the entire thread to pick them out). Add in the ability for Paizo staff to flag "and this is the correct one" and I think you have a far better system.
My only concern is such a system would likely need to be coded in-house specifically for Paizo's java-based platform, so we're unlikely to see it due to there being far more pressing issues their technical staff need to deal with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that's the case, Dungrun, I think posts about specific posters are probably deleted based on whether the poster who's named feels that the post is flag-worthy. (Aaand I just used the word "post" so many times, that sentence doesn't make sense at all; Well done, Hitdice!) I guess my point is that over-familiarity is flame bait. Some of the people on these boards (Doodlebug) will favorite some very insulting posts which specifically name him, because we both know it's all in fun. Other posters (nameless to protect the innocent) will flag my most innocuous statements of agreement, just because I rub them the wrong way. My point is, different treatment doesn't have to be a conspiracy of the mods, it could well be a ghost in the machine.
Edit: On the other hand, that dude Matt Thomason probably oughtta be burned at the stake out of hand just for ninja-ing me and ruining the flow of conversation. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that's the case, Dungrun, I think posts about specific posters are probably deleted based on whether the poster who's named feels that the post is flag-worthy. (Aaand I just used the word "post" so many times, that sentence doesn't make sense at all; Well done, Hitdice!) I guess my point is that over-familiarity is flame bait. Some of the people on these boards (Doodlebug) will favorite some very insulting posts which specifically name him, because we both know it's all in fun. Other posters (nameless to protect the innocent) will flag my most innocuous statements of agreement, just because I rub them the wrong way. My point is, different treatment doesn't have to be a conspiracy of the mods, it could well be a ghost in the machine.
Edit: On the other hand, that dude Matt Thomason probably oughtta be burned at the stake out of hand just for ninja-ing me and ruining the flow of conversation. :P
D: And here's me just clicked to favorite your post. Right, where's "flag"... ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Ross - You make a valid point, especially about it being hard to act on that observation. For instance, the Grappling a Succubus thread just keeps going and going and probably doesn't need to be stopped. Other times, I've come into a multi-page thread only to discover that the original question is answered explicitly in the rules/FAQ but no one looked it up so they're all busy arguing the merits of their own concoctions, but then the thread wraps up nicely once the relevant citation is provided. Both seem like Good Things, but could become collateral damage if any sort of hard policy on thread length were enforced.
Not sure what to do with that. :/
Um, what you just described as your ideal Rules forum is actually exactly what the existing collection of official FAQs already is. Are you wanting a second one, or were you perhaps unaware of the existing FAQ? Or am I misunderstanding you?In regards to the Rules forum, it should either be eliminated, or changed to one question and one answer only per thread.
.....If the rule gets enough FAQs to require a staff response, the OP and the answer to the OP are created as a thread in the Rules forum. This would provide a forum of all staff-responded FAQs.
I believe, like me, he's saying a forum isn't really the best tool for handling a question/answer format. Currently it's far more "rules discussion and arguments" than "rules questions and answers". A typical player coming here for an answer and searching the forum is unlikely to want to trawl through X00 pages of conversation just to find out how a rule works.
Being able to automatically filter out the chatter and see what the suggested answers are (and they can only ever really be suggestions, unless made by Paizo staff, because half the time the player base can't agree on a single answer) would be a huge benefit. It may also have a beneficial side-effect of cutting down on the hostility in said arguments if it focused on providing answers rather than shooting other people's answers down.
^^^^^^ This.
What I'd love is a thread that allows you to ask questions, ala the way we do with James, and have it be about rules. Or multiple threads. Not for people to debate their views on the rules but for someone on staff to definitively answer. Instead, what we have is someone asks a question and it turns into page after page of less than useful information and hedge cases.
