Such phrases include "Fail," "FTL (for the lose)," "X edition sucks," and "go play pathfinder"
And... the hypocrisy in this post, the dripping facade, considering your posting history... Mr. 5-6? accounts...
Trying to pose as some good-doer, peace advocate - when you hate 4th ed. and bring the fire to it's side...
when you hate 4th ed. and bring the fire to it's side...
Without hesitation, but I never insult the people making the arguments against me.
Saying an edition sucks is fine and so is suggesting pathfinder. Saying a person is an idiot or has failed is an attack on the person. Let's remove that from the arsenal and focus on the argument instead of the person. A Geneva Convention of sorts if you will.
Without hesitation, but I never insult the people making the arguments against me.
Saying an edition sucks is fine and so is suggesting pathfinder. Saying a person is an idiot or has failed is an attack on the person. Let's remove that from the arsenal and focus on the argument instead of the person. A geneva convention of sorts if you will.
Blanket statements such as "4th sucks" or "3.x sucks" are just as easily perceived as an attack on a person. It's all about implied insult, just like saying "fail."
one implies that your opinion is inferior or incorrect (fail, just to be clear)
the other implies that your opinion is inferior or incorrect (saying your favored edition sucks.)
See the pattern? I certainly hope so... though I'd be glad to hear any thoughts as to how these two phrases that represent the same style of disrespect differ from each other.
How exactly is saying "your opinion is wrong" different from saying "you like the wrong edition"? Or does "X edition sucks" somehow not imply that people that like X edition should not like it, and therefore their opinion is wrong?
Blanket statements such as "4th sucks" or "3.x sucks" are just as easily perceived as an attack on a person. It's all about implied insult, just like saying "fail."
one implies that your opinion is inferior or incorrect (fail, just to be clear)
the other implies that your opinion is inferior or incorrect (saying your favored edition sucks.)
See the pattern? I certainly hope so... though I'd be glad to hear any thoughts as to how these two phrases that represent the same style of disrespect differ from each other.
How exactly is saying "your opinion is wrong" different from saying "you like the wrong edition"? Or does "X edition sucks" somehow not imply that people that like X edition should not like it, and therefore their opinion is wrong?
It's fine to say that someone's opinion is wrong. Using "you fail or your argument fails or you lose" is a way of insulting someone. Saying that an edition sucks is fine. Saying that the person playing it sucks for playing it isn't. It's fine for them to like it, just as it is fine for you to say it sucks. Attacking an edition is okay, attacking a person is not. There is my response.
It's fine to say that someone's opinion is wrong. Using "you fail or your argument fails or you lose" is a way of insulting someone. Saying that an edition sucks is fine. Saying that the person playing it sucks for playing it isn't. It's fine for them to like it, just as it is fine for you to say it sucks. Attacking an edition is okay, attacking a person is not. There is my response.
Your argument sucks. Not you, but your argument. Therefore your argument fails. Not you, but your argument.
I hope you see the clear similarities between the above sentences, and "your favourite edition sucks. Not you, but your favourite edition." If you dont, then you are beyond hope
It's fine to say that someone's opinion is wrong. Using "you fail or your argument fails or you lose" is a way of insulting someone. Saying that an edition sucks is fine. Saying that the person playing it sucks for playing it isn't. It's fine for them to like it, just as it is fine for you to say it sucks. Attacking an edition is okay, attacking a person is not. There is my response.
I see what you are saying. But that does sound a lot like you are saying attack an edition (baiting at best, personal attack at worst) is acceptable but personal attacks (perceived or actual) are not.
When people use the word fail or you lose as an attempt to certify that an argument is over, it is a form of harassment and sometimes even baiting. There is no need to say that someone has failed or lost because it should be evident from the argument. It may be a move for recognition or may just be for expressing dominance over the one argued against. I ask that such things should be reported and when they are that the post have those incendiary remarks edited out or the post deleted. There's no need for harassment simply because someone has an opposing viewpoint. I am sure we can work out the arguments we have in a rational manner.
Listen I'm all for playing nice and being respectful to one another. But banning "You Fail" or "You Lose", when some one makes a point on line is ridicules. Ban malicious personal attacks, ban swearing, ban incoherent rambling, but leave some room for good old fashion banter. really whats wrong with a little ripping or snarkyness once and a while?
