Keeping Threads on Track: A Request (Was: 4th Edition and the "Younger Audience")

[Matthew Koelbl]

This is a simple request for the posters of this board. A request I'm sure will go unheard by many, but one I feel needs to be made - even if its been made before, even if it won't do any good.

Over in this thread, a random poster - Balderstrom - showed up to throw out a bunch of vitriol about 4E. It had nothing to do with the thread, but shortly had derailed the entire conversation and is in the process of drawing the thread into yet another edition war.

First, to those who helped this happen:

To Scott Betts: I will note that Balderstrom's rant probably would have only derailed the thread by a single post - plus the handful following it that managed to successfully dismiss it through simple mockery - while your attempt at a more reasoned dismissal of it only led to derailing the thread for another entire page. I know these things call out for response, but if they seem to be fading away on their own, you really don't need to fan the flames. Or, if you think it needs response... branch it off. Create another post to call the user out. That way, no matter what happens, it won't damage the thread itself.

To Courtfool, Disenchanter, seekerofshadowlight, Matthew Morris, and anyone else who felt the need to call Scott out for his response to a post that blatantly breaks board guidelines:

Come on, guys, is this much response really necessary? Do anyone of you honestly feel that Balderstrom's post - in which he proclaimed how terrible 4E was, how it wasn't D&D, how the only people that would buy it were sheep and Magic players - do you really feel that was a worthwhile post in that thread? That it was an earnest attempt at discussion rather than simply an attempt to incite the edition wars?

I mean, even if you feel that naysayers should be allowed to throw out these sort of complaints somewhere on the 4E forums, do you really believe that was the place for it?

If you believe Scott is out of place in responding to this and trying to act as self-imposed moderator, do you really feel it is appropriate to step in and do the same to him?

And before you ask - yes, I'm aware I'm doing the exact same thing right now! But I'm aware we can't force people to not say what they want to say - which is why I'm not trying to chastise you here, but honestly just asking that you try to take a step back from the situation, even if just for a moment.

The Problem

But the thing is... that request has been made before. Not just by me, of course - there have been countless posters, every time this sort of thing flares up - who recommend that everyone just chill out and ignore whatever gets them riled up. But it clearly isn't possible. There are too many posters too ready to be at each others throats. Too many unwilling to follow that policy, and too many who simply (like Balderstrom) who just show up to attack the people here and then leave. Until another random poster repeats it a week later.

And there isn't anything we can do to truly stop it, because the people who should be doing so... aren't willing to do so.

There is a post at the top of this forum asking everyone to play nice. There is a statement at the very top of every page in this forum that says this sort of thing won't be tolerated. But it is an empty statement! Those that run these boards clearly don't care about keeping things civil here. The flagging system goes completely ignored. Not just attacks on the different editions, but direct attacks on posters, go completely ignored. E-mails to customer service asking them to do something, anything... go completely ignored, without the slightest response. It is supremely disheartening - and proof that if we want to keep this forum remotely civil, we need to do so ourselves.

I'm not going to insist that people who don't like 4E leave these boards because... well, because I can't make them do so, and it isn't my place to try and shout them out of there. All I can do is request that if you do have some criticism to put forward, you try and put it in an appropriate place. If, like Balderstrom, you want to rant about the evils of 4E... just create a new post for it. Let that post devolve into whatever debates people want to engage in. But don't ruin a post that other users actually find interesting!

That, more than anything, is the real issue here: there are plenty of useful, promising posts on this board, filled with intelligent discussion and politely shared viewpoints from all sides... and those posts keep getting hijacked into flaming and namecalling and shouting, and the original conversation is completely lost.

So here's my request to the posters here: It isn't that you avoid all criticism of 4E entirely (I have certainly shared plenty of my own). Not even that you avoid all needless criticism or baseless attacks on the game or its players (though I won't deny I'd be happy if that did die down.) No, all I'm asking is that you don't bring that trash into every single thread. And going a step beyond that, if you see it cropping up and feel the need to respond to it, you create a new thread in which to respond, rather than take the original thread and help to completely overwhelm the ongoing discussion, to the detriment of everyone on this board.

I can't make anyone do anything, and given my typical inability to keep things brief, I have no idea how many have even read this far. But seriously, folks - keep your hostility or not, but can we at least try to not let it actively pollute the parts of this forum that have something worthwhile to offer?

[Snorter]

<applause>

[bugleyman]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Matthew Morris]

Actually yes I do.

When a poster says there's no place to critize a system, I'll call him on it.

When a poster makes a point to say the boards 'aren't moderated' and then proceeds to try to drive posters off, I'll call him on it.

When a poster gets on his high horse. I'll call him on it.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Matthew - while I think it is somewhat unreasonable to consider those actions worse behavior than the active attacks and insults that inspired it, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. All I'm asking is that if you feel the need to call someone out, you try and keep it out of a thread that really doesn't need to be bogged down with those sort of posts.

