| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be a marked increase of closed threads under the guise of “this thread is no longer productive, feel free to try again”. Well, those posting in the thread obviously feel it has merits or they wouldn’t be doing it. I understand shutting down a thread that has devolved into acerbic name calling, bullying etc, but it feels to me like Paizo is increasingly trying to steer the conversation. Their boards, their rules, fine. But it seems disingenuous to put out a play test, which many have paid for, ask for input and then actively shut down some of the discourse on the product you claim to want feedback on.
I think it would be great if board users could decide what topics are worthwhile of discussion and not have an active topic closed because of reasons.
Basically put other products in your thread it will probably get shut down. Makes sense to me... They dont want to promote other products
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically put other products in your thread it will probably get shut down. Makes sense to me... They dont want to promote other products
While what you said generally makes sense, much of what has been shut down is comparisons to 4E, a dead system. As far as comparisons to 5e goes, a Paizo employee was on the boards the other day saying a healthy 5e is great for Paizo, so I don’t understand the reticence of allowing comparisons to D&D.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edition warring is specifically prohibited on these boards, and "X is like 4e" is not an argument without some implication about whether 4e is good or bad.
Which is to say that it's completely unnecessary to invoke other editions of other games when making a criticism or observation about this game. One can say "classes are too homogeneous" and just leave out the "just like 4e" part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For D&D 4E, the issue is "edition warring". I think Sara Marie actually explained the problem pretty well in the post where she closed the last such thread.
I have made numerous references to previous editions of various game systems and not gotten in trouble for it -- probably because I refrained from following them up with "This unpopular game system did X, and therefore X is a bad idea."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their boards, their rules, fine. But it seems disingenuous to put out a play test, which many have paid for, ask for input and then actively shut down some of the discourse on the product you claim to want feedback on.
I think it would be great if board users could decide what topics are worthwhile of discussion and not have an active topic closed because of reasons.
I'd generally agree with this statement, but most of these threads are just repeating talking points that have been made dozens, if not more, times and than ending in circular arguments. Just look at the last couple of posts about AoOs in the 4e thread, which is neither helpful nor productive, so I don't mind shutting that kind of "discussion" down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd generally agree with this statement, but most of these threads are just repeating talking points that have been made dozens, if not more, times and than ending in circular arguments. Just look at the last couple of posts about AoOs in the 4e thread, which is neither helpful nor productive, so I don't mind shutting that kind of "discussion" down.
While I agree that 90% of the stuff on these boards is non productive, my own posting included, I dont see the harm in allowing the discussion to take place between parties with interest in continuing. Additionally, I don’t think it’s good optics for Paizo to be steering the conversation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparisons are not inherently wrong, especially if presented in a non-hysterical edition warrior style.
But here, are they useful? I have not seen any comparisons here to another game that were more helpful than "just explaining the issue in the context of this game". More often than not people will just make vague allusions to another game in order to marshal people to support them (there was a lot of "this seems suspicionsly like [game]" in the lead up to the release.)
Like "+1/level for everything is a problem" can be explained in terms of verisimilitude, oddities with applying this to monsters (Kaiju are really good at hiding), or issues with the success rate math. It does not need a comparison to "well, 4e did +Level/2 to everything..."
Ya, some folks just seem like they want to agitate now.
The devs have put out clear design goals. Making comments just deriding those goals or design elements that reflect them does not seem productive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, yes most of what is said is not useful and there are some agitators out there. I agree. But why lock threads? What is the issue with allowing a non productive conversation to happen? If useful and non conflagratory is the bar we need to clear, you can erase most of the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd generally agree with this statement, but most of these threads are just repeating talking points that have been made dozens, if not more, times and than ending in circular arguments. Just look at the last couple of posts about AoOs in the 4e thread, which is neither helpful nor productive, so I don't mind shutting that kind of "discussion" down.Their boards, their rules, fine. But it seems disingenuous to put out a play test, which many have paid for, ask for input and then actively shut down some of the discourse on the product you claim to want feedback on.