Yes people can be nicer and more respectful arround here. but some others just need a little sense of humor and to just brush it off.
Besides twisting words around and such Is just a smart way to make someone look dumb.
I Guess however that above statement can be agest this tread however.
People should be more polite however, And if they do become rude, then they should try and fix it.
You are free to hate 4E. You are free to say on these forums that you love/hate 4E.
You are NOT allowed, however, to indicate that the people who disagree with your love/hate of any particular version of the game are stupid, childish, unmanly, unwomanly, or any other epithet you care to think of.
Now, it has been stated by WizO Ginger above that it is okay to say you hate an edition and even to express it on these forums. As such, you are allowed to express your hate for it by saying it sucks. However, attacks on a person are not allowed. As I have stated, saying someone has failed is namecalling in the sense that it is calling the person a failure. Saying their argument sucks is unnecessarily harsh but can work I guess. I still wont say that if I can avoid it.
Now on to ubbergeek: I have taken english 102 in college at best, never taken debate in my life, and I haven't taken journalism classes. I just say things how they are.
Without hesitation, but I never insult the people making the arguments against me.
Saying an edition sucks is fine and so is suggesting pathfinder. Saying a person is an idiot or has failed is an attack on the person. Let's remove that from the arsenal and focus on the argument instead of the person. A Geneva Convention of sorts if you will.
This is the difference.
Pointing out spelling errors/sentence structure is done every now and then. It's generally not a good thing. Some posters (like myself) are not good at spelling. Also for some English is a second language.
"YOU"RE A TROLL!!!" is another thing that I've seen thrown around. Even if it is true, you shouldn't call someone a troll. It is a code on conduct violation (baiting). Also even if someone is a know troll they still can add to the forum. If you insult them even they make a honest contribution then they are less likely to make honest contributions and more likely to just troll.
"It's just my opinion and opinions cannot be wrong." Well In my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Beyond my personal thoughts, a argument is a supported opinion, not just an opinion. Without good support there is no reason to except an opinion. Also when some states that an opinion is wrong (accurately or not) that is also an opinion.
One last thing. Often I've seen people that argue against opinion/argument that is negative of 4th automatically labeled a 4th avenger and then put forth that 4th avengers automatically rail against anyone that says that 4th isn't perfect. Ironically this would include people that are critical of 4th, but just not on that point. I suppose this can be reversed and put forth that anyone critical of 4th is just a 4th hater. Both are bad arguments.
"YOU"RE A TROLL!!!" is another thing that I've seen thrown around. Even if it is true, you shouldn't call someone a troll. It is a code on conduct violation (baiting). Also even if someone is a know troll they still can add to the forum. If you insult them even they make a honest contribution then they are less likely to make honest contributions and more likely to just troll.
Rothé dung. A trol is someone by definition who is not contribuating at all; at best, a dumb annoyance. Trolling is a big CoC violation, who can go to banning permanently - and rightfully punished.
Say no to trolling.
(And I hate the stiffling of truth; how there is trolls and other big CoC violators, *everyone* know that and see the nude emperor, but peoples must shut up and not say it. How frustrating and insulting.)
However, attacks on a person are not allowed. As I have stated, saying someone has failed is namecalling in the sense that it is calling the person a failure. Saying their argument sucks is unnecessarily harsh but can work I guess. I still wont say that if I can avoid it.
But the fact is that an argument CAN fail. And you can point it. You yourself have agreed to that somewhat in the above sentence.
Unless my english is getting worse lately, there is no difference between saying "your argument fails" and saying "you fail with your argument". There would be a difference, however, if somebody says "you fail at life becouse you have that argument". Or even "your opinion fails", as oppinions are, by definition, subjetive.
In short, if someones try to do a logical reasoning, and while doing so, enter into a logical phallacy, or ipse-dixtism, or any other logical *failures*, that person fails. And it's not wrong to say someone is wrong.
Wizo_ginger has not said nothing about showing other people their logic is faulty. He said it's wrong to attack that person becouse of his opinions.
