The Tavern

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say there is a civility issue on the Tavern. What, then, should the mods do about it?

Currently, the line is set at "personal attacks." Note, for example, that duvessa just called an argument stupid; is that a personal attack? At what point does criticizing someone's argument or tone rise to the level of an actionable personal attack?

What kind of rule could even be enacted that would address chequers critique of terse advice? When does terseness become uncivil? How about snark? Does it matter if the statement is correct?

As Wikipedia's internal struggles with "civility" show, it's hard to regulate. My idea of civility may be far more strict or lenient than someone else's. Indeed, if you've read this thread, you should already have a very good idea that every single poster here has a different idea of what counts as "civil" and "uncivil." Indeed, it seems super clear that some people are complaining because they find someone else's behavior to be annoying, and it's hard to imagine how you'd craft a rule that prevents people from getting on each other's nerves.

Which is all to say that I'm not sure there's a very useful way to adjudicate this stuff in a way that's even remotely fair, and that the only answer involves people learning to live with their digital neighbors with a measure of good humor. This is, after all, a video game forum.

e: also, I'm on a borrowed tablet, otherwise I'd split off the substantive parts of this discussion to Suggestions & Criticism. If another mod happens to see this before I get to a computer, feel free to do so.

The problem with an answer like this

That trident is bad, and the rPois on it is useless. Don't train polearms.

is that if someone else says

That trident is decent, and the rPois on it is a nice bonus. Train some polearms.

the newbie in question has no way of judging which advice is better.

What kind of rule could even be enacted that would address chequers critique of terse advice? When does terseness become uncivil? How about snark? Does it matter if the statement is correct?

I don't have much else to add at this point, but I want to say that I don't think any technical solution (eg rules) is going to make posts more civil. The only thing I think that would work is:
1) the community (read: partly the mods, but also partly the users) must buy into the idea that this board can become more civil,
2) A new line for acceptable/unacceptable posting behaviour is drawn, and
3) The new line is enforced by a combination of peer pressure and mod actions

You guys are starting to step on 3rd wave feminism territory. Nobody is going to get traumatized from discussions here, unless they get censored, which is what appears to be the solution we are heading towards. I cant be sarcastic anymore?(i know this is not happening) Are you fucking serious!? How long until i cant say "fuck" anymore. Meanwhile we wont keep new members from doing it, or if we do, then their time here will be pretty short. When i first joined tavern i was a asshole, now i am a selfaware asshole. Having good and bad conversations is part of teaching a person how to approach and avoid certain people as well as becoming a person people are more likely to want to have conversations with and the internet is the best place for that because you get decent feedback, but specially because nobody can dominate the conversation, nobody can tell others to shut up and, to top it off, we have mods to regulate things.

dynast wrote:nobody can dominate the conversation, nobody can tell others to shut up and, to top it off, we have mods to regulate things

I agree with you, but I also enjoy how this pretty much reads "nobody can tell others to shut up and, to top it off, we have mods to tell others to shut up".

I believe its easier to get yourself banned. I dont think i ever saw a mod telling someone in specific to shut up, i have been scolded before, but it was privately, i never got pushed aside from a conversation here, but instead had the entire conversation locked due to making it get nowhere.

archaeo wrote:Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say there is a civility issue on the Tavern. What, then, should the mods do about it?

Nothing, people can settle things and ask for clarification and block people they find to be uncivil

Currently, the line is set at "personal attacks." Note, for example, that duvessa just called an argument stupid; is that a personal attack?

Not at all

At what point does criticizing someone's argument or tone rise to the level of an actionable personal attack?

Basically never as long as the argument or the way something was said was the criticism. "This type of argument leads to fascism" is fine, "your arguments mean you're a fascist" is a personal attack

What kind of rule could even be enacted that would address chequers critique of terse advice? When does terseness become uncivil? How about snark? Does it matter if the statement is correct?

None, terse advice is sometimes the best advice. Does it matter if the statement is correct? No, because people are absolutely allowed to be wrong and I think people getting angry for other people for being wrong is hilarious so keep it up

As Wikipedia's internal struggles with "civility" show, it's hard to regulate. My idea of civility may be far more strict or lenient than someone else's. Indeed, if you've read this thread, you should already have a very good idea that every single poster here has a different idea of what counts as "civil" and "uncivil." Indeed, it seems super clear that some people are complaining because they find someone else's behavior to be annoying, and it's hard to imagine how you'd craft a rule that prevents people from getting on each other's nerves.

You answered all your own rhetoricals right here

Which is all to say that I'm not sure there's a very useful way to adjudicate this stuff in a way that's even remotely fair, and that the only answer involves people learning to live with their digital neighbors with a measure of good humor. This is, after all, a video game forum.

This would involve people actually owning and maintaining a sense of humour at all which is a pretty big stretch to assume but I'll roll with it

e: also, I'm on a borrowed tablet, otherwise I'd split off the substantive parts of this discussion to Suggestions & Criticism. If another mod happens to see this before I get to a computer, feel free to do so.

