Stealth modding is BS.

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

It's not the intention of the rule, it's the demand for special consideration for one viewpoint or opinion.

You can see it right here with the sentance:
I'm not the only person on the forums who agrees that they are a good tool

The application of an ethical value to an opinion on a game mechanic.

Followed up by a request for special treatment of those rules.
 
Nevermind, no need to answer. Let me enjoy my ignorance.
lol tough luck.

John Stavropoulos said:
The X-Card is an optional tool (created by John Stavropoulos) that allows anyone in your game (including you) to edit out any content anyone is uncomfortable with as you play. Since most RPGs are improvisational and we won't know what will happen till it happens, it's possible the game will go in a direction people don't want. An X-Card is a simple tool to fix problems as they arise.

Probably most notable for how strongly people it encourages people to fight back against having to be considerate to others in any way whatsoever, no matter how mild.
 
The application of an ethical value to an opinion on a game mechanic.

Followed up by a request for special treatment of those rules.
That's not how I read the word "good"; I read it as a tool which is fairly effective at what it sets out to do.

Like, a hammer isn't morally virtuous, but if I want to drive in a nail then a hammer is a good tool.
 
That's not how I read the word "good"; I read it as a tool which is fairly effective at what it sets out to do.

The question is, why should that be a privileged opinion?
 
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?

Wouldn't removing my entire post and all the points I made in it because I ended it with a comment saying that I thought mocking the existence of player safety rules came off as assholish be by definition tone policing?
 
Never said that anyone has to think they are an effective tool, but mocking the intent is very different from thinking they don't achieve it well.

OK, then why should the intent be protected from criticism?
 
Wouldn't removing my entire post and all the points I made in it because I ended it with a comment saying that I thought mocking the existence of player safety rules came off as assholish be by definition tone policing?

Yes, but at the "wrong" end. To keep baiting in check would require even more of it. Not fun.
 
OK, then why should the intent be protected from criticism?

Ok, so here is a question. Would you ever, in all your time GMing, be upset if someone told you they weren't comfortable with where a game's trajectory was going?

Because the intent is to allow that to be done, even by people who may not feel entirely comfortable with expressing it. Not everyone has the confidence to be able to take the game aside and say "hey, I can't deal with this specific topic". Now, we may disagree on the best way to make them feel that they can do so (as I've said, I don't use x-cards or anything like it in any of my games, I have a different approach to dealing with it), but the only reason you would be against the intent of helping them reach that place is if you just feel that "those people are just too weak to play RPGs". At which point, mocking it becomes a criticism of those people, and not about criticizing the "rules".

Take my mocking of Thac0. I would like to think that if I took the approach of mocking the intent of all to hit rules, that someone would think I was being an insane person. Thinking Thac0 is a shit way to determine to hit is very different than thinking to hit rules have no use and shouldn't exist in any game.
 
Take my mocking of Thac0. I would like to think that if I took the approach of mocking the intent of all to hit rules, that someone would think I was being an insane person. Thinking Thac0 is a shit way to determine to hit is very different than thinking to hit rules have no use and shouldn't exist in any game.

Probably, but that's still not something I'd see as over the line. If someone thinks that to hit rules are worth mocking in their entirity that's a fringe position but not one that needs to be declared off limits because it's a personal attack on everyone who likes to hit rules.

"Is this post worth engaging with" and "should this post be verboten" are entirely different questions.
 
Ok, so here is a question. Would you ever, in all your time GMing, be upset if someone told you they weren't comfortable with where a game's trajectory was going?

No, I wouldn't be upset by it.

I can think of numerous situations I would dismiss it.
And I would not create "game rules" to address a social situation.

But my opinion on such situations or those mechanics are besides the point. If a bunch of posters want to talk about how great they think such mechanics are, or advocate for them, I'm not going to moderate based on whether I agree or disagree with those opinions.

You want me to take a side, insofar as moderation goes, and that goes against every fiber of my being as to what being a moderator means.

We aren't going to have special classes of game rules on the Pub that are enforced by moderation, bar none.

The day that happens is the day I give up on The Pub.
 
OK, then why should the intent be protected from criticism?
If someone came on the forum and posted "hey, does anyone have any ways I can make my game more miserable for the players? Especially Steve, fuck that guy" I suspect we would be less than kind towards them. The ultimate goal of all RPG discussion is to work out how to make our games "more fun" (Whatever "fun" means for that given group, natch), and functionally mockery of the intent behind the X-Card (Or any other player safety tools) is mocking ways that groups can make games "more fun" for their members.