If you come and say "i hate 4e" and i answer you "then you are dumb", that would be name calling, and will break CoC, and will fall into what Wizo_ginger has said. If you said "i hate 4e becouse with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs there are less races in the PHB" then you are using a faulty argument (there are not less races in the PHB, just different ones: gnomes and halforcs got replaced by tieflings and dragonborns). So it wouldnt be a personal attack to show that your logic is faulty and your argument is invalid (and therefore, fails)
But the fact is that an argument CAN fail. And you can point it. You yourself have agreed to that somewhat in the above sentence.
Unless my english is getting worse lately, there is no difference between saying "your argument fails" and saying "you fail with your argument". There would be a difference, however, if somebody says "you fail at life becouse you have that argument". Or even "your opinion fails", as oppinions are, by definition, subjetive.
In short, if someones try to do a logical reasoning, and while doing so, enter into a logical phallacy, or ipse-dixtism, or any other logical *failures*, that person fails. And it's not wrong to say someone is wrong.
Wizo_ginger has not said nothing about showing other people their logic is faulty. He said it's wrong to attack that person becouse of his opinions.
If you come and say "i hate 4e" and i answer you "then you are dumb", that would be name calling, and will break CoC, and will fall into what Wizo_ginger has said. If you said "i hate 4e becouse with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs there are less races in the PHB" then you are using a faulty argument (there are not less races in the PHB, just different ones: gnomes and halforcs got replaced by tieflings and dragonborns). So it wouldnt be a personal attack to show that your logic is faulty and your argument is invalid (and therefore, fails)
Saying you fail with your argument is saying that you fail along with your argument at worst, and just like sarcasm, there is no inflection of voice over the internet. Also, you can point out errors, but do try to avoid saying that someone has failed. It might just be best to reference the page and text. Now if the text or rules are ambiguous, then arguments can happen, but even then you should avoid saying that a persons argument has failed as it should be obvious.
It's fine to say that someone's opinion is wrong.
No it's not.
An opinion, by it's nature, can't be wrong. You can disagree if you like, and you can dispute the arguments that someone may be using to support their position, but their opinion can't be wrong.
I like 4E more than 3.X. That is my opinion. How can you prove that wrong?
If I were to go on and post that I liked 4E more because every time I play my name is put into a drawing for a million dollars, then that you can dispute.
But the fact that I like 4E more than 3.X? That is not wrong, no matter how much you think I should play Pathfinder instead.
No it's not.
An opinion, by it's nature, can't be wrong. You can disagree if you like, and you can dispute the arguments that someone may be using to support their position, but their opinion can't be wrong.
I like 4E more than 3.X. That is my opinion. How can you prove that wrong?
If I were to go on and post that I liked 4E more because every time I play my name is put into a drawing for a million dollars, then that you can dispute.
But the fact that I like 4E more than 3.X? That is not wrong, no matter how much you think I should play Pathfinder instead.
Of course an opinion can be wrong, just as they can be right, they can also be neither right nor wrong.
No it's not.
An opinion, by it's nature, can't be wrong. You can disagree if you like, and you can dispute the arguments that someone may be using to support their position, but their opinion can't be wrong.
I like 4E more than 3.X. That is my opinion. How can you prove that wrong?
If I were to go on and post that I liked 4E more because every time I play my name is put into a drawing for a million dollars, then that you can dispute.
But the fact that I like 4E more than 3.X? That is not wrong, no matter how much you think I should play Pathfinder instead.
Whether an opinion can be wrong or not doesn't matter as to whether you can say it is. That's perfectly acceptable.
"I hate 4ed: in general/its gameplay/its implied world/for no reason" = acceptable opinion
"I hate 4ed because it's: like WoW/ruined D&D/is a cash grab/rules are poorly made/ruined my campaign/is aimed at kids" = wrong opinion
The former are your opinion. The latter are weak justifications that don't stand up to scrutiny.
People can get facts wrong, they can come to the wrong conclusions, but to say it's okay to call someone out when your opinion is that their opinion is wrong and it's okay for you to say so, is wrong.
Actually, it's NOT okay to say someone's opinion is wrong. That's why we're having so much trouble.
People can get facts wrong, they can come to the wrong conclusions, but to say it's okay to call someone out when your opinion is that their opinion is wrong and it's okay for you to say so, is wrong.
