Keep game criticism constructive, not provocative

Question

I’m concerned about some potentially inflammatory language in a recent answer, regarding the limitations of a popular role-playing game (emphasis in original):

It goes a little beyond that, but only a little. Unfortunately, it also lies to you and claims to do much more than that. Every attempt I have seen to use it for such purposes, however, has either relied on heavy houseruling/freeforming or simply fallen flat on its face. . . . That’s mostly because they shouldn’t have any effect and their inclusion is just an attempt . . . to maintain the fundamental deception that it is a game that cares about these things.

This post has spawned at least two extended and heated exchanges in comments which were later deleted or moved to chat. I’ve asked the poster to tone down the language, but he vehemently refused. I don’t object to the poster’s point of view, but framing the opposition as “lies” and “deception” puts fans of the game on the defensive and paints them as dupes or conspirators in the deception. Even worse, some of the people who wrote the game in question are members of the community, and we really shouldn’t be attacking their creations as “lies.”

The code of conduct asks us all to Choose your words carefully and Be civil. The latest proposed version specifically warns against using inflammatory language even when not directed at another person:

Don’t be a jerk. [Avoid] Name-calling. Focus on the post, not the person. That includes terms that feel personal even when they're applied to posts (for example, “lazy”, “ignorant”, or “whiny”).

Given that our community includes game designers and fans of the games we discuss, I think we should apply this policy to games as well as posts. There’s room for reasoned criticism, but we should avoid name-calling here, no matter whether it’s applied to posters, their posts, or the games they write and play.

It’s not a theoretical question.

Answers which argue that these words can’t, or shouldn’t, create bad feelings need to address the fact that they have spawned multiple heated, emotional discussions: at least two comment threads have been deleted for this reason. This is a real problem and “people shouldn't feel like that” doesn’t make them feel it any less.

Answer 1

Let's step back a moment, shall we?

I'm not going to make this about right and wrong and whether people are justified in behaving a given way on their side of the argument. I happen to think the answer is largely within its rights to say the things it says, but that's not important!

It's an obvious objective fact that many people don't just disagree with the opinions it presents: the language itself is needlessly provocative and is encouraging real people to engage in inappropriate use of comments. Real people are having real bad feelings about this. It'd be easy to say the same thing without using language of a demonstrably antagonistic nature, so why not since it's clearly a vortex for bad site behaviour?

I'd speculate that removing the antagonistic language would improve the answer's quality because it'd encourage the use of more detailed explanatory language to present the point clearly. Right now it's almost two paragraphs saying there's a problem and only one sentence (which never gets down to specifics) in support of those claims. I think it's right, but it's a poor answer nonetheless.

• We should have the freedom to be honest and direct and to have opinions, or the site won't work.
• But we should also strive for the eloquence to present opinions as our own subjective view, and be honest without being offensive, or the site still won't work. (The idea that honesty and tact are mutually exclusive is a toxic false dichotomy which a lot of the Internet hides behind. Let's not be those guys.)
• We should have the maturity to disassociate our own self-image from the games we happen to play.
• But we should also want to converse graciously with people who are still struggling with that, because it's a good way for them to learn.
• And when a post is a trouble spot for bad site behaviour, that needs to be addressed regardless of who started it and who's right.

We should not mistake vitriol for vigour, nor believe candour and insult should go hand in hand. Anger and aggression don't make people think about our points more seriously: they make people want to argue or leave, neither of which the Stack encourages.

Answer 2

I agree with the critique of the answer in question, especially given the newer code of conduct guidance as cited by @BraddSzonye.

The big rule people need to understand is:

Being right is no excuse for not being civil.

We all know there's a fine line between attacking posts, positions, or in this case games, and attacking people.

And this post isn't the only case of it. Frankly I see it in chat a lot more than I'd like.

Per the new SE-wide Code of Conduct on its way:

Rudeness and belittling language are not okay. Your tone should match the way you'd talk in person with someone you respect and whom you want to respect you. If you don't have time to say something politely, just leave it for someone who does.

Legitimate, founded critique of a game or company in the context of a question it's relevant to is fine. However in this case it is taken to histrionic extent, and additionally slathered with inflammatory language.

"D&D isn't good at survival simulation" - good, if backed up. People can fairly challenge it on its facts (we did a lot of survival situation in 1e and 2e) but that's legitimate discourse for the site.

"D&D lies to you!" - not good. We can engage in a bunch of sophistry here about the definition of inflammatory, but your mom and your kindergarten teacher would call you out on it regardless. Not acceptable. Will be edited and if the post owner doesn't want it edited, the post may be deleted. Users should submit edits and flags accordingly.

"D&D engages in deceptive business practices." That's not using inordinately inflammatory language but it's still pretty dicey. "Because we put in an equipment list, and the game isn't good at Survivor simulation, we are engaging in something that's a crime in most locations?" Also unacceptable unless it's factually true, not just "well if I am histrionic and stretch words I can say it." You can make a good, factual case that, for example, Outlaw Press and Jim Shipman are guilty of deceptive business practices because they actually steal products and art. Saying that about a game that doesn't do something to your satisfaction, no it's not. If WotC is using sweatshop labor, bring it up. If you are accusing them of some crime because you don't like they way they made their game, keep it on your own blog or whatever - it's not for here.

