No longer enjoying the messageboards as much.


Website Feedback

251 to 300 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I'm not even sick, I've had a bit of nasal congestion.

Yes, you are -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have left the forums with the exception of PbP. I find that I can now focus on my love of the game and leave all the negative crap dead and buried. I find it hard to believe that anyone has a problem with how to handle a "problem" player or a rule you disagree with. Is it really that hard to reason out what needs to be done?
Talk to the player like an adult.
If the problem continues, kick out the player.
If it is not within your power to remove the problem player, leave the group and find another.

Another favorite of mine is the "This....needs to change" I'm sorry that Paizo hasn't created a game that meets your specific criteria. Use rule zero It is not up to the game creators to tailor their game to your specific likes and dislikes. They present a setting and rule system that they like and think is creative and filled with opportunity and flavor. If you wish to implement changes to suit your group do it. If you are playing PFS either play by their rules or don't play. This isn't brain surgery

It goes without saying that if I never see another Paladin falls, alignment, C/MD, rules minutia, bloat, politics and the various politically correct garbage threads I'll be better off.

Thank You Paizo for a wonderful product


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You couldn't stop by FaWtL?

Still, good to see you're doing well. :-)

We do miss you though. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tin Foil Yamakah wrote:
the various politically correct garbage threads

*Pokes head out of trashcan* I resemble that remark.

Project Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.

My browser plug-in that changes "political correctness" to "treating people with respect" would have had a field day if that post had been phrased slightly differently. :-)


Wheeewww...that was close ;)

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'LL TELL A POLITICALLY INCORRECT JOKE

WHAT DOES 'MURICAN BEER AND HAVING SWEET LOVE IN A CANOE HAVE IN COMMON?

WELL THEY'RE BOTH FRACKING CLOSE TO WATER!

Sovereign Court

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

To be fair, "fracking close to water" is one of our fastest-growing industries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
To be fair, "fracking close to water" is one of our fastest-growing industries.

Cue rimshot

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Rather, I think that the mindsets and attitudes that are at the root of a lot of the issues were always here, but weren't causing "problems" because those toxic mindsets were shared by what used to be a majority. Then, as new blood came into the community, that majority status diminished, and those toxic mindsets started to feel some serious pushback for the first time.

Dunno, I remember a lot of those "toxic mindsets" coming new to the boards when PFRPG was announced, so you may have phrased your post as a bit too one-sided.

Depending on what you would identify as toxic, I also would say that (for example as far as inclusivity is concerned) back in the day, that topic simply didn't come up as often if at all, so if some of the board members would have had a toxic mindset about this topic, others simply wouldn't have known about it. (I would have never agreed with someone behaving in an uninclusive way even then, but that's generally not what we talked about, so there was nothing to agree or disagree with)

But basically, I think that this problem may be a simple matter of size. When I came here, the community was relatively small. We didn't need much moderation and if we did, it happened in a very informal way (for example Erik chiming in to remember us to be nice with eachother). It was much easier to feel connected to the community because you met the same people over and over again, so it felt more like you knew the people you talked with.

Then PFRPG happened and the forums exploded with new members. Suddenly you communicated with a lot of people who didn't "know" you which could easily lead to misunderstandings. And you're right it also lead to kind of a clash of cultures because most people who where there before PFRPG where here for the setting and the adventures, and suddenly a lot of people came here who were mostly interested in the rules part of the game. Both can come with a toxic mindset, I'm not denying that, but to be honest, I find it a bit insulting that you seem to single the old community out as the main culprit and it certainly is not true that we are more "racist" in our views than the rules people.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Let's not go down that hole tonight.


Yeah I feel like I Haven't seen captain yesterday since he smurfed me.


Jessica Price wrote:
My browser plug-in that changes "political correctness" to "treating people with respect" would have had a field day if that post had been phrased slightly differently. :-)

I prefer to replace it with either "Player Character" or "Personal Computer."


Gorbacz wrote:
Let's not go down that hole tonight.

OR ever.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

@WormysQueue — I think we may be having a miscommunication here. First of all, in case there's any confusion on this point, I wasn't saying that the older community was racist, or even that whatever unhealthy attitudes existed among them were comparable to racism. Rather, the analogy was about how the absence of conflict does not indicate an absence of toxic mindsets or factually incorrect beliefs. Or to put it another way, an increase in arguments on topic X might not be due to people getting more argumentative or the community having more argumentative people in it; it might be due to the original population mostly agreeing with each other on the same wrong idea about X, never encountering any resistance to their belief until the community started to fill with larger numbers of people who had a better understanding of X. If you'll permit a bit of oversimplification: a community where everybody's right and a community where everybody's wrong will both have the same level of apparent "peace". But the bigger the community, the less likely it will fall into either category.