[FabesMinis]

:( This is just a horrible place to discuss 4E. It was getting better but it's now almost impossible to get enthused.

I'll stick to the PbP section.

[Matthew Morris]

bugleyman wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

When a poster gets on his high horse. I'll call him on it.

Irony-o-meter...overloading...

And if I get on a high horse, call me on it. I've never said Scott shouldn't post. Indeed, if you read what I wrote, I did contribute to the threat at hand.

Scott on the other hand, apparently feels that saying anything negative about 4x should be forbidden.

[joela]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Over in this thread, a random poster - Balderstrom - showed up to throw out a bunch of vitriol about 4E.

Did anyone flag him?

[Matthew Morris]

joela wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Over in this thread, a random poster - Balderstrom - showed up to throw out a bunch of vitriol about 4E.

Did anyone flag him?

No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.

Personally? Scott does a wonderful job of keeping me away from 4x, I was honestly curious if there was an active attempt to aim D&D at the youngsters.

[Balderstrom]

Sorry. I'm late to the 4E Party, released a year or 2 ago IIRC.
Read thru a couple books, perused a few reviews and heard about WoTC pulling all their PDF's from 3rd party vendors all in the same day (which seems almost RIAA-neutral-evillish... oh yeah that alignment doesn't exist anymore ;)

I believe I failed my system-shock roll. I actually intended to point out how the game doesn't seem to be "dumbed down" or simplified in any-way-shape-or form, aside from the fact that there are less Class options as of yet, but my post kinda wandered off into stream of consciousness.

Again, I never said I disliked the game, and I certainly didn't show up to attack anyone. But my post was prolly coming from left field when all is said and done. I don't dislike the game. Its definitely one of the more interesting concepts I've come across in gaming in some time - interesting to the point where it feels like its from an alternate reality where D&D doesn't exist, but they speak the same language (like star trek aliens).

A number of things I said were intended light-heartedly/humourous, smilies and all, prolly shoulda left the sheep in the pasture.

I didn't retort to any of the posts after mine, or attempt to belabour or argue further with anyone.

Some of the things could have been phrased as a question and been condusive to a conversation. Honestly I couldn't believe what I was reading (the PHB), my mind kept saying this is D&D? THIS IS D&D?? THIS??? WTF??
That prolly came out more in my post than I really intended.

Again, I really didn't intend to bait, spam, dump-on-a-thread, derail...

All my other (few) posts here are actually on topic. And after a nights rest the shock has worn off. Still saddening, but thats life.

[Disenchanter]

For the most part, well said.

But it is a bit ironic.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Come on, guys, is this much response really necessary? Do anyone of you honestly feel that Balderstrom's post - in which he proclaimed how terrible 4E was, how it wasn't D&D, how the only people that would buy it were sheep and Magic players - do you really feel that was a worthwhile post in that thread? That it was an earnest attempt at discussion rather than simply an attempt to incite the edition wars?

To paraphrase Scott Betts: "address the post, not the poster."

Had Scott addressed the language used, and focused more on reforming the presentation of the thoughts and points, I wouldn't have commented at all.

It is hard to believe, but I have avoided addressing a lot of Scott's posts because there is very little hypocrisy or self-appointed authority in them.

I have never defended the method of posters, but I do defend their right to express differing opinions.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Too many unwilling to follow that policy, and too many who simply (like Balderstrom) who just show up to attack the people here and then leave. Until another random poster repeats it a week later.

And there isn't anything we can do to truly stop it, because the people who should be doing so... aren't willing to do so.

And that is the source of the problem. As you say, the violators post and then leave. Never to be seen again (at least in the 4e forums.) How is anyone to stop that? Holding all posts for individual review before being posted? It would be one thing if the post was flagged, and ignored, so that when the forum authorities do get to it it can be modified as necessary. But no, by the time the authorities can see it, it has already been addressed with a "get the hell out of my forum" type of post.

So how should this be handled?

Ban everyone? Or continue to hope that, eventually, the self appointed gods of the 4e forum let the matter go?

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

All I can do is request that if you do have some criticism to put forward, you try and put it in an appropriate place.

I'm all for that. But at this moment, we don't have a proper place. I have several questions about 4e that are borderline criticisms at best. If I post them, I'll get told that my hatred of 4e isn't allowed on these forums, and that there is a better forum for my vitriol.

So what is the best way to fix this?

It seems your request is to ignore the poster that should be ignoring another poster. Do you really think that will work?

EDIT::

Also note that derailing a thread is perfectly acceptable on the Paizo boards. How many threads have been s-bombed into oblivion?

[Balderstrom]

I didn't disappear, I'm waiting for the Pathfinder release. Far as I can tell it should be up there with Monte Cook's books for quality.

[Matthew Morris]

Heh, System Shock? Now you're dating yourself ;-)

I'll admit it is still an open wound and the scab is easily picked at. I couldn't care less about 4x, except that WotC is an industry leader in an admittedly dying industry. In that sense I have a desire to follow the progress of the game and wish it success.