I think it would be great if board users could decide what topics are worthwhile of discussion and not have an active topic closed because of reasons.
I'm not sure if I did something wrong there. If that's the case, I'm sorry. It was never meant to bother anyone. I mean, a question gets asked, I try to reply to the best of my ability. Do you think I shouldn't have answered the questions that were being asked?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I spend quite of bit of time playtesting this game. I am running another group through DD starting this Sunday. I reflect on my experience each time and make constructive posts to try to convey my experience running the game to the devs so they can make the best game they can while meeting their design goals.
Other folks do that and more. They put out play reports, player feedback, they math out design elements and tie that to their experience and so on.
Having these sorts of productive posts be drowned out by unproductive white noise does not in any way help the playtest. It hurts it. So, ya, that nonsense gets locked and I am sure bans will justifiably start to follow.
I spend quite of bit of time playtesting this game. I am running another group through DD starting this Sunday. I reflect on my experience each time and make constructive posts to try to convey my experience running the game to the devs so they can make the best game they can while meeting their design goals.
Other folks do that and more. They put out play reports, player feedback, they math out design elements and tie that to their experience and so on.
Having these sorts of productive posts be drowned out by unproductive white noise does not in any way help the playtest. It hurts it. So, ya, that nonsense gets locked and I am sure bans will justifiable start to follow.
Ok, that’s reasonable. I thought Paizo was taking their feedback through surveys and the actual playtest reports. I thought the boards were just for b~*+*#&#ting about the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My greatest problem with the threads on these boards is that, through no fault of anyone, a large number of topics are rapidly becoming unusable to me, because my group doesn't meet weekly to go through the playtest, and an increasing amount of discussion involves the later chapters which I don't want to spoil for myself. Further, a lot of discussion is not so much about getting the most out of using or minorly tweaking the rules as they are, but about dissecting the same five or six major subsystems repeatedly. :-( I think it's because due to recent schedules, I'm spending too much time discussing and too little time playing...
Answering with dishonesty (silliness) and evasion, I think was a problem.I'm not sure if I did something wrong there. If that's the case, I'm sorry. It was never meant to bother anyone. I mean, a question gets asked, I try to reply to the best of my ability. Do you think I shouldn't have answered the questions that were being asked?I'd generally agree with this statement, but most of these threads are just repeating talking points that have been made dozens, if not more, times and than ending in circular arguments. Just look at the last couple of posts about AoOs in the 4e thread, which is neither helpful nor productive, so I don't mind shutting that kind of "discussion" down.Their boards, their rules, fine. But it seems disingenuous to put out a play test, which many have paid for, ask for input and then actively shut down some of the discourse on the product you claim to want feedback on.
I think it would be great if board users could decide what topics are worthwhile of discussion and not have an active topic closed because of reasons.
I was neither dishonest or evasive and in all honesty I'm still wondering what exactly you didn't understand. I fully believe everything i said and I would explain it again if asked to
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with that thread is that the quote train had no brakes. Geeze, prune your posts to just the relevant stuff.
It was also a thread that quickly devolved into arguments and I think the closing post clearly spelled out why it was closed and what a new thread would need to adjust to be allowed.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think shutting down a thread because it's unproductive is a good idea. If people are positing on that thread, then those people think it's productive. They think it's a good use of their time to read and contribute to the thread.
Why shut that down? Just because it's discussing something that is uncomfortable (but not abusive or disrespectful) for the developers or other community members? Sometimes discussing uncomfortable topics is the best way to reveal and address issues.
I also don't think it's a good idea to shut down a thread based on "This has been discussed dozens of times before..." I don't know for sure if that ever happens but people on THIS thread are saying that's a valid reason, and I disagree.
Not everyone has read those dozens of other threads. Somebody today might be new here and interested in the topic.
So calling it unproductive (when people are still actively discussing it) or repetitive (when people might not even know previous threads exist) are both, to me, invalid reasons for locking a thread.
Makes me sad whenever those happen, or whenever somebody posts that they're OK with it.
