Stealth modding is BS.

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.

CRKrueger

Eläytyminatör
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
20,623
In the Chronicle thread, Norton’s post and my reply were removed from the thread and I was kicked from it with no warning or notification.
Modding is a necessary function, stealth modding is rather cowardly and underhanded.
 
"Stealth modding" meaning not making an announcement about it in the thread?

I would have thought people would generally prefer not getting "called out"
 
"Stealth modding" meaning not making an announcement about it in the thread?

I would have thought people would generally prefer not getting "called out"

Well, the problem with Stealth Modding is, there's no feedback. Why were the posts pulled? Did someone think that was a political topic or something? Modding someone by removing their post and stealth kicking them controls the discussion and gives the wrong impression about what happened. That jackass on Enworld, I forget his name, is famous for arguing with people in threads, then deleting their replies and stealth-threadbanning them. It also hides from the site members what the Mods are doing, thus preventing criticism and accountability.

Also, what was so unbelievably dangerous it had to be wiped from existence immediately with no trace? Why not a warning to knock it off?
 
well, sequence of events was this, last night Norton reported a post, we decided the post didn't cross any lines, hours later then Norton reponded to the post and took it from "opinion on game mechanics" to "personal attack against people for having that opinion" with the standard name calling, and we removed that post, but there was some crossover in removing it, and your ressponse was posted at the same time, so that was likewise removed, and it was determined that post did cross the line, so both you and Norton were temporarily booted from the thread.

The internal debate now is whether the subject overall - Xcards and the like, should be blanket considered "political". On the one hand, these are essentially "game mechanics" and so relevant to RPGs especially as a lot more RPGS are starting to include these sorts of "player protection" ideas in the gamebooks. If we allow discussion of them, then, it's completely fair for posters to complain about them and call them ridiculous, otherwise the Mods are adopting a bias and essentially endorsing one way of gaming or a "correct" playstyle.

OTOH, some folks invest personally in these sorts of things are going to react emotionally to crticisms or dismissals of the game mechanics as personal attacks, making it a really volatile subject in general, and they are tied to political beliefs and points of view. So for the time being, we're just going to be modding any fighting about the mechanics, until we come up with a realistic solution.
 
As for "stealth modding", I guess we can make announcements in the thread, though again some posters have complained about getting "called out" like this in the past, and we really don't want a sort of "Infractions" page or thread here at The Pub.

So...open to suggestions, I guess.
 
well, sequence of events was this, last night Norton reported a post, we decided the post didn't cross any lines, hours later then Norton reponded to the post and took it from "opinion on game mechanics" to "personal attack against people for having that opinion" with the standard name calling, and we removed that post, but there was some crossover in removing it, and your ressponse was posted at the same time, so that was likewise removed, and it was determined that post did cross the line into politics, so both you and Norton were temporarily booted from the thread.

The internal debate now is whether the subject overall - Xcards and the like, should be blanket considered "political". On the one hand, these are essentially "game mechanics" and so relevant to RPGs especially as a lot more RPGS are starting to include these sorts of "player protection" ideas in the gamebooks. If we allow them, then, it's completely fair for posters to complain about them and call them ridiculous, otherwise the Mods are adopting a bias and essentially endorsing one way of gaming or a "correct" playstyle.

OTOH, some folks invest personally in these sorts of things are going to react eotionally to crticisms or dismissals of the game mechanics as personal attacks, and they are tied to political beliefs and points of view. So for the time being, we're just going to be modding any fighting about the mechanics, until we come up with a realistic solution.

To be fair to Norton, I don’t consider “You’re acting like an asshole for mocking them” to be a personal attack against me.

People can decide anything is a personal attack if you criticise something they like. If they do so for political reasons, then accepting that the topic is political is tacitly accepting their point of view.

The currently accepted treatment for Phobias isn’t political. It’s a medical fact that protection from objects of Phobia does not help, it hurts. There’s even evidence now that Trigger Warnings may do more harm than good. This isn’t politics, it’s Psychological practice and research.

Now talking about conventions and gaming clubs forcing the usage of the X-card and similar systems, and how Orwellian it is, would be a political argument.
 
Out of curiosity - when mods remove a post, there are two options - "remove forever" or "remove from public view". Recenty we've taken to using the latter, so other mods can go in and see the post that was removed, and it leaves a notification there in the thread "post removed by moderator" - but can everyone see that notification, or is it just mods?
 
As for "stealth modding", I guess we can make announcements in the thread, though again some posters have complained about getting "called out" like this in the past, and we really don't want a sort of "Infractions" page or thread here at The Pub.