Look at it as you rolled a 1 on your craft (arguement) check.

[Joshua J. Frost]

Matthew Morris wrote:

No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.

As I just pointed out in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.

[joela]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.

As I just pointed in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.

Thanks, Joshua.

[Matthew Morris]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.

As I just pointed out in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.

Sorry Josh, I -know- it's wrong. Y'all do a good and thankless job.

I'll remember my sarcasm tag going forward.

[Balderstrom]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Heh, System Shock? Now you're dating yourself ;-)

...
Look at it as you rolled a 1 on your craft (arguement) check.

*Chuckle* Aaaye an ancient Dwarf I am.

Get Offa Ma Lawn....er er outta my Cave, off my mountain? :-)

[Matthew Morris]

Balderstrom wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Heh, System Shock? Now you're dating yourself ;-)

...
Look at it as you rolled a 1 on your craft (arguement) check.

*Chuckle* Aaaye an ancient Dwarf I am.

Get Offa Ma Lawn....er er outta my Cave, off my mountain? :-)

*chomp* just quiet down and digest already.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Disenchanter wrote:

And that is the source of the problem. As you say, the violators post and then leave. Never to be seen again (at least in the 4e forums.) How is anyone to stop that? Holding all posts for individual review before being posted? It would be one thing if the post was flagged, and ignored, so that when the forum authorities do get to it it can be modified as necessary. But no, by the time the authorities can see it, it has already been addressed with a "get the hell out of my forum" type of post.

So how should this be handled?

Ideally? I would hope that if a moderator actively stepped in and deleted posts that clearly broke forum guidelines, it would discourage others from routinely doing so. And that if users felt that such a thing could be counted on, they wouldn't feel the need to respond themselves.

Disenchanter wrote:

But at this moment, we don't have a proper place. I have several questions about 4e that are borderline criticisms at best. If I post them, I'll get told that my hatred of 4e isn't allowed on these forums, and that there is a better forum for my vitriol.

So what is the best way to fix this?

I'd say you should feel free to bring forward your criticisms in its own thread. But I would recomend if you do so, you make a request that those who want to disagree with those questions, rather than answer them, to avoid the thread. It might not work!

But then again, it might. There have been some threads - if few and far between - where rational discourse has been engaged on the good and bad of the edition.

Disenchanter wrote:

It seems your request is to ignore the poster that should be ignoring another poster. Do you really think that will work?

Well, that's certainly my hope at this point, though I'm reasonably certain it won't work. Since others have made the appeal before, several times over. But it really is the best approach - if a post just completely demands you respond to it and break it down to an endless argument, you'll save yourself and everyone else a lot of time and effort by just ignoring it and moving on.

Disenchanter wrote:

Also note that derailing a thread is perfectly acceptable on the Paizo boards. How many threads have been s-bombed into oblivion?

Well, it might be accepted, but that doesn't make it a good practice. I mean, does anyone think it is remotely a 'good thing' to take overwhelm useful conversations with any derailment, much less one founded in vitriol and anger?

[Thurgon]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

If you believe Scott is out of place in responding to this and trying to act as self-imposed moderator, do you really feel it is appropriate to step in and do the same to him

If Scott only did it once, maybe you could ignore him this time. But Scott is determined to be the moderator of the 4e boards. That doesn't mean the other guy was right, but Scott has been acting as a board moderator for a while now, you have to expect people will get tired of his bullying tactics and respond each and every time he does it.

[Disenchanter]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Ideally? I would hope that if a moderator actively stepped in and deleted posts that clearly broke forum guidelines, it would discourage others from routinely doing so. And that if users felt that such a thing could be counted on, they wouldn't feel the need to respond themselves.

I would agree... But how can "random posters" know that posts were actively deleted?

Even if that practice was in full force, it wouldn't stop the "random thread crapper" that starts this whole cycle over again.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.

As I just pointed out in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.

I... really don't think it is. I'm sorry to say this, Joshua, since I'm sure you feel you are making a good effort, and that you are reviewing them in an unbiased fashion to remove only those that get flagged the most. I am confident that you feel you are doing your work in the most professional way you can... but I also feel that the flagging system, as it now stands, is not being used to enforce - or even simply guide - users to adhere to this board's stated guidelines of behavior.

At the top of this page it says: "Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated."

I have seen plenty of posts that very clearly cross this line, and have been flagged, and have not had anything done about it. I've seen a post that jokingly suggested the best way to shut Scott up was to have him 'fixed' like an errant dog - and that isn't regarded as across the line? Suggesting, even jokingly, that he should be castrated isn't a personal insult? That doesn't merit at the very least a removal of the post and a warning for the poster, unless it gets 'enough' flags for you guys to do something about it?