So, if someone's opinion is provably wrong, they can't be told that it is provably wrong and they can't be contradicted?
By the same token if someone is provably lying you don't think they can be accused of lying?
That's just Ostrich in the sand thinking. That's why the UN doesn't work.
Can you prove that vanilla tastes better than chocolate is wrong?
There's no need to go into battle over someone elses opinion. Nobody is required to, nor is it anyone's job to do so.
There will be a lot less hostility if people stop being hostile. That's not hiding from the problem, that's stopping it.
Can you prove that vanilla tastes better than chocolate is wrong?
There's no need to go into battle over someone elses opinion. Nobody is required to, nor is it anyone's job to do so.
There will be a lot less hostility if people stop being hostile. That's not hiding from the problem, that's stopping it.
Of course not, but I can name just as many opinions that are held by actual people that are just factually and provably wrong. Such as flat-earthers. And, dont get me wrong, i am not advocating flinging around all the time that someones opinion is wrong, I just believe in calling a spade a spade.
But thats just my opinion I could be wrong. See, if it wasnt possible that phrase wouldn't exist. :D
Of course not, but I can name just as many opinions that are held by actual people that are just factually and provably wrong. Such as flat-earthers. And, dont get me wrong, i am not advocating flinging around all the time that someones opinion is wrong, I just believe in calling a spade a spade.
But thats just my opinion I could be wrong. See, if it wasnt possible that phrase wouldn't exist. :D
What you are missing here is that anything that is provably wrong is not an opinion.
One can state it as an opinion, dress it up like an opinion, and claim it to be opinion, but it is not. It is a statement of fact.
This is one of the methods that trolls use to obfuscate whatever issue it is that they are currently trolling. Two of the posters I keep on my Ignore List (due to their using posting tactics such as the aforementioned) have posted in this very thread.
Actually, it's NOT okay to say someone's opinion is wrong. That's why we're having so much trouble.
People can get facts wrong, they can come to the wrong conclusions, but to say it's okay to call someone out when your opinion is that their opinion is wrong and it's okay for you to say so, is wrong.
I stand corrected. I don't mind much when people call what I say wrong though even if it isn't.
EDIT: I could have sit corrected, but I felt like standing for the exercise.
@alter boy: Both are opinions.
Actually, it's NOT okay to say someone's opinion is wrong. That's why we're having so much trouble.
People can get facts wrong, they can come to the wrong conclusions, but to say it's okay to call someone out when your opinion is that their opinion is wrong and it's okay for you to say so, is wrong.
I see a lot of people who are strongly pro-4th edition, saying people are wrong in their opinion in the general forum. It actually seems to be getting rather out of hand.
Take this for example:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16643928
I thought it was pretty funny, but as you can see, it's turning into a Serious Discussion.
I see a lot of people who are strongly pro-4th edition, saying people are wrong in their opinion in the general forum. It actually seems to be getting rather out of hand.
I see a lot of people who are strongly anti-4th edition, saying people are wrong in their opinion in the general forum. It actually seems to be getting rather out of hand.
That particular issue is bipartisan, and is simply a result of human nature and the lack of modding here.
I see a lot of people who are strongly anti-4th edition, saying people are wrong in their opinion in the general forum. It actually seems to be getting rather out of hand.
That particular issue is bipartisan, and is simply a result of human nature and the lack of modding here.
I don't think it is so binary. The people who are critical of 4E, because they are being so aggresively attacked, have actually become much more careful in how they express themselves. The pro-4e people appear to be doing most of the shouting.
But they don't limit themselves to 4E:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1076662
Not everything has to be a debate/argument.
Take this for example:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=16643928
I thought it was pretty funny, but as you can see, it's turning into a Serious Discussion.
What specifically do you find wrong with that discussion?
It seems topical, congenial, and constructive all at the same time, to me.
What specifically do you find wrong with that discussion?
It seems topical, congenial, and constructive all at the same time, to me.
I find nothing wrong with the discussion. But I would take note of the participants.
I don't think it is so binary. The people who are critical of 4E, because they are being so aggresively attacked, have actually become much more careful in how they express themselves. The pro-4e people appear to be doing most of the shouting.