So...open to suggestions, I guess.
Well, I’d prefer warnings.
If you have to mod it RIGHT NOW, then I’d prefer a “Krueger got kicked from the thread because X”. If I get stealthed, I’ll be sure start a thread about it anyway, so you might as well just notify while you’re there.
 
Out of curiosity - when mods remove a post, there are two options - "remove forever" or "remove from public view". Recenty we've taken to using the latter, so other mods can go in and see the post that was removed, and it leaves a notification there in the thread "post removed by moderator" - but can everyone see that notification, or is it just mods?
I didn’t see it for Norton’s and my posts.
 
To be fair to Norton, I don’t consider “You’re acting like an asshole for mocking them” to be a personal attack against me.

Yeah, but you and I are old forum veterans where someone calling us an asshole is a badge we wear with pride, and treat it with as much deference as punctuation.

Other folks, not so much, and after recent events we've sort of had to raise the standard, and apply it consistently.

In other words, Norton wasn't modded because we were worried he'd hurt your feelings ;)

People can decide anything is a personal attack if you criticise something they like. If they do so for political reasons, then accepting that the topic is political is tacitly accepting their point of view.

I'm definitely not saying that - the ultimate decision of "what is political" is still in the Mod's hands, and it's more based on controversies elsewhere online rather than an individual poster's feelings/opinions.
 
The currently accepted treatment for Phobias isn’t political. It’s a medical fact that protection from objects of Phobia does not help, it hurts. There’s even evidence now that Trigger Warnings may do more harm than good. This isn’t politics, it’s Psychological practice and research.
Which is irrelevant because here, on this site, we're discussing those things in the context of people enjoying their leisure time and not in the context of people seeking medical treatment. Unless your GM is a trained psychotherapist and you're going there for treatment (Which I guess could be a thing? If that's how some people play, cool), it's not their job, it's not their role, and they could well just make things worse.
 
Which is irrelevant because here, on this site, we're discussing those things in the context of people enjoying their leisure time and not in the context of people seeking medical treatment. Unless your GM is a trained psychotherapist and you're going there for treatment (Which I guess could be a thing? If that's how some people play, cool), it's not their job, it's not their role, and they could well just make things worse.
What are avoidance mechanisms like the X-card doing? They’re claiming to be protecting someone from harm. That’s where the whole concept of the Safe Space itself comes from...therapy sessions. The Safe Spacers and X-carders are the ones mimicking medical treatment and claiming their techniques protect people. They don’t. If there’s any effect, they make it worse.
 
I suppose we could keep your post but replace the content with *removed by moderator* if that would be more to your liking. But that’s sort of calling out somebody in public and not just making the moderated post disappear, which we don’t like to do, as Tristram said.
 
Out of curiosity - when mods remove a post, there are two options - "remove forever" or "remove from public view". Recenty we've taken to using the latter, so other mods can go in and see the post that was removed, and it leaves a notification there in the thread "post removed by moderator" - but can everyone see that notification, or is it just mods?
Only mods, I couldn't see it before.
 
What are avoidance mechanisms like the X-card doing? They’re claiming to be protecting someone from harm. That’s where the whole concept of the Safe Space itself comes from...therapy sessions. The Safe Spacers and X-carders are the ones mimicking medical treatment and claiming their techniques protect people. They don’t. If there’s any effect, they make it worse.

Painting with a mighty large brush there. Not all make these claims. Context is key, and even knowing people well, sometimes things come across in a way not intended and the fact that the prevailing attitude by so many is too bad suck it up, without addressing the underlying root causes means there is need for a mechanism to be available because people just assume so much and do not think about context.

Claims of I get to know my group, I talk with my group, not in my experience only means that statement is applicable for those specifics. People assume so much about others, especially when they share interests, etc that they truly don't think that what they say or do could impact others differently than intended.

can it be used to derail a game? Yes. Can it be helpful to the person using the card? Yes, sometimes things do trigger within a person unexpectedly. It's one mechanism of a person saying hold up, I need to process and we need to discuss, what happens after is a result of discussion.

That you do not find any use for it does not mean others will.
 
What are avoidance mechanisms like the X-card doing? They’re claiming to be protecting someone from harm. That’s where the whole concept of the Safe Space itself comes from...therapy sessions. The Safe Spacers and X-carders are the ones mimicking medical treatment and claiming their techniques protect people. They don’t. If there’s any effect, they make it worse.
That's a frightful reach. I use casting questionaires and have done for years in my LARP. Which are at least similar to the "content checklists" people put in the same category as the X Card. Where, funnily enough, I use them to not give players a character they're going to hate.
 