I'm sorry, but I really have no faith in the flagging system, at this point. I'm not expecting that when I flag a post it gets immediately removed. All I'm expecting is that flagging a post will ensure that someone on the staff takes a look at the post and makes sure it is following the forum guidelines. If crossing the forum guidelines isn't a consideration for you guys, then I would recommend removing them, just to make it clear where you stand.

[CourtFool]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

This is a simple request for the posters of this board.

This post is in the wrong forum. :)

[Matthew Koelbl]

Disenchanter wrote:

I would agree... But how can "random posters" know that posts were actively deleted?

Well, I'd say things are 50/50 between those that wander in here for the first time to rant, and those who have done it before and keep doing it again whenever they feel they can get away with it. And I definitely feel that if they were discouraged, others would feel a lot less hostile towards those that start this up unintentionally.

Disenchanter wrote:

Even if that practice was in full force, it wouldn't stop the "random thread crapper" that starts this whole cycle over again.

Except I think it would. If there is a sense that there are moderators on the board legitimately interested in upholding the board guidelines, then I don't think Scott (or any others) would feel the need to shout down those who break those guidelines. And thus in turn, no one feels the need to shout him down.

I'm not saying it would save everything - it might not solve anything - but I think it would have a good influence.

And that's mainly what I'm hoping for here. I know a lot of the people on this board can be acting with a lot more civility, and that would go a long way towards keeping others calm. I think there are only a handful of posters who have shown themselves fully devoted to hostility and anger - for everyone else, its just a great big spiral of frustration that feeds into both sides, turning reasonable people against each other. I think if we can find a way to deal with that issue - getting those who are drawn into this to either engage with each other politely, or simply choose to ignore the provocations from the other side - than the board can largely ignore the few truly bad apples.

[Thurgon]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I... really don't think it is. I'm sorry, Joshua, that you guys feel you are making a good effort, and that you are reviewing them in an unbiased fashion to remove only those that get flagged the most. I am confident that you guys feel you are doing your work in the most professional way you can... but I also feel that the flagging system, as it now stands, is not being used to enforce - or even simply guide - users to adhere to this board's stated guidelines of behavior.

But at the top of this page it says: "Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated."

I have seen plenty of posts that very clearly cross this line, and have been flagged, and have not had anything done about it. I've seen a post that jokingly suggested the best way to shut Scott up was to have him 'fixed' like an errant dog - and that isn't regarded as across the line? Suggesting, even jokingly, that he should be castrated isn't a personal insult? That doesn't merit at the very least a removal of the post and a warning for the poster, unless it gets 'enough' flags for you guys to do something about it?

I'm sorry, but I really have no faith in the flagging system, at this point. I'm not expecting that when I flag a post it gets immediately removed. All I'm expecting is that flagging a post will ensure that someone on the staff takes a look at the post and makes sure it is following the forum guidelines. If crossing the forum guidelines isn't a consideration for you guys, then I would recommend removing them, just to make it clear where you stand.

Be happy they aren't moderatoring these boards as tight as you would have them, this whole thread can easily be seen as an attack by you against A) a fellow poster and B) the Paizo Board moderators. On other boards this thread would be smoked as soon as they saw it, and you might recieve a short vacation from the boards for it. Here they seem to accept a little more and are a little more I would say gentle in their control of their boards.

[Disenchanter]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

I would agree... But how can "random posters" know that posts were actively deleted?

Well, I'd say things are 50/50 between those that wander in here for the first time to rant, and those who have done it before and keep doing it again whenever they feel they can get away with it. And I definitely feel that if they were discouraged, others would feel a lot less hostile towards those that start this up unintentionally.

I'd like to think that repeaters of this behavior are being discouraged. From what I gather from your posts in this thread, you don't feel they are. I'm in no position to confirm or deny that though.

The others would never know if their posts are deleted, or if previous posters had their posts deleted.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

Even if that practice was in full force, it wouldn't stop the "random thread crapper" that starts this whole cycle over again.

Except I think it would. If there is a sense that there are moderators on the board legitimately interested in upholding the board guidelines, then I don't think Scott (or any others) would feel the need to shout down those who break those guidelines. And thus in turn, no one feels the need to shout him down.

A good ideal. But that scratches the surface of the "whose interpretation of the guidelines?" If Joshua Frost is correct, and I'm inclined to believe him, they are enforcing the guidlines to their ideals. Just not others, such as those that decide to shout down differing opinions.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I know a lot of the people on this board can be acting with a lot more civility, and that would go a long way towards keeping others calm.

Interesting choice of words. You are asking people to act civil, not be civil. Which gets under my skin, much the same way Scott Betts does. It doesn't matter your intention with your post, as long as you use flowery and acceptable language. No... I don't subscribe to that. I'm against that insincere, "speak softly while you bludgeon with a flower covered club" type of diplomacy.

Barring people being civil, I'd rather people just be honest and sincere.