I see it differently, but you're probably just going to say "Oh, you're pro-4e, of course you would see it differently."
It's the same on both sides. The posters being "careful" are being so for good reason; they wouldn't change their posting style without having received some kind of warning from the mods.
But they don't limit themselves to 4E:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1076662
That's in the Off-Topic Tavern subforum, which states "Kick off your shoes, let down your hair and get to know your fellow posters. This forum is for any topic."
I find nothing wrong with the discussion. But I would take note of the participants.
If there's nothing wrong with the discussion, then that would mean that you are suggesting we take note of the participants to commend them, no?
If there's nothing wrong with the discussion, then that would mean that we are taking note of the participants to commend them, no?
Did you read the entire thread?
There's nothing wrong with the discussion but- it was a light topic that didn't stay light. That's the point. Not every thread has to be a debate on the rules. (Even if civil.)
Exactly. It started out fun. And look where it has ended. I am of course just as much to blame as anyone else.
Did you read the entire thread?
Exactly. It started out fun. And look where it has ended. I am of course just as much to blame as anyone else.
I think you are mixing up the two linked threads.
One is about politics in the OTT, and the other is about item purchasing, in GD.
There's nothing wrong with the discussion but- it was a light topic that didn't stay light. That's the point. Not every thread has to be a debate on the rules. (Even if civil.)
Oh, I agree, I'm just saying that that thread in particular seemed fine to me. The OP post really was begging the question: should I allow this to work for the PCs? Also, why is the shopkeep refusing service to the PCs but not to NPCs? etc.
It cuts to the very core of integrating the 4e ruleset with the at-the-table gameplay experience.
Yes, at this point it's fine, although it's taken that turn towards serious. It seemed the OP just threw in a light topic, and although fine now, I'm sure at some point somewhere things will happen to turn it into a flame war. It didn't look like he was looking for a serious response. Just a "Hey guys, because of these rules, this happened in my game", and not "Should I allow this?"
I don't think it's right to place the burden on the posters who are constructively posting in a thread, rather than the knuckleheads who come in and start the flamewar.
There's nothing wrong with lighthearted or serious conversation, in and of themselves. Heck, lots of threads quickly swing back and forth between the two. Most of us here are quite capable of having conversations that are serious, light, what have you, without starting flamewars. From what I can tell, there has been an influx of dedicated baiters on these boards, who simply love to go from thread to thread and start trouble.
It's simply not the way it used to be, when the only things that would start flamewars were legitimate, although occasionally extremely silly, arguments.
I have noticed a problem with the same group of posters always appearing with one another in any given debate. There seems to be a group that consists of about 6 or more members. Once you start arguing with one of them, and it could be on any topic, the others make an appearance. Very odd. I am guessing some of them are sock puppets.
Wow, you draw conclusions quickly. One day on the boards and you've already figured out who is a sock-puppet!
I wonder if there is some irony here that I can't pierce.
An opinion on a subjective topic is quite different. Though it can be wrong, only the person that is holding that opinion can properly come to that conclusion. If you start from the point of view that you cannot be wrong you close yourself off to changing your mind on the subject and there will not be much point in discussing it.
If you disagree on something it's best to phrase it in a soft manner such as "I disagree" or "I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion." This lessens the change of an instant negative response and increases the chance that they will actual think about what you put forth.
I mainly typed that part of my previous post because the response "It's just my opinion and opinions cannot be wrong." is often used to justify a bad argument rather than deal with the rebuttal of the argument's supporting points.
[edit]Just to be more clear. Each person should admit to themselves that they can be wrong. Not that is permissible to be rude to others or tell them what their opinion should be.[/edit]
Also on the troll point. Calling people trolls is a violation of the code of conduct. Report posters if they troll, but don't call them trolls.
An opinion can be formed on incorrect beliefs (for example, if somebody was led to believe that you somehow required a DDi subscription for 4e, they would probably have a negative overall opinion of 4e based on incorrect beliefs), but the opinion is still valid (albeit open to change once the beliefs are corrected).
A belief, on the other hand, can be wrong. The flat-earthers example to show a wrong opinion is incorrect, because flat-earthers aren't of the opinion that the earth is flat: they believe that the earth is flat, and there's a world of difference. You can't disagree with a possible opinion that a flat world is awesome, but you can disagree with the belief that the earth is in-fact flat.