It wouldn't even have to be a lot at first. A question a day, or every other day, or a week. Actual useful information instead of pages of arguing over what someone believes is the correct answer and how dumb they are for even suggesting that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ross - You make a valid point, especially about it being hard to act on that observation. For instance, the Grappling a Succubus thread just keeps going and going and probably doesn't need to be stopped. Other times, I've come into a multi-page thread only to discover that the original question is answered explicitly in the rules/FAQ but no one looked it up so they're all busy arguing the merits of their own concoctions, but then the thread wraps up nicely once the relevant citation is provided. Both seem like Good Things, but could become collateral damage if any sort of hard policy on thread length were enforced.
Not sure what to do with that. :/
I think the best answer, for the rules forum specifically, has been suggested: A StackOverflow-like interface designed to bubble the best, most correct answer to the top, while not actually resembling a forum for a long argument. At worst, you get two or three different interpretations fighting for the top spot, not 500 posts of 'Is too!/Is not!'
Unfortunately, that might be a bit of a stretch, technical implementation wise.
I'm not sure that's the case, Dungrun, I think posts about specific posters are probably deleted based on whether the poster who's named feels that the post is flag-worthy. (Aaand I just used the word "post" so many times, that sentence doesn't make sense at all; Well done, Hitdice!) I guess my point is that over-familiarity is flame bait. Some of the people on these boards (Doodlebug) will favorite some very insulting posts which specifically name him, because we both know it's all in fun. Other posters (nameless to protect the innocent) will flag my most innocuous statements of agreement, just because I rub them the wrong way. My point is, different treatment doesn't have to be a conspiracy of the mods, it could well be a ghost in the machine.
Edit: On the other hand, that dude Matt Thomason probably oughtta be burned at the stake out of hand just for ninja-ing me and ruining the flow of conversation. :P
As a side question, how do you know if your post has been flagged? How do you know who flagged it?
As a side question, how do you know if your post has been flagged? How do you know who flagged it?
You don't know, unless a mod tells you. But sometimes it is possible to guess.
As a side question, how do you know if your post has been flagged? How do you know who flagged it?I'm not sure that's the case, Dungrun, I think posts about specific posters are probably deleted based on whether the poster who's named feels that the post is flag-worthy. (Aaand I just used the word "post" so many times, that sentence doesn't make sense at all; Well done, Hitdice!) I guess my point is that over-familiarity is flame bait. Some of the people on these boards (Doodlebug) will favorite some very insulting posts which specifically name him, because we both know it's all in fun. Other posters (nameless to protect the innocent) will flag my most innocuous statements of agreement, just because I rub them the wrong way. My point is, different treatment doesn't have to be a conspiracy of the mods, it could well be a ghost in the machine.
Edit: On the other hand, that dude Matt Thomason probably oughtta be burned at the stake out of hand just for ninja-ing me and ruining the flow of conversation. :P
I don't think the mechanism to know that is available to anyone but mods, if even them. (If I'm wrong, please, anyone, tell me where to find that button!)
I don't think the mechanism to know that is available to anyone but mods, if even them. (If I'm wrong, please, anyone, tell me where to find that button!)As a side question, how do you know if your post has been flagged? How do you know who flagged it?I'm not sure that's the case, Dungrun, I think posts about specific posters are probably deleted based on whether the poster who's named feels that the post is flag-worthy. (Aaand I just used the word "post" so many times, that sentence doesn't make sense at all; Well done, Hitdice!) I guess my point is that over-familiarity is flame bait. Some of the people on these boards (Doodlebug) will favorite some very insulting posts which specifically name him, because we both know it's all in fun. Other posters (nameless to protect the innocent) will flag my most innocuous statements of agreement, just because I rub them the wrong way. My point is, different treatment doesn't have to be a conspiracy of the mods, it could well be a ghost in the machine.
Edit: On the other hand, that dude Matt Thomason probably oughtta be burned at the stake out of hand just for ninja-ing me and ruining the flow of conversation. :P
That was my understanding as well. I was just confused because your statement even discussed attributing motives to those who flagged your posts. It struck me as odd.