Also keep How do we handle a desire to challenge the frame of a question? in mind - your critique needs to be on topic for a given question. Questions should generally be answered using Good Subjective, Bad Subjective techniques. Our opinions inform our answers, but there are few cases here on RPG.SE where just airing your opinions for the sake of it is relevant. Even if this question were "Can you effectively tell survival stories in D&D 3.5e?" (which it's not), I'd consider an answer of "I did this and it worked/didn't work and here's how" a lot better than "here's my theory/opinion/textual analysis/whatever."

Edition (or Game) Warring Will Not Be Tolerated

@ThalesSarczuk has a good point that we have kept this well reined in on 4e and some other games. If someone posted "4e lies because it says it's an RPG" you all know that would get deleted and someone that insisted on keeping doing it would get mod messaged.

This same standard of behavior extends to other game professionals, game companies, and games. There will be no tolerance for bagging on those on the site, regardless of your feelings on D&D, Paizo, Pathfinder, SKR, or the other targets people feel free to libel. This includes chat - we mods have been letting behavior go on that we're uncomfortable with there.

It creates an aura of hostility to new users to be immediately told that 5e, or Pathfinder, or whatever game they plan and came here to ask about "is an abomination." Find a more positive thing to talk about. Plus, we'd like some of those real game experts to come participate here, which is less likely to happen if the "experts" we have already continuously insult them. Show some respect to someone with 100 more game credits than you have, perhaps.

Critique is legitimate. Insults are not critique. Attacks create a hostile environment here. That's not OK.

You can spout vitriol on your own blog or whatever forum will have you all day. It's not OK, but no one can stop you. But it's not civil, polite, or nice, therefore it's not welcome here.

Answer 3

I think we should start to remember a few things that happened a while ago, on a dreaded 4e question.

I made a honest comparision between 4e and a MMO, and the world fell on my head because of that. Yes, my answer was not the best on the world, but I received tons of "Don't bash the system" comments and tips, from almost everyone involved on the time.

Here. Look at the comments to see how people received perceived system bashing.

I don't think that, if even a mild system bashing was unaceptable back then, that would change now. I retracted my answer, made it more polite, and the world went on.

So please, don't turn this more difficult. If you want to say that D&D is a bad system to out-of-combat stuff, go ahead. That is perfectly possible to say without using such words.

There is no need to use that word set.

Answer 4

This is not specifically a defense of my post, but a description of why I think that answers like mine must be allowed on this site. That is, this is not an attempt to get anyone to upvote or not-downvote my answer, but rather merely saying that the answer should not be edited or deleted.

Deceptive business practices exist

This seems like an obvious statement, but it needs to be established first: it is possible for companies to make misleading claims about the capabilities of their product. This is something that has happened many times, across many industries. In other words, it is reality that sometimes businesses are deceptive.

It is our responsibility, as experts, to highlight such practices

If a business or product has misleading marketing or descriptions, that we as experts recognize, it is part of the responsibility we assume as answerers to highlight them for readers. Deception can lead the uninformed to make purchasing decisions that they otherwise might not.

We can only call ’em like we see ’em

Answers are always going to be at least somewhat subjective on this site; we can back up our answers with reasoning, citation, or experience, but the bar for making claims is not, and cannot be, that we must demonstrate absolute proof. Because we cannot do so, and because we should be warning readers are about deceptive business practices, this means we can and should warn users about dubious business practices.

Voting already covers, as well as SE can, establishing credibility

My answer, as of this writing, has 20 upvotes to 8 downvotes. Apparently, I am not the only one who feels that the marketing and description of D&D is inconsistent with the product actually sold. I am, apparently, far from the only one who feels deceived by them.

Voting would work equally well for other, similar answers. If an answer posed a crazy conspiracy theory, it would be downvoted into oblivion. If an answer seemed plausible, but not convincing, it would receive few votes, or up- and downvotes in roughly equal measure. These votes, then, handle anything that needs to be handled.

Companies and products are not persons, are not members of our community

The quoted site rules are designed to foster community and collaboration among our members, not to quash dissenting opinions. Moreover, criticizing a product seems not only to be valid, but to also be an important part of what we are here to do. The failure of D&D to establish consistency between its narrative and its mechanics has, no doubt, many causes, from time constraints, to design mistakes, to miscommunication between separate authors, and many more, I am sure. Nonetheless, the end result does have this disconnect, which leads to the system not actually having features that it claims to have (read: rules for covering aspects it seems should be part of its narrative). That bears mentioning.

Answer 5

The code of conduct you're quoting is about how we treat people. Products don't have feelings to hurt.

What you're examining here is called criticism, and it's valid. If a game does something wrong, it's a good thing to call it: players learn, developers learn, and so on. We're not here to be nice to games, we're here to share expertise.

Frankly if I couldn't call out the flaws in a game, that would be awful. I'm not about to pretend the games I use are necessarily good in every way.

D&D has a lot to answer to, and it can handle it when we call out that product. If one of those flaws is that a game — through accident or deliberate design — effectively lies about itself, is deceptive or misleading, then calling the product out as lying or being deceptive or misleading is entirely on point. (How else ought we describe it, and remain truthful?)