Some examples follow . . .
"I dont' like 4e": opinion. Attacking this is sort of fruitless, because changing somebody's opinion is very difficult to do in a short forum post. It's also individual difference, and totally correct.
"4e is the worst game system EVAR": opinion, but stated as fact. This can be disproven as a fact, but not as an opinion ("worst game system EVAR to me" is not wrong).
"4e is WoW": belief. This can be wrong.
"4e feels like WoW to me": opinion.
Regarding the whole "FAIL" thing, I'm not a huge fan. Posting "FAIL" just screams disrespect for the poster & his/her argument. That said, unless it's a personal attack I don't really believe that censorship of the word "fail" is the good way to go.
That said, I do think that mods should delete posts and award temporary bans for posts that quote an argument or another post and simply have "EPIC FAIL" in them. I don't care if the quoted post was in fact so incorrect that it fell off the side of the earth: that's just disrespectful, doesn't help the discussion in any way, and will probably provoke various lolcat discussions.
A valid opinion cannot be "wrong". The vanilla vs. chocolate example is perfect. The opinion may be . . . odd (onion garlic ice cream is TEH ROXORZ) or cruel and injust, but without action no opinion is provably wrong, as it's simply how an individual regards something.
An opinion can be formed on incorrect beliefs (for example, if somebody was led to believe that you somehow required a DDi subscription for 4e, they would probably have a negative overall opinion of 4e based on incorrect beliefs), but the opinion is still valid (albeit open to change once the beliefs are corrected).
A belief, on the other hand, can be wrong. The flat-earthers example to show a wrong opinion is incorrect, because flat-earthers aren't of the opinion that the earth is flat: they believe that the earth is flat, and there's a world of difference. You can't disagree with a possible opinion that a flat world is awesome, but you can disagree with the belief that the earth is in-fact flat.
Some examples follow . . .
"I dont' like 4e": opinion. Attacking this is sort of fruitless, because changing somebody's opinion is very difficult to do in a short forum post. It's also individual difference, and totally correct.
"4e is the worst game system EVAR": opinion, but stated as fact. This can be disproven as a fact, but not as an opinion ("worst game system EVAR to me" is not wrong).
"4e is WoW": belief. This can be wrong.
"4e feels like WoW to me": opinion.
Regarding the whole "FAIL" thing, I'm not a huge fan. Posting "FAIL" just screams disrespect for the poster & his/her argument. That said, unless it's a personal attack I don't really believe that censorship of the word "fail" is the good way to go.
That said, I do think that mods should delete posts and award temporary bans for posts that quote an argument or another post and simply have "EPIC FAIL" in them. I don't care if the quoted post was in fact so incorrect that it fell off the side of the earth: that's just disrespectful, doesn't help the discussion in any way, and will probably provoke various lolcat discussions.
Ok, well thats your belief....
There's no need for harassment simply because someone has an opposing viewpoint. I am sure we can work out the arguments we have in a rational manner.
:heehee 
Wow, you draw conclusions quickly. One day on the boards and you've already figured out who is a sock-puppet!
.
Yes. I am very smart.
Yes. I am very smart.
You forgot modest.
Can you prove that vanilla tastes better than chocolate is wrong?
However, that is not what occurs.
Instead, we get "Vanilla tastes exactly like dog feces. I know this, not because I have ever tasted vanilla ice cream (for I refuse to do so), but because a friend of a friend once described the taste to me, and form that, I have decided it tastes like dog feces. And I will say this. Ever. Bloody. Time. anyone mentions vanilla."
You forgot modest.
The most modest man in the world.
The most modest man in the world.
I think it should be modestest man in the world
However, that is not what occurs.
Instead, we get "Vanilla tastes exactly like dog feces. I know this, not because I have ever tasted vanilla ice cream (for I refuse to do so), but because a friend of a friend once described the taste to me, and form that, I have decided it tastes like dog feces. And I will say this. Ever. Bloody. Time. anyone mentions vanilla."
I think this is a straw man. Most people say something like I think vanilla tastes like dog feces, and I have tried them both. There is only one poster I have seen who refuses to try 4E or read the books. Even so, you shouldn't discount the opinions of others justr because such people exist.