Second, please note that I specified I was only referring to a subset of topics, not everything. Perhaps this would have been clearer if I had listed out the specific topics I had in mind, but at the time I was concerned this would start fresh arguments here, so I hoped that simply announcing that the scope of my assertion was limited would be sufficient. Apparently it wasn't.

Does that help?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I feel like I Haven't seen captain yesterday since he smurfed me.

That doesn't sound like anything I would do.

Are you sure it was me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

It always interests me when people say that this forum's community is unusually hostile or unpleasant.

This is one of the most highly moderated and generally speaking tame forums I've ever been on. It's also, despite people claiming everybody is negative against Paizo, one of the communities that's the most allegiant to the company it's based around (with the exception of the Bioware forums where it was hard to ask a question without 10 people showing up to slobber knob and berate the person who asked it for daring to question the great developer. Those boards don't exist any more.).

It depends on where you go, which in turn depends on what you are willing to put up with. Paizo is definitely the most hostile online community that I visit with any degree of regularity. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the most hostile place on the internet. I simply don't go to communities with more toxicity than Paizo.com.


Meh, I get worse on my Facebook feed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Pathfinder is the only online community I visit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I've never found it to be "toxic" a little contentious certainly, sometimes a little randy, but never really toxic.


Yeah some of those Facebook people act as if their only joy in life is creating misery in others. Honestly I feel like you guys are pretty chill with a few exceptions.


captain yesterday wrote:
Pathfinder is the only online community I visit.

Me too.


captain yesterday wrote:
Pathfinder is the only online community I visit.

No Smurfs eeesshhh, slackin capn. ..

Ah there it is :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I've never found it to be "toxic" a little contentious certainly, sometimes a little randy, but never really toxic.

I was on the WotC boards back in the day, that place could be pretty toxic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have to agree with Sundakan, Paizo is one of the least toxic places I go on the internet on a regular basis. My Facebook feed is far worse than this, and with most video games I play I'm lucky to get through a match without someone telling me how they f++*ed my mother, so I consider Paizo pretty tame. One of the few places that I think is actually better than Paizo is r/Nerf on Reddit, but that place is generally pretty tame because it was spawned to get away from a far more toxic community (NerfHaven) and so things are a little calmer. RPoL is a place I used to go that's way more toxic than things I've seen here, in my opinion.

Point being, I feel that this community is by far more tame than most, and calling it "toxic" is kind of a stretch. That label often just gets attached to things that people don't like personally as opposed to it really be 'bad' or 'wrong', without it really being something that should actually be considered problematic. I do mostly come to the boards to post in PbP, to be perfectly honest, but I do often lurk in other parts of the boards and take a look around. I... haven't seen much that I'd consider 'toxic', although I do sometimes see people being jerks. A lot of people are jerks in the world through, myself sometimes too frequently included, so I suggest just doing your best to ignore it. Sometimes people are jerks for reasons in their lives you would not begin to understand, and labeling them as "toxic" is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of people and usually just makes things worse. There are some people who are just bad to the bone, but they're typically few and very far between in my experience. Most people are not cackling DnD villains, after all, who revel in being evil and making you upset on an internet forum.

I do meet a few people in PbP who I don't get along with much, but I have a really simple way of fixing it; I don't game with them anymore. If I'm the GM I tell them to leave my games, and if I'm a player I usually let the GM know we've been having problems (if they aren't already aware) and ask them to please attempt to mediate the situation. If that doesn't work, one of us will usually leave, and I have no problem with it being me. I come here to play games, not deal with people I don't like. I do enough of that in real life.


Storyteller Shadow wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Pathfinder is the only online community I visit.
Me too.

Same here. Or at the very least the only one I visit regularly and I am actually interested in doing so.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

@WormysQueue — I think we may be having a miscommunication here. First of all, in case there's any confusion on this point, I wasn't saying that the older community was racist, or even that whatever unhealthy attitudes existed among them were comparable to racism. Rather, the analogy was about how the absence of conflict does not indicate an absence of toxic mindsets or factually incorrect beliefs. Or to put it another way, an increase in arguments on topic X might not be due to people getting more argumentative or the community having more argumentative people in it; it might be due to the original population mostly agreeing with each other on the same wrong idea about X, never encountering any resistance to their belief until the community started to fill with larger numbers of people who had a better understanding of X. If you'll permit a bit of oversimplification: a community where everybody's right and a community where everybody's wrong will both have the same level of apparent "peace". But the bigger the community, the less likely it will fall into either category.