But to go back to the "stealth modding" question what would people prefer here?
 
I would rather posts stand, and be called out publicly.

I legit didn't even know CRK was banned from the thread too, or what the position of any of the moderators were, until I talked to Black Leaf in DM. And the DM was instigated on my side asking for clarification on moderation position.

The only reason I knew that CRK was threadbanned was because CRK contacted me by DM.

Also, the wording of "mocking people who support x comes off as assholish" was very specific on my part, as I was intending to criticize the BEHAVIOR, and not CRK as a person. We've butted heads in the past, but I don't dislike him to be honest. I was pretty sure he'd take it the same way I meant it: I don't like the attitude he is taking.

Also, I feel like erasing my posts does exactly what my problem with the original post was to begin with: Because moderation always seems to hit people RESPONDING and not people being openly derisive to start with, if you erase the posts it looks like CRK's opinion that things like that are things to mock goes completely unchallenged. Now whether that is because everyone is just too tired to respond to it yet again (mocking safety tools seems to be becoming a pastime of this forum to be honest) or not, it makes it look like this is just the "accepted opinion" of this forum.

I'd rather people be able to see that there are people here who disagree with his stance, even if it means getting publicly called out for my words in disagreeing. Cause this forum constantly tries to push that "everyone is welcome here" but when mocking attitudes about things like that are just allowed to sit completely unchallenged, it doesn't feel welcoming.
 
The problem is that we've had a lot of discussion of modding lately and people have been complaining about being called out.

Now, in the comic PS238, the pre-teen evil genius Zordon, has been fitted with a speech editor which replaces vulgarity with random words. So, what about replacing the offending words in posts with silly red words like "baboon" instead?

Yes I know it's a bad idea, but it would be funny.
 
Decent impulse, not to call out people, but maybe a DM to the banned user might be a good idea?

And a placeholder like “content under consideration by the mods” in place of the excised text?

Not a mod and not a witness to the incident. Just my .02
 
I suppose we could keep your post but replace the content with *removed by moderator* if that would be more to your liking. But that’s sort of calling out somebody in public and not just making the moderated post disappear, which we don’t like to do, as Tristram said.

Another option is to insert a post from the mods that says content here removed by moderator instead of editing the post as it stands. More work though- at least on the forums I've modded. And we've done it that way in the past, and people complained about not knowing what happened.

No matter how you do it, someone is going to complain in my experience.
 
I think there's a clear bright line between "I do not think specific player safety rules (like X cards) are helpful" and "boo hoo special snowflakes can't stand to play D&D with real gamers".

I think the former argument is stupid, and it makes me angry, but I don't think there's anybody on this forum so pigfucking stupid that they can't tell the difference between the two and recognize that the second one's going to catch heat.

I also think there's a clear bright line between saying "this thing you're doing is asshole behavior" to the first, and saying it to the second. Telling someone that disagreeing with you is "being an asshole" is unacceptable, but telling someone that aggressively ridiculing other people is "being an asshole" is... more ambiguous, since on the one hand it's merely upholding community standards, but on the other hand it could be more respectfully and more effectively phrased.
 
I think there's a clear bright line between "I do not think specific player safety rules (like X cards) are helpful" and "boo hoo special snowflakes can't stand to play D&D with real gamers".

There's an excluded middle there. (Admittedly it's the view I hold so I'm biased).

"Specific player safety rules can be helpful for specific groups. However, the gamer tendency to look for hard rules in every situation has lead to certain player tools being treated as both infallible techniques where no criticism is permitted and a one size fits all solution where neither of those things should be the case. Especially the X Card).

I think the former argument is stupid, and it makes me angry, but I don't think there's anybody on this forum so pigfucking stupid that they can't tell the difference between the two and recognize that the second one's going to catch heat.

No, absolutely. The issue here isn't that which I totally agree with. It's whether "catch heat" is enough reason to moderate.

I also think there's a clear bright line between saying "this thing you're doing is asshole behavior" to the first, and saying it to the second. Telling someone that disagreeing with you is "being an asshole" is unacceptable, but telling someone that aggressively ridiculing other people is "being an asshole" is... more ambiguous, since on the one hand it's merely upholding community standards, but on the other hand it could be more respectfully and more effectively phrased.
The main issue there is precedent.

