D&D rules and enforcement discussion

[Claudius Gothicus]

If by the latter you're referring to my answer to the OP, I can only tell you it wasn't intended that way.

I wasn't really referring to your post, but I'm not going to point fingers anyway.

The problem with the thread is the question was asked by a 15 year old who may not have all the knowledge he needs to form a solid opinion. What he is fed is a series of hyperbolic statements by agenda motivated individuals more interested in semantics than a real discussion. Too often thread degenerate into "bickering" instead of a discussion. In other words, everyone is talking over each other. This kid is probably more confused now than he was when he asked the question.

Ok, I know that, but these "agenda motivated individuals" are old timers, they've been posting in the Academy and the D&D in general for at least more than a year... they should know better. The fact that old posters with a lot of knowledge and expertise on "how does the D&D work" react in such an non-constructive way can only be a symptom of the decaying level of debate, as I've already stated before maybe it's just tiredness.

[PikeStance]

But it was, despite the lack of some manifesto, a place to fight dirty. Dirty fighting took place and hte site was better for it. Its fun and entertaining, which is what the D&D portions of the site ought to be. Sure there are ideal that we ought to aspire to, but you can't force people to debate in good faith etc. They have to choose to do it. TRying to force it has led to the current problem.

I actually suggested that they create a "true mudpit" forum that would allow people to have their mud pie throwing contest. There is an art to the sharp witted off color comments that can be part of any area of discussion or debate. It was rebuked as this would be a "cop- out" catering to a handful of posters. However, if these handful of posters are active on the forum, I do not see the negative. A more open rule forum may even attract those discouraged from participating in the present forum as well.

How can I provide evidence that the moderation has not contributed to making the mudpit more civil when I believe that mudpit is less than civil than before? My evidence for the moderation's lack of contribution towards civility is the absence of civility. If current moderation policy was effective, the mudpit would be civil, but it isn't civil. We just have people trading "you are" for "this post". Darth Red admits that maybe that's the best you can do when you have to draw a line somewhere, but I ask, why bother maintaining a facade of fake civility? Its the same crap either way.

You are making a logical fallacy. You are not linking the cause to effect here. You are only stating that the two are linked.
A real world example: I can referee the same level game; in one game I can give 6 cautions and 1 red and in another game, I gave no cards. What is the difference? Both games were refereed on back to back weekends (so fatigue is not an issue). My interpretation and application would be about the same, but I have significantly different result in terms of behavior. The fact of the matter is it is the posters themselves that have to want change if you are going to see change. In the example above, the difference was the skill level of the players. There are many factors that can contribute, but you reduced it to a singular one with little or no regards to other factors. I have seen the threads in the "pit" and other places in D&D. Threads that have gone bad are numerous and more shockingly, not necessarily ToS violations.

Ok, I know that, but these "agenda motivated individuals" are old timers, they've been posting in the Academy and the D&D in general for at least more than a year... they should know better. The fact that old posters with a lot of knowledge and expertise on "how does the D&D work" react in such an non-constructive way can only be a symptom of the decaying level of debate, as I've already stated before maybe it's just tiredness.

I know what you mean; too many personal issue in the forums. I was in a thread that had a very nice discussion involved. It had descended into two posters personally attacking each other (ad homs, not ToS) for about 2 pages. It is so bad, they have drowned out better points by other posters.

[Aikanár]

Even I don't believe moderation is the sole reason for the decline in quality. I believe it bears a fair portion of the blame by coddling certain attitudes, and more importantly, is a variable we have some control over. Moderators cannot stop people from being retards. In order to be fair, they have to let idiots be idiots. However, they can allow posters, who need not worry about fairness, create a posting environment hostile to far-out stupidity. My conclusion has never left anything aside. I just accept the only thing any of us can directly affect is how moderators do their jobs, which is why I focus on this particular issue.

No one has tried to claim things are better now. We have different ideas on why things are not so good now, but no one has said things are better now. That's why I feel I can safely claim that the idea things were better back then is widely accepted.

How can I provide evidence that the moderation has not contributed to making the mudpit more civil when I believe that mudpit is less than civil than before? My evidence for the moderation's lack of contribution towards civility is the absence of civility. If current moderation policy was effective, the mudpit would be civil, but it isn't civil. We just have people trading "you are" for "this post". Darth Red admits that maybe that's the best you can do when you have to draw a line somewhere, but I ask, why bother maintaining a facade of fake civility? Its the same crap either way.