I say, as much as possible, let the First Amendment dictate which threads are good. Namely, all of them. Shut down threads or delete posts when members are abusive or disrespectful to each other or make personal attacks on developers.
But please, don't shut down differing opinions, or even uncomfortable opinions, during a playtest. That's got to be literally the last thing a company would want to do. That is, if they want honest feedback to help create a better product.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think shutting down a thread because it's unproductive is a good idea. If people are positing on that thread, then those people think it's productive. They think it's a good use of their time to read and contribute to the thread.
I wish I shared your optimism.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was neither dishonest or evasive and in all honesty I'm still wondering what exactly you didn't understand. I fully believe everything i said and I would explain it again if asked to
I found the discussion and read through it. All I understood from you is that "it is interesting because it is interesting".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shutting down threads just because they are unproductive is probably not a good idea -- after all, that would eliminate most of the Off-Topic Discussion forum.
But shutting down threads because they are actually counterproductive and/or are demanding too much in the way of moderation resources is another matter entirely.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say, as much as possible, let the First Amendment dictate which threads are good.
This isn't public space, this is private property. Paizo has its own goals for this forum and hosting arguments about Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition is not among them. It is entirely reasonable for them close threads that do not meet their goals for this space and they've clearly explained the reasons behind each closed thread. Free speech does not mean free hosting or free broadcasting.
The alternative moderation technique is to combine new threads on a topic with old dead threads that are too long for anyone to really join in on. Of the two, I think I prefer locking and encouraging a do over.
Or just do nothing and have a bunch of very similar discussions of little value all over the first page. I'd say more, but threads about moderation tend to be short lived.
I say, as much as possible, let the First Amendment dictate which threads are good. Namely, all of them. Shut down threads or delete posts when members are abusive or disrespectful to each other or make personal attacks on developers.
Well counting that we are in their community with what i would say are at least 20-30% of non-Americans(Myself included) that do not even know what first amendment is and counting the fact that they have a vested interest in keeping it polite, productive, constructive besides making sure the best posts are the ones being seen not the ones with... This is my idea of what is good and is 'insert thing here' and why PF2 is s$@&. I don't think it's a good idea to let it run mostly rampant for them.
I do not believe that and you explained nothing.I was neither dishonest or evasive and in all honesty I'm still wondering what exactly you didn't understand. I fully believe everything i said and I would explain it again if asked toAnswering with dishonesty (silliness) and evasion, I think was a problem.I'm not sure if I did something wrong there. If that's the case, I'm sorry. It was never meant to bother anyone. I mean, a question gets asked, I try to reply to the best of my ability. Do you think I shouldn't have answered the questions that were being asked?I'd generally agree with this statement, but most of these threads are just repeating talking points that have been made dozens, if not more, times and than ending in circular arguments. Just look at the last couple of posts about AoOs in the 4e thread, which is neither helpful nor productive, so I don't mind shutting that kind of "discussion" down.Their boards, their rules, fine. But it seems disingenuous to put out a play test, which many have paid for, ask for input and then actively shut down some of the discourse on the product you claim to want feedback on.
I think it would be great if board users could decide what topics are worthwhile of discussion and not have an active topic closed because of reasons.
I agree with Vic on this one... That was literally an example of keep an discursion going while not adding anything. The answers you gave were mostly 'look my answer before' or 'well this that' Instead of something productive.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say, as much as possible, let the First Amendment dictate which threads are good.
Okay, so we can agree that the U.S. Government cannot lock threads on Paizo's forum or punish people for making bad posts, but this is not a restriction on Paizo mods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say more, but threads about moderation tend to be short lived.
Unless the OP posts them at the end of the business day on a Friday knowing that Customer Service will be off for the weekend.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, yes most of what is said is not useful and there are some agitators out there. I agree. But why lock threads? What is the issue with allowing a non productive conversation to happen? If useful and non conflagratory is the bar we need to clear, you can erase most of the internet.
You’re saying this like it’s a bad thing?
Director of Game Design
|
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there all,
These boards are here to discuss the playtest and to give feedback in a more freeform manner. Some threads go off the rails, turning into spats between posters, or seem designed to theorycraft about house rules for a game that is not yet final.