It's a small jump from there to the "I didn't say he was stupid, I said anyone that shares his view on storygames is stupid" tactic.
 
There's an excluded middle there. (Admittedly it's the view I hold so I'm biased).

"Specific player safety rules can be helpful for specific groups. However, the gamer tendency to look for hard rules in every situation has lead to certain player tools being treated as both infallible techniques where no criticism is permitted and a one size fits all solution where neither of those things should be the case. Especially the X Card).

1. This isn't an excluded middle, because it isn't even between the points that FaerieGodfather laid out.
2. The first part is actually where I sit in general: Player safety rules are specifically useful to specific groups and their existence is justified by being useful in those groups. Hell, I don't even USE them, I just agree them existing as tools is a net positive for people.
3. The second part seems like personal feelings are affecting your take on this situation because NO ONE said that you can't criticize it, it was that the "criticism" wasn't even a criticism it was just mocking the people who feel that rules like that should exist.

No, absolutely. The issue here isn't that which I totally agree with. It's whether "catch heat" is enough reason to moderate.

This is the problem I've been talking to moderation about now for a while now. People are allowed to bait, but the moment anyone responds to it moderation comes down on the person who responded. Basically, you are allowing "impersonal attacks" in the sense that posts like CRK can attack people on the forum, and the only thing that gets moderated is those people responding to it.

Imagine if I started making posts about how "dumb" I thought people were for finding Star Wars FFG dice complicated and making fun of them with stuff like "ooh, I have to add and subtract symbols, oh no whoa is me, I can't do basic math". Do you think that is fair to let sit out? Do you think those would be conducive to fucking anything positive on the forum. If someone said I was coming off as a jerk for saying that... wouldn't they just be RIGHT.

The main issue there is precedent.

It's a small jump from there to the "I didn't say he was stupid, I said anyone that shares his view on storygames is stupid" tactic.

"I didn't say people who like player safety rules are oversensitive snowflakes, I just heavily implied they are oversensitive snowflakes." The same logic you are trying to use to condemn my actions is the same logic that condemns CRKs original post. He was attacking people, the only difference between what I said and what he said was that someone in the thread had already agreed with the attitude I was criticizing. The one that I ALREADY HAD REPORTED and the moderation did nothing about. There was nearly a full day between me reporting it and me responding.

Also, if this is directed at what I said, you are missing some very crucial words that change the meaning. I didn't say he was an asshole, I said he was "COMING OFF as assholish". There is a difference between "I think you are an asshole" and "I think this specific behavior you are exhibiting gives the perception that you are asshole adjacent". Now whether you think that is just as bad or not, I don't like meaning being stripped from what I said.
 
OTOH, some folks invest personally in these sorts of things are going to react emotionally to crticisms or dismissals of the game mechanics as personal attacks, making it a really volatile subject in general, and they are tied to political beliefs and points of view. So for the time being, we're just going to be modding any fighting about the mechanics, until we come up with a realistic solution.

Criticism of game rules and mocking the attitudes of people who create those game rules are not the same thing.

CRK made several posts in this thread about x-card type rules which I don't agree with, but don't think are mocking people for wanting them to exist. They are actual criticisms of the effectiveness of the idea. Again, while I don't AGREE with his conclusion, I have no problem with those posts. They aren't attacking anyone, they aren't making fun of anyone.

Also, I find it telling that you find "defense" of the rules existing, as a tool, not as a universal constant of gaming, but of them EXISTING AT ALL, as "political" but don't find the aggressive dismissal and mocking of them "political". You say you don't want bias in the moderation, but by picking a side and saying it is political and taking the other side and saying it isn't very much looks like bias (especially because I am 99% sure that you don't like X-Card like mechanics from previous conversations).
 
And to expand: Thinking aggressively dismissing it is not political, but aggressively defending the existence of it is, and that politics are not allowed on this forum, is 100% this forum taking a stance on it.
 
Also, sorry for continuing to post over and over, but I do think there is something lost by blanket deleting my post: there were two actual points I made that weren't accusing anyone of anything but clarifying my position that were deleted:

1. That Chronicle is a generic system, so everyone who plays it should not have to be expected to be fans of the source material of the game it derives from.
2. That if there was ever a source material that needed some "hey handle this with care" it is one that regularly uses rape and torture as part of its story.
 