But that is me.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Thurgon wrote:

Be happy they aren't moderatoring these boards as tight as you would have them, this whole thread can easily be seen as an attack by you against A) a fellow poster and B) the Paizo Board moderators. On other boards this thread would be smoked as soon as they saw it, and you might recieve a short vacation from the boards for it. Here they seem to accept a little more and are a little more I would say gentle in their control of their boards.

Might I ask what fellow poster you feel I have specifically attacked? I have done my best to try and be both critical and understanding of both sides of the argument in this - my entire point is that 90% of the people involved in these explosive arguments are entirely reasonably people!

As for the Paizo moderators, if posting my requests for them to actually maintain the publicly posted guidelines is seen as an attack... well, then they are free to remove this post and ban me from their boards. I don't think doing so will make what I've pointed out less accurate, or be seen as a reasonable response to my concerns, but these are their boards and they can do whatever they wish to do here.

[Scott Betts]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.

As I just pointed out in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.

You can feel that you moderate the boards in a way that "works for you", but the reality is that moderation here is close to nonexistent when compared to other boards within the tabletop community. I'm sure all flags get a looksee, but when nothing is done about a persistent problem like the one being addressed in this thread, the perception that the boards are not actively moderated very quickly takes hold.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Disenchanter wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I know a lot of the people on this board can be acting with a lot more civility, and that would go a long way towards keeping others calm.

Interesting choice of words. You are asking people to act civil, not be civil. Which gets under my skin, much the same way Scott Betts does. It doesn't matter your intention with your post, as long as you use flowery and acceptable language. No... I don't subscribe to that. I'm against that insincere, "speak softly while you bludgeon with a flower covered club" type of diplomacy.

Barring people being civil, I'd rather people just be honest and sincere.

But that is me.

Just to clarify - I think you are reading too much into my words. I didn't even consider there to be a difference between "acting civil" and "being civil".

I had hoped the posts I've made here would have made it clear I'm not trying to encourage people to simply attack each other using 'flowery' language. I'm actually slightly offended you would paint that as my agenda - but I'm willing to accept that as simply an honest misinterpretation.

Look, all I mean by 'civil discussion' is to indicate that people can address posts that bother them in a method that won't turn things as argumentative. The same exact thing you yourself talked about a few posts up:

Disenchanter wrote:

To paraphrase Scott Betts: "address the post, not the poster."

Had Scott addressed the language used, and focused more on reforming the presentation of the thoughts and points, I wouldn't have commented at all.

If Scott responds to a post by addressing the language - rather than commanding the poster to leave the forum - you won't feel the need to respond to him. If someone sees a post of his that does step over the line, and they respond not with an earnest request to keep things calm rather than by accusing him of ruining these boards... then no one will feel the need to respond to them in kind.

Basically, most of the people caught in this cycle are posting with good intentions. I'm somewhat hopeful that there must be some way to bring forwards each side's concerns without turning them into attacks in the process.

[Disenchanter]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I'm actually slightly offended you would paint that as my agenda - but I'm willing to accept that as simply an honest misinterpretation.

I apologize. I didn't intend to offend. And I didn't intend to paint any agenda for you.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

To paraphrase Scott Betts: "address the post, not the poster."

Had Scott addressed the language used, and focused more on reforming the presentation of the thoughts and points, I wouldn't have commented at all.

If Scott responds to a post by addressing the language - rather than commanding the poster to leave the forum - you won't feel the need to respond to him. If someone sees a post of his that does step over the line, and they respond not with an earnest request to keep things calm rather than by accusing him of ruining these boards... then no one will feel the need to respond to them in kind.

But people have requested. At least four times that I can think of. And by fellow fans of 4e even, each time. And Scott Betts persists with his "forum vigilanteism."

So how would you suggest we (as in the whole community, not you and I) correct this? I'm not suggesting moderating Scott Betts posts, by the way.

[Thurgon]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Thurgon wrote:

Be happy they aren't moderatoring these boards as tight as you would have them, this whole thread can easily be seen as an attack by you against A) a fellow poster and B) the Paizo Board moderators. On other boards this thread would be smoked as soon as they saw it, and you might recieve a short vacation from the boards for it. Here they seem to accept a little more and are a little more I would say gentle in their control of their boards.

Might I ask what fellow poster you feel I have specifically attacked? I have done my best to try and be both critical and understanding of both sides of the argument in this - my entire point is that 90% of the people involved in these explosive arguments are entirely reasonably people!

As for the Paizo moderators, if posting my requests for them to actually maintain the publicly posted guidelines is seen as an attack... well, then they are free to remove this post and ban me from their boards. I don't think doing so will make what I've pointed out less accurate, or be seen as a reasonable response to my concerns, but these are their boards and they can do whatever they wish to do here.

Don't be obtuse. It doesn't help your cause at all. You started calling out Balderstrom at the least then mentioning Courtfool, Disenchanter, seekerofshadowlight, Matthew Morris by name as also having not added to that thread in their attacks on Scott for his "moderator" like behavior.

