OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Glyfair]

The problem isn't that you've got a culture where people's grandma's ears are abused; you've got a culture of kindegardeners. Bringing in the higher authority figure is the ultimate escalation of the fight. It is incitement. If you've got rampant tattle-tellers, they are every bit as much of a problem as if you have rampant trolls. Actually, its more, because at least flame-wars often have at least some measure of mature adult discussion admidst the 'and hense with these three points I've proved you are an idiot'. Bringing in the mods is just an attempt to shut down discussion.

I strongly disagree. Mods know when to stay out of a discussion, bump a discussion away from a bad area or when to get heavy handed (at least good ones, which we pretty much have here). Reporting a post is not an automatic "bring the mods down on a thread" unless the thread needs that to happen. I say this as a mod on another site where I often look at a thread and decide the person reporting a post was just being thin-skinned.

 

[neceros]

Poster 1, I hope.

Rather, I don't think any one of those posters have done wrong.
1: Started a debate, without which any forum is unnecessary.
2: Added to the debate on the opposite end.
3: Added a +1 point towards the negative opposing side of the debate humorously.

 

[Particle_Man]

My humor module is in the shop, sorry: Particle_Man, is your suggestion serious? While it'd cut down on arguments, it'd *really* splinter the boards and kill discussion.

Like, worse than arguments do currently

Well it was a serious (rather than humourous) notion, but just a suggestion.

On reporting, I think that reporting is good, while mentioning that you have reported not so good.

Maybe there is a way (going back to my first idea) of using the tags, but letting most people access them, but "partially banning" people that are abusive so that they can't get into [pro-4e] threads if they have been threadcrapping on them, nor into [anti-4e] threads if they have been threadcrapping on them? Sort of an intermediate step betweent he warning and the general ban?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Rather, I don't think any one of those posters have done wrong.
1: Started a debate, without which any forum is unnecessary.
2: Added to the debate on the opposite end.
3: Added a +1 point towards the negative side of the debate humorously.

Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion. What's wrong with that? Some may disagree with it, but so what? If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.

 

[helium3]

First of all, I'm in agreement with Umbran and a couple of the other posters. Civility shouldn't be that hard to maintain and discussion (which generally requires differences of opinion) is why we're here. However, if civility is to be valued over discussion and the forum divided into different camps that aren't allowed to mingle, then there's not really a point in coming here in the first place.

Secondly, I haven't really had a problem with people saying things that my grandmother would take offense to, other than pro-D&D statements in general. She did think it was devil worship after all. I have yet to report someone to the moderators in the years that I've been coming here, and nothing I've read on the 4E forums has even made me consider clicking that button.

That being said, I've also noticed a definite decrease in the level of enjoyment I get from perusing the board. Why? I'm not entirely sure but I think it has something to do with the proliferation of threads and posts that are almost entirely about people spouting off their opinions and not really contributing to an actual discussion in a useful way. I'm here to talk about all things 4E, not wade through a river of snarky two liners that also happen to inarticulately express a completely subjective opinion. If I wanted to subject myself to that I'd go hang out in a coffee shop full of ironic, self-obsessed hipsters. I live in Seattle. They're easy to find.

As for what to do about the problem in general? Here's what I would do if I were in charge:

I'd split the forum into two sub-forums, with one labeled "discussion" and the other labeled "opinion."

The discussion forum is, obviously, about calmly discussing what we know about 4E. Opinions are allowed but posts that ONLY contain an opinion and not something more substantial are strongly discouraged. I'd even go so far as to say that posts that simply say "I agree" or "I disagree" should be discouraged. There's no snarking. There's none of this "I'm going to say something really offensive but use words that make it sound like I'm being friendly to get away with it" garbage. As far as moderating is concerned, it operates under the old "Eric's Grandma" rules for behavior, but it's much more strictly moderated than usual. Far less tolerance for bad behavior than currently seems to exist on the boards. If you step out of line, you get warned the first time.