And well, a final post to bring this back to the point of the actual thread and not what triggered it:

Stealth modding is generally bad imo for a lot of reasons:

1. People who were modded don't actually know what they were modded for.
2. People who are modded don't necessarily know the entirety of what happened in the situation (I for instance, would have never known that CRK responded to me or was moderated had he not messaged me and we talked about it ourselves.)
3. People outside don't see the moderation, and so also don't get examples of where the line is. An important part of forum culture in my opinion is for it to be obvious to outsiders where the lines are.
4. Moderation loses a lot of accountability when the things they do are done in secret.
5. Blanket removing posts instead of removing offending parts of posts with a mod note can remove actual salient discussion.

I get it. No one likes being called out. It isn't fun. I also agree that an infraction forum is not needed. But just making a note in threads about moderation taken and why is in my opinion the right thing to do.

The downsides of being called out (one person gets their feelings hurt), is in my opinion, minor compared to all the problems stealth modding introduces.
 
Criticism of game rules and mocking the attitudes of people who create those game rules are not the same thing.

Neither, however, is against the rules.

I'll come back to this point in a bit.

CRK made several posts in this thread about x-card type rules which I don't agree with, but don't think are mocking people for wanting them to exist. They are actual criticisms of the effectiveness of the idea. Again, while I don't AGREE with his conclusion, I have no problem with those posts.

Funnily, I do. We give a bit more leeway in these sorts of threads in the site discussion forum.

Also, I find it telling that you find "defense" of the rules existing, as a tool, not as a universal constant of gaming, but of them EXISTING AT ALL, as "political" but don't find the aggressive dismissal and mocking of them "political". You say you don't want bias in the moderation, but by picking a side and saying it is political and taking the other side and saying it isn't very much looks like bias

That is not what I said.

I outlined the Pro and Con reasons for allowing/banning discussion of the concepts.

The reasons for are, as I stated, "On the one hand, these are essentially "game mechanics" and so relevant to RPGs especially as a lot more RPGS are starting to include these sorts of "player protection" ideas in the gamebooks."

The reasons against are, as I said:

"some folks invest personally in these sorts of things are going to react emotionally to crticisms or dismissals of the game mechanics as personal attacks, making it a really volatile subject in general"

AND

" they are tied to political beliefs and points of view."

I at no point said anything close to the effect that them existing is political but mocking them is not, OR "thinking aggressively dismissing it is not political, but aggressively defending the existence of it is".

What I stated was, IF discussion of them is allowed on the forum, then it is equally acceptable to advocate, defend, disagree with, or dismiss them just like any other RPG rule, within the standards already set regarding moderation.

Also, the wording of "mocking people who support x comes off as assholish" was very specific on my part, as I was intending to criticize the BEHAVIOR, and not CRK as a person.

That distinction has nothing to do wth the tone, however. Which is what a cacophany of posters, yourself included, have complained about repeatedly in recent moderation criticism threads. "The tone of The Pub is getting increasingly hostile"; I could OCD quote dozens of posts saying that exact thing, but I don't think that's necessary.

When Kruegar's original post was reported, I immediately went and looked at it.

Anyone playing the game has probably watched Game of Thrones or read the books without spontaneously combusting, so I think they're probably safe. They may need to wear thick rubber gloves and eye goggles to prevent deadly papercuts though.

It was sarcastic and mocking of the phrase " Rigorous Player Safety Standards... "

But is it any more sarcastic and mocking than opinions regularly expressed on The Pub regarding the 2D20 system? Or recently announced 5th edition IP adaptions? Or comments regarding other forums? Or pieces of media?

No, not at all. It's actually pretty tame, insofar as some examples I could pull up regarding any of those.

But more importatly, it wasn't directed at any poster here.

You're response was, no matter what distiction you made in the phrasing, clearly directed at another poster and much more hostile. Regardless of whether any poster here feels "baited" by a particular post, escalation on their part is solely something they are responsible for.

And it is the tone that affects the forum overall. Just as I had to, as a mod, come to the realization that it wasn't the arguments I was having with other individual posters that was the problem, it was the spillover effect on the mood of The Pub overall, the important elementt here is not the disagreement you and CKR had, or how his post made you feel, but the effect it has on the thread overall, and the other posters reading and participating, when hostilities are escalated.

Also, I feel like erasing my posts does exactly what my problem with the original post was to begin with: Because moderation always seems to hit people RESPONDING and not people being openly derisive to start with, if you erase the posts it looks like CRK's opinion that things like that are things to mock goes completely unchallenged. Now whether that is because everyone is just too tired to respond to it yet again (mocking safety tools seems to be becoming a pastime of this forum to be honest) or not, it makes it look like this is just the "accepted opinion" of this forum.