What part of this discussion has actually been substantive?

archaeo wrote:Which is all to say that I'm not sure there's a very useful way to adjudicate this stuff in a way that's even remotely fair, and that the only answer involves people learning to live with their digital neighbors with a measure of good humor. This is, after all, a video game forum.

This thread as a whole is rather funny.

dynast wrote:You guys are starting to step on 3rd wave feminism territory. Nobody is going to get traumatized from discussions here, unless they get censored, which is what appears to be the solution we are heading towards.

This is a really impressive mischaracterization of third-wave feminism. It feels just like being on Reddit.

duvessa wrote:This is a really impressive mischaracterization of third-wave feminism. It feels just like being on Reddit.

Ehh, disregard that first bit.

Sprucery wrote:The problem with an answer like this
That trident is bad, and the rPois on it is useless. Don't train polearms.
is that if someone else says
That trident is decent, and the rPois on it is a nice bonus. Train some polearms.
the newbie in question has no way of judging which advice is better.

...So how am I supposed to prove my advice is correct? By saying so? By bragging about my online crawl wins, which are meaningless anyway? By getting a consensus from the rest of the forum, when the vast majority of the users don't even know how to determine how much damage a weapon does? I would hope that Tavern has learned its lesson on this from the Counsellor group experiment.
Actually, this is the exact reason I mostly stopped giving advice on here; most of my advice posts now are to correct other people's advice when their advice is really bad and easy to correct (like switching to a weapon that does less damage).

duvessa wrote:..So how am I supposed to prove my advice is correct?

Just explain a little bit why things are like you say they are.

Of course, you don't have to do that if you don't feel like it. But it would help the newbie in understanding the game mechanics.

I'm not asking everyone to only make essay posts with proof from fsim and ttyrecs. There's nothing wrong with a terse response.

As a really stupid rule of thumb, for every statement add some context.

"Axes are bad."
Becomes
"Axes are bad - cleaving damage doesn't make up for the bad positioning it encourages."
Or
"Only use axes on HO - the skill per damage is much higher than other melee weapons."

duvessa wrote:So how am I supposed to prove my advice is correct? By saying so? By bragging about my online crawl wins, which are meaningless anyway? By getting a consensus from the rest of the forum, when the vast majority of the users don't even know how to determine how much damage a weapon does?

A Sequell query, of course

duvessa wrote:So how am I supposed to prove my advice is correct? By saying so? By bragging about my online crawl wins, which are meaningless anyway? By getting a consensus from the rest of the forum, when the vast majority of the users don't even know how to determine how much damage a weapon does?

why, by having a blue name.

Hirsch I wrote:
duvessa wrote:So how am I supposed to prove my advice is correct? By saying so? By bragging about my online crawl wins, which are meaningless anyway? By getting a consensus from the rest of the forum, when the vast majority of the users don't even know how to determine how much damage a weapon does?

why, by having a blue name.

Everyone has blue names.
"But some names are more blue than others..."
Oh wait, that's not true anymore.

well tbh if anyone should have a blue name it's me

no, me

I don't know, duvessa, your name looks more gray than blue to me.

ydeve wrote:I don't know, duvessa, your name looks more gray than blue to me.

yeah well at least it isn't darkgrey like yours, terence

duvessa wrote:
ydeve wrote:I don't know, duvessa, your name looks more gray than blue to me.
yeah well at least it isn't darkgrey like yours, terence

SICK BURN

Also, dynast, you meant to say "aN asshole." Article-noun agreement, buddy.

My 2 cents as a new player and forum member (and non native english speaker), I don't find the place hostile at all.

If you ask a question, you get an answer. I obviously don't understand every reference, or strategy if I trawl old messages, but I don't expect it either. It is OK to not understand everything on day 1, this is also part of getting more experienced.

DCSS seems to be rather good at providing different and balanced strategies, so it is ok to have different even opposite opinions.

On another site, the general rule of thumb is that a comment should be at least two of the following three things: kind, necessary, true.

Don't even go anywhere near Wikipedia civility: the policy and practice there are more fucked up than one can imagine.

Define necessary for me real quick, because we're all sitting around playing mibes in our underpants and if someone is like, "AC is overrated" and someone else is like "Wow that's a seriously clownish thing to say" was it NECESSARY?

There are many things which can fall in the category of "necessary". I have seen some people get carried away by random things in a char dump, and didn't bother to inform the poor person that, for instance, their spellcasting is much too high, or the artefact weapon looks shiny but is not too good. Necessary could also be something which brings back the discussion to the topic, after a random derailment.

Another way of thinking about necessary is that the discussion wouldn't lose anything of any importance if the comment was simply deleted.

Of course, nothing is REALLY necessary.

My point though is that the definitions are so nebulous and subjective that it's difficult to expect moderators and community members to hew to them.

Of course these things are subjective. That is why there are mods. One word descriptions are of course wholly inadequate. It was not meant as a prescription, just as a guideline.

I generally think the Wikipedia policy "no personal attacks" is rather silly, not to mention hypocritical in that everyone violates it all the time. Sometimes one has to comment on the person (or something which can be interpreted as a personal attack) to make the point. Here the guideline of "two out of three" is useful, otherwise it is just mean.

Cool, thanks for taking the time to talk that through with me

The Tavern

Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players