I think this is a straw man. Most people say something like I think vanilla tastes like dog feces, and I have tried them both. There is only one poster I have seen who refuses to try 4E or read the books. Even so, you shouldn't discount the opinions of others justr because such people exist.
I think she is merely pointing out how tiring it is to have that one opinion re-mentioned by 6 posters with amazingly similar writing styles, avatars, and backstories.
Several posts from this thread have been deleted for baiting. There is no reason to drag past posting histories into this discussion. Please, remember to debate the issues, not one another.
That's the problem, though. A poster's history IS the issue a lot of times.
When somebody fires up a sock puppet and seeks out the posters he disagrees with, knowing that the sockpuppet might get banned but that the moderation isn't going to do anything long term to fix it, that IS an issue. One or two trolls in particular keep rising from the dead in this manner, derailing threads, harassing other posters and raising the general rancor level before getting banned again and starting the whole process over.
It's getting ridiculous at this point. The moderation around here needs to take a serious upswing, or actual posters are going to be outnumbered by malicious sockpuppets.
That's the problem, though. A poster's history IS the issue a lot of times.
When somebody fires up a sock puppet and seeks out the posters he disagrees with, knowing that the sockpuppet might get banned but that the moderation isn't going to do anything long term to fix it, that IS an issue. One or two trolls in particular keep rising from the dead in this manner, derailing threads, harassing other posters and raising the general rancor level before getting banned again and starting the whole process over.
It's getting ridiculous at this point. The moderation around here needs to take a serious upswing, or actual posters are going to be outnumbered by malicious sockpuppets.
You are making assumptions about peoples' history that simply are not true.
Several posts from this thread have been deleted for baiting. There is no reason to drag past posting histories into this discussion. Please, remember to debate the issues, not one another.
But let's be honest. Some people here start up new identities exactly like their old identities. I know you guys can't comment on it, but you're definitely smart enough to notice.
It would be one thing if these guys were starting over and acting differently. They aren't. They're coming back with the same methods to disrupt things and get attention. They drag out the same silly concerns in CB on every new account and they pretend to be new members who were greeted with immediate unkindness.
If I suspected someone was an old poster who wanted to get a clean start and stop trolling, I wouldn't bring it up. But when someone starts a new account to stir up more garbage and try to make claims of bias and persecution, I see no reason to forgive and forget.
But let's be honest. Some people here start up new identities exactly like their old identities. I know you guys can't comment on it, but you're definitely smart enough to notice.
It would be one thing if these guys were starting over and acting differently. They aren't. They're coming back with the same methods to disrupt things and get attention. They drag out the same silly concerns in CB on every new account and they pretend to be new members who were greeted with immediate unkindness.
If I suspected someone was an old poster who wanted to get a clean start and stop trolling, I wouldn't bring it up. But when someone starts a new account to stir up more garbage and try to make claims of bias and persecution, I see no reason to forgive and forget.
You are jumping to conclusions.
You are making assumptions about peoples' history that simply are not true.
You are jumping to conclusions.
Since you just joined yesterday you might not be aware of this, however, there is at least one poster who on a regular basis gets banned, makes new accounts and then tells lots of people that the new account is the same as the old one.
I don't think the two people you quoted are making assumptions or jumping to conclusions when they point out this particular poster's history contributes to the feeling that the moderation of these boards is inadequate.
You are jumping to conclusions.
Oh, he, and the others, are not.
You just haven't been around enough to notice, but they're all talking about an extremely tenacious multiple-sock-puppets-disorder nutcase, which can't be named because doing so is, apparently, a far worse offense than the free trolling and baiting he does on a regular basis.
This passive-agressive "let's enforce being nice and polite to each other to a ridiculous extreme by making it into a law" is just his latest bid to run everyone's patience (and any of the mods' remaining credibility) into the ground.
Edit: Gawddammit I been ninja'd!
Oh, he, and the others, are not.
You just haven't been around enough to notice, but they're all talking about an extremely tenacious multiple-sock-puppets-disorder nutcase, which can't be named because doing so is, apparently, a far worse offense than the free trolling and baiting he does on a regular basis.