I don't think doing so will make what I've pointed out less accurate, or be seen as a reasonable response to my concerns, but these are their boards and they can do whatever they wish to do here.

No what makes it less accurate is the truth. You call all those folks out but then white wash Scott's posts. You want Balderstorm's posts removed because they bother you, but what does the first one really say that breaks the rules? He claims that the issue with appealing to new players is that 4e is unlike any other edition of D&D, he claims other games keep the core and change only parts, he claims it isn't D&D (which could be argued that at least to him it isn't). He was pretty much on topic if not really possitive in his outlook or stlye. Yes he doesn't seem to like 4e and yes he doesn't pull his punches about that dislike much, but he is pretty civil about it and not liking 4e isn't cause enough to have his post removed. Now later after Scott does his moderator thing I am sure things got out of hand, but who is that really on? But you want the guy's post whose PoV you don't agree with removed but not the post of the guy who blew it all up. If you think that is reasonable well 'nuff said.

[Blazej]

I pretty much agree with Matthew Koelbl here.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Disenchanter wrote:

I apologize. I didn't intend to offend. And I didn't intend to paint any agenda for you.

Apology certainly accepted - and as I said, I was pretty sure it wasn't intentional in the least. In fact, we probably couldn't ask for a better example of the core issue here - how hard it really is to 'hear' an opponent over written text on the internet. Tone is obscured, different phrasings will mean different things to different people... and suddenly two posts are at odds.

I don't intend any insult - and yet, the wording in one of my posts suddenly seems like I'm commanding you to act disengenously, the very thing that frustrates you. And you don't intend any offense in response, and yet suddenly I'm feeling like I'm under attack and being accused of something I'm not trying to do.

A different reading of one single word... that's all it takes to suddenly have both of us potentially at each other's throats, even though neither is intending insult, neither is intending attacks, neither is intending offense. How many of these threads run into exactly that sort of spiral?

Disenchanter wrote:

But people have requested. At least four times that I can think of. And by fellow fans of 4e even, each time. And Scott Betts persists with his "forum vigilanteism."

So how would you suggest we (as in the whole community, not you and I) correct this? I'm not suggesting moderating Scott Betts posts, by the way.

Well, I'd start by not referring to it as "forum vigilanteism." :)

But it's a good question. Let's see if we can focus this thread on more than my initial little tirade up top, but seeing if we can come up with some solutions ourselves.

So: To those who feel Scott is too aggressive in his defense of 4E, what do you feel would be an acceptable response, from him or any other defender of 4E, to when someone presents misinformation about 4E? What do you feel would be a fair response to someone attacking players of 4E? When someone presents what is meant as constructive criticism of 4E, are you ok with people presenting what they feel are legitimate explanations for those criticisms? Do you feel that at some point - when two sides have gone back and forth 5-6 times with neither one changing their mind - the two should simply agree to disagree?

And: To Scott and others that want to keep this forum as a place for true 'discussion' of 4E, how would you recommend people bring forward legitimate criticism that would encourage discussion and debate, rather than simply attacks and argument?

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to set any rules in stone for any posters on the board here - it isn't remotely my place to do so. All I'm trying to do with the above questions is start a dialogue - how can we discuss these things without constantly frustrating each other? What are the specific things that set us off, and what types of 'criticism' and 'defense' would each side find acceptable?

[Scott Betts]

I should add that I really don't get a kick out of internet scolding people who post things that are not appropriate here. It's clear that there's a certain portion of forumgoers here who chafe at that sort of reaction even when it's not directed at them, and it's just as clear that it's made me unpopular with that portion of the membership. No one likes to tank their own image like that, but I have felt and continue to feel that it's necessary.

In no way am I suggesting that what this forum needs is active staff moderation. It doesn't. I'm convinced that the 4th Edition board can get by just fine with community-based "soft moderation", as was intended. But when a significant number of forumgoers actively resist such attempts at self-policing, labeling those who identify and call out off-topic, baiting or derogatory posts as "on a high horse" or "self-appointed moderators", it undermines the community's ability to deal with these problems (and, as a result, a persistent attitude emerges that it's somehow okay to behave in this way). It's gotten better than it was a year ago, but that's not necessarily because the forums have become more mature; it's more likely that the problem posters simply moved on to other forums where they could talk about games they enjoy rather than games they don't.

[frozenwastes]

Blazej wrote:

I pretty much agree with Matthew Koelbl here.

Me too. If a thread is about something, it's not the place to put a inflammatory post about something else. Off topic thread derailment is just bad form. Anywhere on any internet message board.

[Scott Betts]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

And: To Scott and others that want to keep this forum as a place for true 'discussion' of 4E, how would you recommend people bring forward legitimate criticism that would encourage discussion and debate, rather than simply attacks and argument?

First, starting a thread specifically for the topic is a good place to begin. We know that criticisms of 4th Edition have, historically, sidetracked other threads they have appeared in. Compartmentalizing that vein of dialogue would be helpful.