When me and the design staff come to these boards looking for productive threads about the playtest, but find the boards littered with off topic discussions, the boards are not meeting our goals. This goes double for when other participants of the playtest come here and are unable to find productive discussions.
These boards in particular are not like the others on this site. These boards are here to serve the purpose of the playtest.
I try to keep a pretty liberal view on what threads can continue, but when a thread is started whose entire purpose is to do something with the game that we simply cannot do, there is little point in encouraging that discussion to continue.
It's a fine line. Not everyone will see it the same way that we will. We get that.. which is why it is something I try to use infrequently, but when a thread is deeply meandering off topic and is mostly being used for posters to snipe at each other, its probably time for it to move on. There are other places on the forums for that sort of banter.
I hope that clears it up a bit.
Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, when a thread generates and sustains a significant amount of flags because people are devolving into bickering or edition warring, etc, I may lock it because I cannot keep wading through the thread figuring out if a boarderline comment is okay or needs to be removed. We do not have a full time dedicated moderator on staff. Myself and my team split our time between customer service, moderation and PaizoCon, so its hard to return to threads over and over and spend time getting reacquainted with what's going on to cause flags when we know we have other critical tasks waiting.
Forum moderation on paizo.com is an evolving process. For the paizo.com Community branch of my job, updating our community guidelines, looking at the forums and subform layouts and purposes as well as some features to make moderation less onerous are some of the top things my list.
One thing I have started trying to do recently is add a [Closed] tag at the beginning of the subject line of a thread. So the number of closed threads is also more visible when just viewing the forums, where previously it was less clear what threads were locked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the Closed tag. Its good to know what threads I shouldn't waste my time with.
Just to respond, yeah, I know the First Amendment relates to government, not private entities. I was not trying to imply that the First Amendment is applicable here.
I'm just saying that the First Amendment is a good idea for good reasons. Those same reasons apply here, and adjudicating forums after the same fashion and to the same standard that we hold our government isn't a bad idea.
In fact, it's good for the community and good for Paizo.
And yes, I specifically excluded abusive threads from that protection as other rights to not be abused (even verbally) should take precedence in those cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have started trying to do recently is add a [Closed] tag at the beginning of the subject line of a thread. So the number of closed threads is also more visible when just viewing the forums, where previously it was less clear what threads were locked.
This is a typically excellent innovation.
One thing I have started trying to do recently is add a [Closed] tag at the beginning of the subject line of a thread. So the number of closed threads is also more visible when just viewing the forums, where previously it was less clear what threads were locked.
That is indeed much appreciated and it is in fact often an automatic feature of many forums. It should probably be considered for implementation here, too, if it hasn't already.
Is it possible with this boards software to auto-hide closed threads? Or to opt into such? Since I know they will invariably fall down the forum, but at least in the near term it would reduce clutter.
Just to respond, yeah, I know the First Amendment relates to government, not private entities. I was not trying to imply that the First Amendment is applicable here.
I'm just saying that the First Amendment is a good idea for good reasons. Those same reasons apply here, and adjudicating forums after the same fashion and to the same standard that we hold our government isn't a bad idea.
In fact, it's good for the community and good for Paizo.
And yes, I specifically excluded abusive threads from that protection as other rights to not be abused (even verbally) should take precedence in those cases.
I just don't see any reason for paizo to keep unproductive threads on their forums... I mean if a thread is useless to them, especially when they need threads that are productive to have a high visibility so that they can see what changes need to be made and what surveys need to ask. And it's not like there's no other ways to talk about those things there several forums where you can even trash talk without problem.
I think closing weird threads is better instead of having a weird sea of useless information clogging the forum.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that it might not be a horrible idea to close pre 1.4 (when that comes ot) threads. or otherwise mass mark them "pree 1.4" somehow like reddit has those meta tags?
because once 1.4 comes out... soo much previous discussion will not be valid now.
but also will confuse folks and annoy search functions.