(I accept that there are some groups who may find "springing awful things on people who aren't prepared for them" might be some people's ideas of fun, but TBH I'm happy to throw them under the bus. Sorry, folks.)

Because the intent is to allow that to be done, even by people who may not feel entirely comfortable with expressing it. Not everyone has the confidence to be able to take the game aside and say "hey, I can't deal with this specific topic". Now, we may disagree on the best way to make them feel that they can do so (as I've said, I don't use x-cards or anything like it in any of my games, I have a different approach to dealing with it), but the only reason you would be against the intent of helping them reach that place is if you just feel that "those people are just too weak to play RPGs". At which point, mocking it becomes a criticism of those people, and not about criticizing the "rules".
Hell, I don't even think the XCard is a perfect solution to every problem... but it's better than what we had, which was nothing. It's just... better... than that was.

We aren't going to have special classes of game rules on the Pub that are enforced by moderation, bar none.
But... they're not game rules. They're not hard and fast restrictions. They're just things to think about when running / playing games. They're exactly as hard as the "think gothic and punk" GM'ing advice in a White Wolf book.
 
"Is this post worth engaging with" and "should this post be verboten" are entirely different questions.

I find that when everyone starts determining that certain aggressive posts are not worth engaging with anymore and the moderation allows them to continue indefinitely then those types of aggressive posts will become more and more common on the boards.

It's showing that if you persistently shit up certain topics long enough, no one will bother to discuss them at all in a positive light because they don't want the hassle. All you got to do is outlast the perseverance of the people who disagree with you.

Here is a question: when was the last time that any discussion of player safety rules have been brought up in a positive light. Not where someone defended them because someone else was attacking them, but when was the last time that someone brought them up from a perspective of them being a positive idea?

I imagine it has been quite a long time compared to the number of times they've been shit on unprovoked. Why do you think that is?
 
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.

Um, I told Krueger he was massively overreaching in this very thread.

The reasons I didn't respond in the thread in question?

Because I wasn't following it at all because of not having an interest in the game in question. As you can imagine, it's not possible for me to know what's going on in every thread on the board so I only read them if either a) I want to see what they say as a poster or b) because they're brought to my attention as a mod.

Again as a poster I also frequently ignore arguments we've had before because they bore me. I don't not get into with Krueger about narrative mechanics because I'm somehow scared of him. I don't do so because I don't think there's anything new to say and I can't be arsed.

Minor point, but by the time I even heard that thread had blown up it was massively after the fact. Different time zones etc.
 
But... they're not game rules. They're not hard and fast restrictions. They're just things to think about when running / playing games.

I mean, we can talk about those things but this conversation specifically is based upon "tools" within a rulebook, and the Xcard is a game mechanic and has an associated set of rules. It is rules (or at least, a decaration about rules) that CKR's original post that instigated this tangent addressed.

The situation you are describing would have played out differently, because CKR would then have been directly mocking posters in the thread because of what they were discussing.
 
If someone came on the forum and posted "hey, does anyone have any ways I can make my game more miserable for the players? Especially Steve, fuck that guy" I suspect we would be less than kind towards them. The ultimate goal of all RPG discussion is to work out how to make our games "more fun" (Whatever "fun" means for that given group, natch), and functionally mockery of the intent behind the X-Card (Or any other player safety tools) is mocking ways that groups can make games "more fun" for their members.

(I accept that there are some groups who may find "springing awful things on people who aren't prepared for them" might be some people's ideas of fun, but TBH I'm happy to throw them under the bus. Sorry, folks.)


Hell, I don't even think the XCard is a perfect solution to every problem... but it's better than what we had, which was nothing. It's just... better... than that was.


But... they're not game rules. They're not hard and fast restrictions. They're just things to think about when running / playing games. They're exactly as hard as the "think gothic and punk" GM'ing advice in a White Wolf book.
Except conventions and gaming clubs aren’t making the usage of “think gothic” a mandatory requirement in the name of safety.

People here are trying to say this is just about fun and comfort, but that’s incorrect. It’s about “safety”, ie. preventing harm, as 10 seconds of reading about the topic will show.
 
I mean, we can talk about those things but this conversation specifically is based upon "tools" within a rulebook, and the Xcard is a game mechanic and has an associated set of rules. It is rules (or at least, a decaration about rules) that CKR's original post that instigated this tangent addressed.

The situation you are describing would have played out differently, because CKR would then have been directly mocking posters in the thread because of what they were discussing.

So here is the thing, are you seriously saying that had someone else mentioned them in a positive light earlier in the thread, that CRK's post would have been moderated as he was then mocking a specific user. Because if so you are basically saying "the only way to avoid being mocked is to make sure to get to the thread first."
 