But it was, despite the lack of some manifesto, a place to fight dirty. Dirty fighting took place and hte site was better for it. Its fun and entertaining, which is what the D&D portions of the site ought to be. Sure there are ideal that we ought to aspire to, but you can't force people to debate in good faith etc. They have to choose to do it. TRying to force it has led to the current problem.

lol no one really expects the staff to ever change their mind. Most of you would rather die before admitting ferrets might have a point about anything. Its insane but kinda funny. Still, I doubt there was much "evidence" taken into account when staff decided to go down the path of nanny moderation that is substantially different than the "evidence" I'm using. Its all opinions and gut feelings and subjective approaches.

The only objective fact I know is we are going to have the same argument until the one thing that can change, the moderation, does change. We'd probably still be arguing then tbh, but at least it would be a different argument.

Disclaimer: beware, ToS violating example ahead!

That is one of the single most stupid posts I've ever read. It contains more fallacy, single-minded, unintelligent and false cause based opinions than some of the threads in the mudpit I had the misfortune to skim. Is that what you consider fun? Or would you consider it more fun if I was to write 'You post crap. Go educate yourself concerning causation and while your at it, buy some brain for 5$ in order to be half ways able to comprehend what crap you just wrote. And when you've accomplished that, a look at wouldn't hurt either.'? Because this is basically the sort of fun you and others are asking for. End of example!

Moderation is the only thing we can directly affect? Wrong! You cannot affect moderation because this is not a democracy. Also, there is no free speech. But what everybody of us can affect is how and what we ourselves post. It's not like I am forced by some irresistible force of nature to post the example above. Every single member is responsible for what he is doing on this board and moderation acts as sort of a filter in case a user actively chooses to not abide by the rules. What you are conveniently neglecting is individual responsibility and accountability.

Concerning the manifesto, the debate forum rules existed since 04. They never said that the mudpit was supposed to be a place to fight dirty, in contrary. And in general concerning all your cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, sorry I don't buy them.

With regards to fun and entertainment, we definitely have a different idea of what that is, but that's fine.

I find it amusing that "you staff" generalizations are thrown around whenever assertions fail. The only staff function I'm executing is one in Vault Staff and that has nothing to do with site policy or moderation.

[Vanoi]

Lately(with the new wave of young posters who stop by by due to Rome's II release to be more specific) there has been quite a lot of aggressive posting in the Academy... just look at some of the responses given to this guy's question regarding Socialism: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...bout-socialism

Yes but considering the subject is socialism, i am not surprised. These were more like "I hate socialism" posts than aggressive posts. Aggressive posts still actually address the topic with a meaningful response.

[Claudius Gothicus]

"I hate socialism" posts do not sound like actual responses to a "What's so bad about Socialism anyway?" question... in fact, many of them, can be labelled as disruptive posting.

[athanaric]

"I hate socialism" posts do not sound like actual responses to a "What's so bad about Socialism anyway?" question... in fact, many of them, can be labelled as disruptive posting.

Considering my country has suffered from 40 years of very real socialism, I have a damn good reason to hate it and warn others not to fall for it. Same goes for Eastern Europeans, many of whom have had it even worse. Why not listen to them instead of some crazy salon communists, who repeat the same lies again and again.

[Squid]

Considering my country has suffered from 40 years of very real socialism, I have a damn good reason to hate it and warn others not to fall for it. Same goes for Eastern Europeans, many of whom have had it even worse. Why not listen to them instead of some crazy salon communists, who repeat the same lies again and again.

Because people should not just take things at their word. For example I hate socialism provides no facts to support it and nothing upon which a person can make an informed opinion, as such it's disruptive or at the least spam because it adds nothing to the discussion.

[Sir Adrian]

Considering my country has suffered from 40 years of very real socialism, I have a damn good reason to hate it and warn others not to fall for it. Same goes for Eastern Europeans, many of whom have had it even worse. Why not listen to them instead of some crazy salon communists, who repeat the same lies again and again.

You may be surprised but quite a few Eastern Europeans would not mind a return to communism, simply for the stability it offered, and most Eastern European right wing parties are adopting some of socialism's best ideas into their own ideology.

[athanaric]

You may be surprised but quite a few Eastern Europeans would not mind a return to communism, simply for the stability it offered, and most Eastern European right wing parties are adopting some of socialism's best ideas into their own ideology.

Nostalgia and longing for security are powerful motivators...

[Slaytaninc]

You may be surprised but quite a few Eastern Europeans would not mind a return to communism, simply for the stability it offered, and most Eastern European right wing parties are adopting some of socialism's best ideas into their own ideology.

Or rather the imaginary stability.