What about pre-1.4 threads that haven't been addressed yet, either because they're topics that have been around a while that the design team just hasn't gotten around to yet, or because they're threads that were made after 1.4 was made but before it was posted?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I wish more posters were put on bans, because it seems like too much energy is being spent on them by devs. Locking threads is just one result, but despite it being clear (in some case self admitted) that these are not productive commenters or playtesters, a disproportionate amount of effort and dev posts ends up directly or indirectly focused on this small group of posters.
I think it's a natural trend to fall into, I have long seen on Paizo boards where dev energy is spent focusing on the most toxic and least productive posters, ignoring serious humble posts to either attempt "nice guy" engagement with the bad posters (with idea this somehow satisfies them) or "public service" posts which try to keep pretense of it being moderated and under control.
It doesn't seem a stretch to think that anybody who would wish to be influential or incisive in game design here, should hold their posting to a standard that would help if it were a factor in being hired as a game designer, i.e. if not entirely professional (given they aren't actual employees) at least in the realm of that. Several devs now working for Paizo posted here before being hired, and I'm pretty sure their posting pattern was never remotely close to the people consistently dragging non-productive threads and so on.
There is just no plausible way to believe this type of posting is in good faith or productive. I don't think it makes a better play-test or forum or work-load for devs to tolerate this, I think honesty is the best policy here. And really I don't see how it is really helping the sabotaging posters themselves, to pretend it's all OK and let them continue spending their life & energy on such an activity that isn't helping anybody. This trend, involving really a very small set of posters, is significant negative factor to engaging forums here for me. It takes over discussion band-width, and reduces my will to engage because I can smell from a mile off when responding to one of their arguments has no chance of being productive.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I wish more posters were put on bans, because it seems like too much energy is being spent on them by devs. Locking threads is just one result, but despite it being clear (in some case self admitted) that these are not productive commenters or playtesters, a disproportionate amount of effort and dev posts ends up directly or indirectly focused on this small group of posters.
I think it's a natural trend to fall into, I have long seen on Paizo boards where dev energy is spent focusing on the most toxic and least productive posters, ignoring serious humble posts to either attempt "nice guy" engagement with the bad posters (with idea this somehow satisfies them) or "public service" posts which try to keep pretense of it being moderated and under control.
It doesn't seem a stretch to think that anybody who would wish to be influential or incisive in game design here, should hold their posting to a standard that would help if it were a factor in being hired as a game designer, i.e. if not entirely professional (given they aren't actual employees) at least in the realm of that. Several devs now working for Paizo posted here before being hired, and I'm pretty sure their posting pattern was never remotely close to the people consistently dragging non-productive threads and so on.
There is just no plausible way to believe this type of posting is in good faith or productive. I don't think it makes a better play-test or forum or work-load for devs to tolerate this, I think honesty is the best policy here. And really I don't see how it is really helping the sabotaging posters themselves, to pretend it's all OK and let them continue spending their life & energy on such an activity that isn't helping anybody. This trend, involving really a very small set of posters, is significant negative factor to engaging forums here for me. It takes over discussion band-width, and reduces my will to engage because I can smell from a mile off when responding to one of their arguments has no chance of being productive.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure banning any critical posters or trying to mob them from the messageboard will be great PR for Paizo and PF2E. Surely there will be no negative repercussions in the gaming community about this or any long-term ill will this could engender. Brilliance! Brilliance I say!
i dont think they'd go full roll20 at the very least, but we're drifting sliiightly off-topic:
@OP: mods have stated in most of the locked threads that things have either mutated in the thread from playtest discussions into full-on homebrew (which i think they should examine anyway to see what common patches to their system people are using and why, so that they might see what they can do to improve the playtest), or that a thread is no longer "productive", such as going around in circles or... for continuing to discus magic after announcing an eventual spell-pass (i'm kinda fuzzy on that recent one, especially since discussions on problems with and solutions for the current spellcasting would appear to be directly helpful when writing up said spell-pass)? or have become pretty much entirely about one or multiple ongoing arguments in-thread, rather than the original topic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep expecting to see this thread marked as closed.
For irony reasons only.
:)