So here is the thing, are you seriously saying that had someone else mentioned them in a positive light


No, I said that if posters were having a conversation about ways to make players in their game more comfortable, or whatever, and CKR had jumped into the thread and mocked them for having that conversation, he would have gotten moderated for that

That is not what happened though. He made fun of a tagline for a rulebook.
 
Except conventions and gaming clubs aren’t making the usage of “think gothic” a mandatory requirement in the name of safety.

People here are trying to say this is just about fun and comfort, but that’s incorrect. It’s about “safety”, ie. preventing harm, as 10 seconds of reading about the topic will show.

1. I would like to think that safety, ie preventing harm, is an important part of fun and comfort. I know that generally I don't have fun, or feel comfortable, if myself or my players do not feel safe.
2. I think that any time you game in a public space and are moving outside of your normal home games, there comes with it a certain heightened level of responsibility to acknowledging that communication will be harder. In fact the system I use in my home games is entirely unrefined and ad hoc, because well, I know and trust my players and they know and trust me. If I'm playing with randos, we don't have that trust. An attempt to put in a system is something I definitely understand, even if I don't necessarily like the system.
 
I find that when everyone starts determining that certain aggressive posts are not worth engaging with anymore and the moderation allows them to continue indefinitely then those types of aggressive posts will become more and more common on the boards.

It's showing that if you persistently shit up certain topics long enough, no one will bother to discuss them at all in a positive light because they don't want the hassle. All you got to do is outlast the perseverance of the people who disagree with you.

Here is a question: when was the last time that any discussion of player safety rules have been brought up in a positive light. Not where someone defended them because someone else was attacking them, but when was the last time that someone brought them up from a perspective of them being a positive idea?

I imagine it has been quite a long time compared to the number of times they've been shit on unprovoked. Why do you think that is?

Also, again, I'd love to see someone actually answer this.

Why do you think we don't see these posts on here? Why do you think these kind of subjects just flat out aren't brought up here?

I'm seriously trying to express a legitimate concern about the forum, that certain people are allowed to shit up certain topics by dancing just on the other side of the "line" so much that everyone gets tired of discussing it entirely.
 
Probably most notable for how strongly people it encourages people to fight back against having to be considerate to others in any way whatsoever, no matter how mild.

Equally notable for the fact it says players can edit out any content they don't like, without qualifier. That's not my only issue with it, but it's the main one. And it's not entirely abstract as a concern for me; I've dealt with a player in a Vampire LARP who would have definitely X-Carded any mind control and might have X-Carded feudalism.

To be fair, when you actually pin down people on this very few groups actually use it as written. But when it's quite that fatally flawed I don't think you can blame people for having serious concerns about it. Especially as the nature of the online gaming scene has lead to a significant number of people treating it as a solution rather than a starting point for discussion.
 
Maybe the majority of people here don't want to discuss x-cards, Norton. I don't think there's some feeling of dread here about specific subjects. You want to talk about it, talk about 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?

It's a pretty big catch-22. Heavy handed moderation sucks, but it's a given that someone is going to take bullshit bait when it's been dropped. That much has proven obvious.
 
Maybe the majority of people here don't want to discuss x-cards, Norton. I don't think there's some feeling of dread here about specific subjects. You want to talk about it, talk about it.
Honestly, I might be reluctant to on here, so Norton is at least half right. The other half is that both the pros and the antis have dug in their heels so hard on the subject of the X Card that trying to have any kind of nuanced discussion of its utility feels entirely fruitless.
 
I'm also not sure people actually want heavy handed moderation really. Unless I've misread them (which is possible) both Norton and Krueger seem to be of the view that we shouldn't have moderated them and should just have let them have at each other. (Which doesn't really work with the "try and make the forum more friendly" thing people have said in other threads).
 
It's complicated.

I've addressed it in DMs, but I think the problem with the current moderation is that if I was a vindictive asshole, I could run around the forum keeping my toe just on the other side of the line and bait things I know piss CRK off until he responded. Then laugh when he gets modded for it.

I'm not a vindictive asshole, so it isn't what I'd do, but I could.

Now, the fact that I've said I could do this has now made it obvious that would be my intent, which changes things so I'd probably get moderated after stating intent.

I think that by trying to make the forum "friendlier" you've hit a middle ground that isn't doing anyone any favors. It's getting more strict (which I'll admit hits old users like me who are used to more free wheeling style harder), but not so strict that it actually catches the INSTIGATORS of hostility.