The other "opinion" sub-forum is sort of like the PvP zones you tend to find in MMO's. Or, if you please, the "two minute hate" in 1984. In either case, you're thoroughly warned ahead of time what you're getting yourself into if you post there, so you can't complain if you later decide that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Threads titled "I hate gnomes and think they should die", "Wizards wants to eat your soul for breakfast" and "I heard that Mike Mearls likes Ranma 1/2" are all perfectly okay. As are bluntly worded objections to the opinions expressed in the titles. The level of moderation is lower (so the mods can focus on the other forum) but the rules about what sorts of things you can complain about are much tighter and far less subjective. If you contact a mod about something going on in the "opinion" sub-forum and it doesn't fall under the very specific rules about what are reportable offenses, you yourself stand a fair chance of getting banned simply for wasting a mod's time.

Under this sort of a regime, people that want to discuss can do so and not have to be bothered by trolls and people that just don't have much to say other than "yeah, I think that too." And people that just want to vent off some steam about something they're upset about? They can go to the "opinion" sub-forum and vent until their spleens explode.

Thanks for your time.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion. What's wrong with that? Some may disagree with it, but so what? If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.

What's wrong? Probably the attitude.

#3 could have said:

"This kind of wizard is probably no longer really viable, because of a profound paradigm change in WotC, which renders their material useless for me."

"We probably won't see them. In general, I disagree with WotC's course and don't see anything that suits my gaming style."

"I don't know, but in general, most of these new ideas are not my taste."

"..." (i.e. posted nothing, as he hasn't continued any discussion)

All convey "I don't like that game", but don't carry as much snark. Generally, I wouldn't say that any poster has done anything wrong, if that wouldn't happen over and over again, often with much more snark - snark and sarcasm is fine once in a while... but if used to often in an environment, it'll change from passive-aggressive to active-aggressive.

Cheers, LT.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Or, rather, #3 stated his opinion. What's wrong with that? Some may disagree with it, but so what? If everyone held the same opinion, we'd have threads with one opening post and twelve thousand me too's.

The way I see it, #3 was a jerk about it.

Because instead of saying something like "I don't like that either, it could really ruin the game for me," he said "Everything poster #1 likes is wrong."

You can respect the validity of someone's ideas without agreeing with them, and you can keep an open channel of discussion without condescending.

For #3, there is no discussion, there's just demagoguery. His mind is made up and he just wants to preach his message. There's no reason to post if you're not making a point, you don't need to leave a post just to see your own text on display. It didn't add anything new, and it's impossible to actually talk about the issues raised, it insults those who don't agree, and, basically, is a jerk about it.

Normally, that's fine, but 4e is a touchy subject 'round here. There's a lot of people really invested in this game. That means that people should take extra care. If that means keepin' your yap shut instead of cracking wise, you should. Take a minute before you post, ask yourself why you need to post it, and then go ahead with it.

And debating with the mods CAN'T be the most productive way to go about getting back into the fray!

 

[Khaalis]

There is a larger problem here than simply the 4E like/hate debate. The problem is really the overabundance of internet incivility.

People hide behind their computers and screen-names and act in ways they would never think of doing in public. The internet's anonymity (in general) brings out the worst in many people. You will never get people to stop threadcrapping, and you will never get them to willingly stop being rude. The only thing you can viably do is simply get strict on moderation of behavior.

It is fine to express contradictory opinions and to debate topics. It is NOT acceptable to be rude, insulting, vulgar, etc. The site already has a written Code of Conduct. When you create an account here it is assumed that you accept and agree to these terms. If people are not willing to abide by it, then they should get the boot. Simple as that. It is not about supporting one side or the other or any kind of favoritism. If you break the CoD, you're out. Simple as that.

What it comes down to Morris is that this is the EN site. It is not the poster's site. If posters are not willing to abide by the rules of this private run site, they don't belong here.

JMHO.

 

[Cadfan]

The real problem is that the type of enforced civility we have, coupled with the social norm of presuming that everyone's opinion has at least some merit and that there's always two sides to an issue, encourages certain types of anti social behavior that slips under the moderation rules.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The real problem is that the type of enforced civility we have, coupled with the social norm of presuming that everyone's opinion has at least some merit and that there's always two sides to an issue, encourages certain types of anti social behavior that slips under the moderation rules.

I'm interested. Why do you think

a) civility rules
b) presuming everyones opinion has at least some merit
c) presuming there are two sides to an issue

encourages antisocial behaviour?

It seems to me that those three things are conducive to polite, rational, intelligent discussion - and in fact the lack of those three elements would hugely encourage antisocial behaviour.

So could you explain your opinion here?

Thanks