Second, posting to share your opinion is fine, as long as you are also okay with your opinion being discussed (and, possibly, criticized itself). That's what happens when you put your thoughts out in a public forum.

Third, post in a constructive manner. You can identify things you don't like as long as you encourage discussion of ways that it could be improved. "4th Edition is not real D&D," full stop, doesn't encourage discussion of anything worthwhile - it only fuels discussion of whether or not 4th Edition is real D&D, which is a black hole of an argument. "4th Edition doesn't have Vancian spellcasting, which I strongly identify with Dungeons & Dragons games of the past," is a constructive post which a) identifies a specific issue you have, b) makes it clear that you consider your own statement subjective, and c) lays the groundwork for offering advice or thoughts in general on the topic.

Fourth, curb your bitterness. Yes, you might feel like WotC/Hasbro has shot your puppy. The time for those strong emotions to take hold has long since passed. Not only are attacks on companies like WotC against the rules, they are just plain petty. They show an inability to move past a perceived slight after a reasonable amount of time. Respond to WotC's actions as though they were a person - after all, they employ very real people who are every bit as much a fan of D&D as you are, and some of whom have probably poked their heads in here in the past.

[CourtFool]

While I disagreed with the original, inflammatory post, I viewed it as ignore worthy. I understand some people may feel compelled to disagree with certain views and point out obvious errors.

I was not attacking Scott. I was pointing out that I disagree that my posts are any less valid in the 4e forum because I do not like 4e. Based on this argument, why is Matthew Koelbl posting on a board whose rules for moderation he obviously disagrees with?

[Matthew Koelbl]

Thurgon: Yes, my post pointed out specific names from the other thread. Because... those names were the individuals involved in the off-topic debate in that thread. Note I called out both Scott for his response as well as those who responded to him in kind. Note that I also tried to show that I entirely understood the reasons for their responses. If you truly view all of that as attacks on them, then I'm pretty sure no defense I can offer will convince you otherwise, so... fair enough. Your opinion is your own to have.

And yes, I found Balderstrom's original post offensive, mainly because of how he painted anyone who played 4E as mindless sheep who had somehow been misled into liking the game - an especially frustrating approach, since he isn't just saying he disagrees with our opinions, he is saying they are wrong and that we could only have them frmo being somehow 'tricked' into enjoying the game.

On the other hand, his posts in this thread have shown regret for using such harsh language, and a willingness to have a much more open dialogue. Either way, I do feel it reasonable that I am concerned about the post that moved the thread off-topic and was actively offensive, rather than the one that was simply in response to that. If you disagree with that... well, as I said, it seems unlikely I will convince you otherwise.

[Kevin Mack]

I always find it Ironic you have people calling for moderation then denounce the moderators when they pop in. as for flaming compared to the WOTC forums or the gamer Den this place is a serene oasis of harmony.

[Matthew Morris]

Yes Scott. Telling people to go to other message boards or that this isn't the place for posting dislike of 4x, would never lead anyone to think you might be a self appointed moderator.

My dislike of 4e is based on mechanics My dislike of Rifts is based on mechanics. My dislike of the Mechwarrior RPG is that I think I should get XP for building my character. My perception of 4e players is coloured by people jumping on anyone who dares breathe a word in opposition.

To paraphrase another post. "I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the WotC boards."

[Scott Betts]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Yes Scott. Telling people to go to other message boards or that this isn't the place for posting dislike of 4x, would never lead anyone to think you might be a self appointed moderator.

You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police. What I told people was that if they didn't want to be constructive and just wanted to rant against 4th Edition, that this isn't the place. That's nothing extraordinary, I think. If that's what you think a "self-appointed moderator" is, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. At the same time, I don't think it's out of line at all.

Matthew Morris wrote:

My dislike of 4e is based on mechanics My dislike of Rifts is based on mechanics. My dislike of the Mechwarrior RPG is that I think I should get XP for building my character. My perception of 4e players is coloured by people jumping on anyone who dares breathe a word in opposition.

My perception of Pathfinder players is colored by people posting vitriolic rants against a game they don't want anything to do with instead of simply enjoying the ones they do.

Matthew Morris wrote:

To paraphrase another post. "I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the WotC boards."

I post there all the time. But when I want to discuss Paizo products and their applicability to 4th Edition, I come to the place that was created for that purpose. I also pop in to mention some things I think the local 4th Edition community here might find interesting, and to comment on discussions others are having.

I have no problem with you voicing your dislike of parts of 4th Edition in ways that are constructive and open to discussion.

[Blazej]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Well, I'd start by not referring to it as "forum vigilanteism." :)

What about "Batman of the Forums" or "Green Lantern of Sector paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/." :)

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

So: To those who feel Scott is too aggressive in his defense of 4E, what do you feel would be an acceptable response, from him or any other defender of 4E, to when someone presents misinformation about 4E? What do you feel would be a fair response to someone attacking players of 4E? When someone presents what is meant as constructive criticism of 4E, are you ok with people presenting what they feel are legitimate explanations for those criticisms? Do you feel that at some point - when two sides have gone back and forth 5-6 times with neither one changing their mind - the two should simply agree to disagree?