At least with less moderation, people who acted like jerks get called out on acting like jerks.

Also, I'll add that even if I was going to be moderated, I again, think that stealth moderation is by far the worst way to handle it.
 
Last edited:
I mean, we can talk about those things but this conversation specifically is based upon "tools" within a rulebook, and the Xcard is a game mechanic and has an associated set of rules. It is rules (or at least, a decaration about rules) that CKR's original post that instigated this tangent addressed.
They're not game mechanics, though. They're not structures for narrative control, like (Say) spending a benny to declare a detail. They're pure out of game things, like my friend who is scared of spiders that asked me not to include any spiders in my games (This is why my games feature beetles as the giant bug of choice, incidentally).

Equally notable for the fact it says players can edit out any content they don't like, without qualifier. That's not my only issue with it, but it's the main one. And it's not entirely abstract as a concern for me; I've dealt with a player in a Vampire LARP who would have definitely X-Carded any mind control and might have X-Carded feudalism.

To be fair, when you actually pin down people on this very few groups actually use it as written. But when it's quite that fatally flawed I don't think you can blame people for having serious concerns about it. Especially as the nature of the online gaming scene has lead to a significant number of people treating it as a solution rather than a starting point for discussion.
Like I said earlier, I don't even think they're a perfect solution. I think they're a starting point for a discussion and work as a general guideline, but the dogmatic "this is the solution that must be used" attitude some people have (On both sides of the discussion) misses the point a somewhat.

TBH I'm also fully in favour of content warnings, so that player could (Say) see that your Vampire game is likely to feature mind control at some point, and decide "this probably isn't the game for me"; I figure that if an x-card needs to be broken out more than a few times in a session, it's done it's job but A Discussion needs to be had next.
 
I really don't believe that CKR's post was in anyway specifically directed at Norton, attempting to bait him specifically into responding. CKR's opinions on these things have been consistent for years.

This is what I consider linedancing...

I have problems with such and such, but that's getting into politics so I won't mention it here

I really don't like the groups online pushing Xcards, but I won't mention them by name here

I know this thing woulld really piss off this person, so I won't say it but I'm going to say it anyways

I don't see CKR's post in that thread as linedancing. I see it as his reaction to the phrase "robust player protection tools", nothing more. It's consistent with CKR's opinions as I know him, over the last decade. If anythig I'd say his response was utterly predictable.

Moderators aren't always going to interpret things the same as posters. Mods often aren't going to have the personal histories that posters share, or the accumulated frustrations they do regarding subjets. Ultimately, we're never going to be able to please everyone. We also don't have any obligation to punish people other posters think should be punished. And we also aren't going to accept one poster's behaviour as an excuse for another's.

I want to remind everyone what I said when I gave up finally on trying to seperate myself as a poster and my role as a mod :

"Instead of accepting the behaviour of other posters and interacting on their level, I will instead be expecting them to match my standards. This should, to some extent, address some of the concerns expressed in this thread, regarding the rising levels of snark and personal attacks. Whereas once there was a ton of rope, I will not be extending the same level of acceptance. "

All that said, when the worst consequence here is some posts getting pulled, and temporary threadbans, well...I think the phrase "harsh moderation" is somewhat relative.

Anways, in regards to the stealth modding, we'll probably avoid that. I've even edited the Chronicle thread now in response.
 
They're not game mechanics, though. They're not structures for narrative control, like (Say) spending a benny to declare a detail. They're pure out of game things, like my friend who is scared of spiders that asked me not to include any spiders in my games (This is why my games feature beetles as the giant bug of choice, incidentally).

Sure that example is not a gae mechanic, it's a social interaction.

An X-card, on the other hand, is a game mechanic. It's a meta-mechanic, certainly, because it's happening outside of the imagined reality of the gameworld, but I can't see an argument existing that it's not a mechanic.

I don't have any idea what "Robust Player Protection Tools" are, in this case, but obviously a social interaction doesn't require a tool, so it's safe to assume this is a systemization of something that would otherwise be handled by normal social interaction. Mainly as social interaction is dictated entirely by the group, not by a game author.
 
I really don't believe that CKR's post was in anyway specifically directed at Norton, attempting to bait hi into responding. KR's opinions on these things have been consistent for years.
I don't think it was specifically directed at Norton or any particular user, but I definitely think it was fishing for an argument with someone.

And before "well, nobody was obliged to respond to him"... he wasn't obliged to respond to that bullet point in the promo copy, either.
 
I don't think it was specifically directed at Norton or any particular user, but I definitely think it was fishing for an argument with someone.