Second, please note that I specified I was only referring to a subset of topics, not everything. Perhaps this would have been clearer if I had listed out the specific topics I had in mind, but at the time I was concerned this would start fresh arguments here, so I hoped that simply announcing that the scope of my assertion was limited would be sufficient. Apparently it wasn't.

Does that help?

It did indeed, so thank you for that. I read more generalisation in it than you obviously meant, and I'm still not sure about the idea that it is the original population that is wrong, when something like this comes up, but that's also something hard to judge without going into more detail (and depending on your list of topics, I might even agree with you).

Also I reread your post and stumbled about your parenthetical comment "since I've been here at least". This made me take a look at your posts and I found out that our differences might stem from the simple fact that I started posting here around 2005, when you're first post stems from 2011. I guess that necessarily leads to different perspectives, and I happily admit that you're perspective of the last five years certainly is better than mine, because you were a very active forum member during those years whereas I was not.

As I alluded to in my first post in this thread, for me the forums took a turn to the worse when the PFRPG open beta started. I really don't think that the forums today are nearly as bad as they were then (before Paizo started a more heavy-handed moderation approach), but if they are worse than 2011, I really cannot say.

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a couple posts. If you have feedback about a specific series of posts/product reviews like this, it's probably best sent to community@paizo.com for review.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fake Healer wrote:
It seemed like most threads lasted about 6-7 posts before someone was letting fly with some sort of viciousness.

A horrifying sign of the times. It is not just here, as we are a niche site, but a whole BLM vs Trump vs anti-Trump vs Commies hacking vs whatever broke out on a flipping gardening board! A dozen posts about winter garden work over three weeks and then 300 posts since NYDay! And they shut down the site before I got the tilling thread copied.

The Golem is good at snuffing out flame wars and keeping it civil. I got trolled on another site by an AHole that was just slamming any and all advice to the OP. I got a PM that this was an old trick of his and he was really the OP.

Said: I still fish on all the threads, as I find rare catches from all manner of folks.

Sovereign Court

Which is why the poli-thread ban is bad. Folks need an outlet so they don't threadcrap and get things modded or locked. Though I can see how a blanket ban for the time being could be useful like many sites did in the E-wars of 2008. Hopefully the ban is only temporary though and poli-topics stop popping up in random threads. IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the key dilemma for Paizo is maintaining a welcoming environment and remaining impartial between all sides. That can lead to problems if one side does something inherently "unwelcoming".

As a silly example, what if Democrats really did declare war on Christmas? Suddenly Christians are feeling very threatened, and if Paizo remains "impartial", you have one side of the argument directly attacking a religious tradition without getting called out on it. And if Paizo disciplines those who advocate the war, suddenly they've been forced to take a side to say "this other side is bigoted".

Politics are getting very hard to stay impartial about.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You say your example is "silly", but people actually believe that. How far do you go to remain neutral so everyone feels welcome all the time? I'd prefer grounds were its expected that folks can easily ignore poli-threads and mods can dedicate their time accordingly. Community members can direct folks and flag accordingly as well. Right now its snipe season in rules/advice/gamer talk to draw mod action and ban hammers.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If some posters are so frustrated that they can't talk about politics here that they're taking it out in places like the Rules forum, maybe they need to visit another site where they kinda stuff is generally acceptable. Paizo has made it clear that they don't want a bunch of poli-grar here anymore.

-Skeld


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think the key dilemma for Paizo is maintaining a welcoming environment and remaining impartial between all sides. That can lead to problems if one side does something inherently "unwelcoming".

As a silly example, what if Democrats really did declare war on Christmas? Suddenly Christians are feeling very threatened, and if Paizo remains "impartial", you have one side of the argument directly attacking a religious tradition without getting called out on it. And if Paizo disciplines those who advocate the war, suddenly they've been forced to take a side to say "this other side is bigoted".

Politics are getting very hard to stay impartial about.

I just want to thank Pan for saying it so I didn't have too.

Dark Archive

I wonder if anyone has done studies on reasons why forum interaction and face-to-face interaction goes rather differently .-. Like, I've been informed of neurobiology stuff by nurse I've been visiting due to my anxiety related stuff and they said that due to way brain works, you can't actual learn important stuff related to social interaction through internet(unless I remember wrong what they said) because mirror neurons don't active and stuff. Is this toxic behaviour stuff related to that stuff?