The Pub doesn't have any "official opinions". Endless loves Star Wars, I don't so much. I have opinions on "player protection devices" in games, other mods don't share my opinions. We are individuals with our own opinions which is why we don't moderate opinions, only the way those opinions are expressed.

And first and foremost, a very important point here, is that it is perfectly OK or a person to dislike, dismiss, or mock anything related to RPGs (or media, or - insert anything else another person might like). A poster can make fun of Star Wars, and Endless isn't going to ban them. A poster can mock Hellboy comics, and that alone is not going to get them moderated by me.

If you want to challenge that opinion, that is also absolutely fine.

All you need to do is up the standards of your responses.
 
I guarantee that if I followed the rules as you set out in this thread, you would not enjoy it, and neither would the forum as a whole. It would drag the forum tone to hell and back.

I've never complained about hostility in a general sense on the forum, I've complained a lot about 2 things:

1. Baiting.
2. Uneven moderation.

And I 100% think that both are still a major issue.

Here is the thing about baiting, and I'm going to explain in more detail why it is a problem and how you can say "there is no official opinion on the forums" as much as you want but that means jack and shit about the PERCEPTION of the forums.

Certain people are very very aggressive about very specific subjects, and no matter how "civil" you are with it, it will turn into a flaming pile of shit. And you know what happens over time: People just stop responding because they are too tired to have the same damned conversation for the 80th time.

The whole x-card situation is one of them. I'm not the only person on the forums who agrees that they are a good tool for specific groups. But why do you think I'm the only one who responded? Because every single time someone does they get drug into the mud with the resident aggressive posters. I've watched it happen to Ladybird Ladybird over and over on similar subjects.

And hey at least in the past when you got dragged into the mud, it was allowed to play out. Now if you lose your patience at the nasty attitudes, boom you get moderated.

So over time, people with those opinions just... go away or stop posting, because aggressive posters continue to ridicule and mock them, just indirectly so that it "isn't against the rules". You're letting the aggressive, baiting posters determine the forum tone and the perception of the forum's opinions.
 
Last edited:
Also, I can't be the only person who thinks that there needs to be different approaches to criticizing "rule that is the best way to determine if a player's character hits something" and "rule that exists in an attempt to protect the mental wellbeing of players."

I'm not saying that the latter is not above criticizing, but that the standards should be a bit different as they are wildly different levels of actually mattering.
 
Also, I can't be the only person who thinks that there needs to be different approaches to criticizing "rule that is the best way to determine if a player's character hits something" and "rule that exists in an attempt to protect the mental wellbeing of players."

I'm not saying that the latter is not above criticizing, but that the standards should be a bit different as they are wildly different levels of actually mattering.

If you want the two distinguished, the distinction is that the second one will be categorized as Politics
 
If you want the two distinguished, the distinction is that the second one will be categorized as Politics

I'd be fine with it being considered political and just banned from discussion entirely. Not necessarily because I think they are political (I think "hey this is a tool that can be useful for some playgroups and think openly mocking those playgroups/game writers is shitty" is a pretty mild opinion to be honest), but because I've pretty much given up on this forum having a conversation about it that rises above a flaming shit show.
 
If you want the two distinguished, the distinction is that the second one will be categorized as Politics
Treating "rule that exists in an attempt to protect the mental wellbeing of players" as politics is, er, an interesting conclusion to come to, when ultimately they're all about "be considerate toward your friends" (I actually agree that they're not perfect, but they're at least a step in a better direction and can help groups think about things they might not have done beforehand).
 
What the fuck is an xcard?

Sometimes (Many, many times) I feel like I must have been slipped acid before coming on the internet.
 
Nevermind, no need to answer. Let me enjoy my ignorance.
 
What the fuck is an xcard?

Sometimes (Many, many times) I feel like I must have been slipped acid before coming on the internet.

Basic idea is it is meant to try and prevent games from going into uncomfortable areas for players. Full details here. I don't think it's perfect but it is I feel something that can be useful for some groups, and think it opens up some important conversations about play at the table that haven't been regularly had.
 
This is the problem I've been talking to moderation about now for a while now. People are allowed to bait, but the moment anyone responds to it moderation comes down on the person who responded. Basically, you are allowing "impersonal attacks" in the sense that posts like CRK can attack people on the forum, and the only thing that gets moderated is those people responding to it.

While I appreciate that this is a real problem, it poses us Pub-goers with a choice. Do we want the mods to tone police, or do we trust each other to personally commit not to take bullshit bait?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top