And before "well, nobody was obliged to respond to him"... he wasn't obliged to respond to that bullet point in the promo copy, either.
I'm not covinced Krueger wouldn't have posted that if he was the only person on the forum, tbh.
 
You know, I've grown attached enough to this community that the validation from seeing that "no politics" means what it always fucking means doesn't give me nearly as much satisfaction as I was expecting it to.
 
I don't think it was specifically directed at Norton or any particular user, but I definitely think it was fishing for an argument with someone.

And before "well, nobody was obliged to respond to him"... he wasn't obliged to respond to that bullet point in the promo copy, either.

Let me put it this way;because we can go back and forth on who instigated who all day;

I don't think us expecting a certain level of self control from posters in how they respond to other posters is unfair.

Some of the arguments in this thread have veered dangerously close to "he was asking for it". That's just not the way we operate.

We can view each individual issue with a microscope to assign discrete percentages of blame, but ultimately the point of the mods, IMO, is in considering what's best for the foru overall. And would anyone have benefitted from an escalating back and forth between Norton and CRK? Because that's where it was headed, we all know that.

All we want, really, is for people to not escalate hostility, for whatever reasons they think justify that.
 
I don't see CKR's post in that thread as linedancing. I see it as his reaction to the phrase "robust player protection tools", nothing more. It's consistent with CKR's opinions as I know him, over the last decade. If anythig I'd say his response was utterly predictable.

It being utterly predictable is the problem. If anyone starts talking on any number of topics, there are certain people on this forum that I 100% can predict to come in and start shitting up the topic. Some topics are completely not worth even discussing here because I know exactly what is going to happen.

There are a lot of topics on the forums here that I just straight up... don't engage with because I don't like those types of mechanics/style on a personal level, but I also can recognize that they fit perfectly fine for others. So I don't see a reason to go shitting on them, or if I do, I will try to point out that I'm just talking about me personally (for an example of what I mean).

I have probably done it in the past (I think anyone who says they have never done it is either a saint or lying to themselves), but I do my best not to anymore. The fact that you find it utterly predictable that CRK would respond that way doesn't make it better, it makes it obvious that this is a pattern of behavior.

You want to hold people "escalating" hostility to a higher standard? Cool. But how can the hostility escalate if it... doesn't exist. And you seem to have no interest in holding people to a standard there.
 
You know, I've grown attached enough to this community that the validation from seeing that "no politics" means what it always fucking means doesn't give me nearly as much satisfaction as I was expecting it to.

As an aside, a moderator responding to this with a laughing emote does not sit well with me at all.
 
It being utterly predictable is the problem.

The forum software does have a very effective solution for that problem, which you're free to make use of.

You want to hold people "escalating" hostility to a higher standard? Cool. But how can the hostility escalate if it... doesn't exist. And you seem to have no interest in holding people to a standard there.

I don't know what you're saying there.
 
The forum software does have a very effective solution for that problem, which you're free to make use of.

Me ignoring him does not stop him from shitting up topics. Even if I don't see him posting, it doesn't stop him from dragging other people into it with him and pulling the discussion into the mud.

I don't know what you're saying there.

Ok, so if someone was "escalating a war" there would you know, have to be a war to begin with right? Otherwise they aren't escalating a war, they are starting a war.

If you are saying that "escalating hostility" is the problem, then you know, hostility already has to exist.
 
I don't have any idea what "Robust Player Protection Tools" are, in this case, but obviously a social interaction doesn't require a tool, so it's safe to assume this is a systemization of something that would otherwise be handled by normal social interaction. Mainly as social interaction is dictated entirely by the group, not by a game author.
I get where you're coming from, I just don't agree with the conclusions. I think we've both made our points though, so let's move on for now.

Let me put it this way;because we can go back and forth on who instigated who all day;

I don't think us expecting a certain level of self control from posters in how they respond to other posters is unfair.

Some of the arguments in this thread have veered dangerously close to "he was asking for it". That's just not the way we operate.

We can view each individual issue with a microscope to assign discrete percentages of blame, but ultimately the point of the mods, IMO, is in considering what's best for the foru overall. And would anyone have benefitted from an escalating back and forth between Norton and CRK? Because that's where it was headed, we all know that.

All we want, really, is for people to not escalate hostility, for whatever reasons they think justify that.
All of these points apply equally to CKR as Norton, though, and as A Fiery Flying Roll Black Leaf hints towards, it'll be exactly the same the next time anyone mentions a concept CKR doesn't like. I agree people should try not to escalate hostility from 1 to 2, but people should probably try not to escalate from 0 to 1 either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top