CorvusMask wrote:
I wonder if anyone has done studies on reasons why forum interaction and face-to-face interaction goes rather differently .-. Like, I've been informed of neurobiology stuff by nurse I've been visiting due to my anxiety related stuff and they said that due to way brain works, you can't actual learn important stuff related to social interaction through internet(unless I remember wrong what they said) because mirror neurons don't active and stuff. Is this toxic behaviour stuff related to that stuff?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect


Yeah i can't figure out how to turn that into a link just google Online_disinhibition_effect

Dark Archive

Vidmaster7 wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I wonder if anyone has done studies on reasons why forum interaction and face-to-face interaction goes rather differently .-. Like, I've been informed of neurobiology stuff by nurse I've been visiting due to my anxiety related stuff and they said that due to way brain works, you can't actual learn important stuff related to social interaction through internet(unless I remember wrong what they said) because mirror neurons don't active and stuff. Is this toxic behaviour stuff related to that stuff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

Well, interesting to hear that was a thing back when radios were a big thing O_o; Another proof that world doesn't change along with technology I guess?


Well some things change and some stay the same.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just the same as over the phone. Let´s say i have a job where i get calls from people from different countries in europe a lot, especially UK though.
Besides teaching me how "brexit" was/is possible, it´s pretty clear that most of those people loose any respect and tell you things they would never face to face. Well some probably would. I also came to understand the term microaggressions really. Daresay this has a huge influence on me and my behaviour overall.
Some of that stuff i see on the forum here as well.
There´s just lacking empathy, instead big "alpha" like stances and a "here i come and i want this, else...".
Internet and the glorification of misunderstood anxiety and introverts bring forth the age of the social inept ruling it seems.
And that´s on totally different "sides" of every spectrum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well some things change and some stay the same.

That never changes.


Hunt, the PugWumpus wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well some things change and some stay the same.
That never changes.

But some things change, and... others don't.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah i can't figure out how to turn that into a link just google Online_disinhibition_effect

More reading at Know Your Meme: Greater Internet F***wad Theory. (NSFW)

The Exchange

WormysQueue wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

@WormysQueue — I think we may be having a miscommunication here. First of all, in case there's any confusion on this point, I wasn't saying that the older community was racist, or even that whatever unhealthy attitudes existed among them were comparable to racism. Rather, the analogy was about how the absence of conflict does not indicate an absence of toxic mindsets or factually incorrect beliefs. Or to put it another way, an increase in arguments on topic X might not be due to people getting more argumentative or the community having more argumentative people in it; it might be due to the original population mostly agreeing with each other on the same wrong idea about X, never encountering any resistance to their belief until the community started to fill with larger numbers of people who had a better understanding of X. If you'll permit a bit of oversimplification: a community where everybody's right and a community where everybody's wrong will both have the same level of apparent "peace". But the bigger the community, the less likely it will fall into either category.

Second, please note that I specified I was only referring to a subset of topics, not everything. Perhaps this would have been clearer if I had listed out the specific topics I had in mind, but at the time I was concerned this would start fresh arguments here, so I hoped that simply announcing that the scope of my assertion was limited would be sufficient. Apparently it wasn't.

Does that help?

It did indeed, so thank you for that. I read more generalisation in it than you obviously meant, and I'm still not sure about the idea that it is the original population that is wrong, when something like this comes up, but that's also something hard to judge without going into more detail (and depending on your list of topics, I might even agree with you).

Also I reread your post and stumbled about your parenthetical comment "since I've been here at least". This made me take a look at your posts and I found...

I've given up posting on the boards anymore - for most of the same reasons as Jiggy. I started posting back in 2010, and was very shocked at the time with the environment (yeah, "Toxic" would describe it...).

It has gotten better over the years... but it used to be really bad. So is better good?

Anyway, I'm not really sure why I chimed in here - Perhaps just to support Jiggy. He's often very insightful on things, and has a way of seeing to the core of the issue.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think the key dilemma for Paizo is maintaining a welcoming environment and remaining impartial between all sides. That can lead to problems if one side does something inherently "unwelcoming".

As a silly example, what if Democrats really did declare war on Christmas? Suddenly Christians are feeling very threatened, and if Paizo remains "impartial", you have one side of the argument directly attacking a religious tradition without getting called out on it. And if Paizo disciplines those who advocate the war, suddenly they've been forced to take a side to say "this other side is bigoted".

Politics are getting very hard to stay impartial about.

Politics were always hard to be impartial about. Social media and 24/7 news feeds exacerbate the problem so it is more in our face now than ever before.

Project Manager

9 people marked this as a favorite.

No one was ever impartial about politics. There is no such thing.

Being in favor of maintaining the status quo has often been portrayed as being impartial, but it's no more objective/impartial/neutral than being in favor of changing it.

251 to 300 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / No longer enjoying the messageboards as much. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.