I believe that a good start would be not responding in a way to declare the other poster to be a liar would be a good start (You didn't, others have). If someone presents misinformation, then correct it, however I would add to be careful by "correcting" their misinformation with your own misinformation.

Otherwise, I think that there are some people that one just can't argue with. People that will hold on to their opinions no matter what and will use the argument as a reason to continue to insult the group they disagree with in their responses. In these cases, I don't think any serious response is necessary or deserved and that giving it to them gives more credibility to their statement. If their argument is insane, then don't bother with a response!

[CourtFool]

Scott Betts wrote:

What I told people was that if they didn't want to be constructive and just wanted to rant against 4th Edition, that this isn't the place.

Personally, I would have been less put off had you phrased it that way.

[Scott Betts]

Blazej wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Well, I'd start by not referring to it as "forum vigilanteism." :)

What about "Batman of the Forums" or "Green Lantern of Sector paizo.com/messageboards." :)

Those have a nice ring to them.

Really, though, that's where the whole "4th Edition Avengers" thing started on the WotC forums - people who decided to engage in a little community-based policing, actively correcting misinformation. As a result, the WotC boards are relatively free from the kind of anti-4th Edition vitriol we used to see there, despite being much, much bigger than the Paizo boards and the natural target for those angry at the new edition of the game.

I've seen a couple people refer to the 4th Edition boards as hostile to those who don't like 4th Edition. That's not the case. It's hostile to the spread of misinformation and blatant baiting, which (I would argue not coincidentally) tend to go hand-in-hand with the posting styles of those who would rant against 4th Edition on WotC's own boards. Furthermore, I would argue that hostility to misinformation is one of the best qualities a discussion community can possess.

[Scott Betts]

CourtFool wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

What I told people was that if they didn't want to be constructive and just wanted to rant against 4th Edition, that this isn't the place.

Personally, I would have been less put off had you phrased it that way.

I'm sorry if the way I phrased it made it seem hostile to you. That wasn't my intention at all.

[bugleyman]

Guys, 90% of this boils down to:

Quit threadcrapping.

That's it. If you want to make a thread about why 4E sucks, go for it! Just stop derailing other conversations.

Anyone who won't do that isn't being censored or victimized...they're just being rude.

[Blazej]

Scott Betts wrote:

Really, though, that's where the whole "4th Edition Avengers" thing started on the WotC forums - people who decided to engage in a little community-based policing, actively correcting misinformation. As a result, the WotC boards are relatively free from the kind of anti-4th Edition vitriol we used to see there, despite being much, much bigger than the Paizo boards and the natural target for those angry at the new edition of the game.

I would technically not call them a croup that actively corrects misinformation, because that is not what I've seen them do. They correct some misinformation, but ignore others and even spread their own misinformation based on their own preferences. Which is what they people they oppose do as well. I could similarly say that anti-4th Edition posters are also actively correcting misinformation.

Which I would suggest it results in a kind of pro-4th Edition vitriol which isn't any better than the thing that they formed to solve.

[Scott Betts]

Blazej wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Really, though, that's where the whole "4th Edition Avengers" thing started on the WotC forums - people who decided to engage in a little community-based policing, actively correcting misinformation. As a result, the WotC boards are relatively free from the kind of anti-4th Edition vitriol we used to see there, despite being much, much bigger than the Paizo boards and the natural target for those angry at the new edition of the game.

I would technically not call them a croup that actively corrects misinformation, because that is not what they do. They correct some misinformation, but ignore others and even spread their own misinformation.

Which I would suggest it results in a kind of pro-4th Edition vitriol which isn't any better than the thing that they formed to solve.

You know, I've seen a lot of Avenger posts. I can't recall one instance where I thought they were unreasonable, or where they spread misinformation themselves. Now, I'm aware that I may have missed something very important amongst the perpetual dozens of active threads there, but holistically they have struck me as a very positive force on the WotC boards. And yeah, some of the people there (and elsewhere in the community) deride them as blind fanboys, but those people are often the very same people that post the rants and spread the misinformation they're trying to correct.

[CourtFool]

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm sorry if the way I phrased it made it seem hostile to you. That wasn't my intention at all.

Accepted. I apologize for being snarky.

[Kevin Mack]

Scott Betts wrote:

Really, though, that's where the whole "4th Edition Avengers"

Would these be the same 4e avengers I have seen mentioned on several forums being criticised for there bullying tactics, willingness to insult and general ganging up on anyone who had anything remotely? negative to say about 4E? The same 4e avengers that if I remember correctly Titanium Dragon (The man who described Paizo as leeches and parasites) was a member of?