This passive-agressive "let's enforce being nice and polite to each other to a ridiculous extreme by making it into a law" is just his latest bid to run everyone's patience (and any of the mods' remaining credibility) into the ground.
Edit: Gawddammit I been ninja'd!
More like trying to make the forums a nicer place for people like me (debaters). I don't like the hostile environment, it's like you guy's don't want people like me here.
More like trying to make the forums a nicer place for people like me (debaters). I don't like the hostile environment, it's like you guy's don't want people like me here.
I'd buy that, but...
It's just a hard fact of life that people who've used up their quota of goodwill without suffering any consequences get come down upon more than those with a clean slate.
And as far as getting that slate cleaned, ah, maybe some self-imposed exile might do the trick? I don't know, just shooting in the dark here.
And because I know someone will report this post and thus a mod has to read this: Don't you get tired of cleaning up after the exact same guy over and over and over? You must know because he's pitching soft and and over th eplate with how obvious and how continually he lampshades what he's doing. I know you can't reply here, but tell your bosses in CS that this IS a problem and something needs to be done, not just about such posters, but the CoC that allows them to act this way and make your job harder.
Does they want peoples on the opposite side starting doing the same, because of intense frustration?
"They will never IP ban me, so I will continue this forever" or "If you use a mac, you're supporting communism" (I'm serious, actual PM). I won't post anymore because I do believe it's against the CoC; what exactly do I do to report the sort of crap I've gotten from PMs? PM a WizO?
When people use the word fail or you lose as an attempt to certify that an argument is over, it is a form of harassment and sometimes even baiting. There is no need to say that someone has failed or lost because it should be evident from the argument. It may be a move for recognition or may just be for expressing dominance over the one argued against. I ask that such things should be reported and when they are that the post have those incendiary remarks edited out or the post deleted. There's no need for harassment simply because someone has an opposing viewpoint. I am sure we can work out the arguments we have in a rational manner.
I've got a better idea. How about everyone grows a thicker skin, realizes that most of what's said on a messeage board doesn't really matter, & just moves on?
Yeah, I know, not likely to happen....
And as far as getting that slate cleaned, ah, maybe some self-imposed exile might do the trick? I don't know, just shooting in the dark here.
He's stated that he has an at-least-one-quote-per-day post quota on these boards until D&D 5e comes out. So no dice on that front.
He's stated that he has an at-least-one-quote-per-day post quota on these boards until D&D 5e comes out. So no dice on that front.
I promise I will. You can even sig this.
It better be 4.5 or 5e though. Not some 4.1 junk or a continuation of this edition (if they are in earnest starting a new edition, even a copy of sorts, I'll just back away from D&D)
After 4e, I'm done with trying to convince you guys. If the next edition sucks as bad or worse (somehow?), I'm just backing away from D&D (maybe I'll just try to find a nice 3.5 group or something). Now for a little history:
I'll admit to one other account I used to have but failed to migrate: gooddragon1 (not a banned account, just failed to migrate it in time).
I had a problem with the timeshifted cards like psionic blast. As such, I've stayed away from magic the gathering until they rotate out with this set. For D&D, who knows how long I'll have to wait if the next edition is as bad or somehow worse than 4e.
He's stated that he has an at-least-one-quote-per-day post quota on these boards until D&D 5e comes out. So no dice on that front.
'worth a shot. ;)
I agree. And even better, while we get comments like "make this place good for debaters", post histories prove that certain posters do not debate. It gets even worse via PMs, with such comments as
"They will never IP ban me, so I will continue this forever" or "If you use a mac, you're supporting communism" (I'm serious, actual PM). I won't post anymore because I do believe it's against the CoC; what exactly do I do to report the sort of crap I've gotten from PMs? PM a WizO?
Take a screenshot of the PM and send it to custserv via the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page.
A valid opinion cannot be "wrong".
I think that I'm using a broader defintion of opinion than the others here.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=opinion
1 x a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 x a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 x a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
2 x a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 x a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Take a screenshot of the PM and send it to custserv via the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page.
Thanks very much!
It's arguments like that are the problem, unless I'm seriously missing your point.
It's stuff like what, you posting a JPEG? The link that's supposed to take you to the quoted post takes you to a discussion about page 42. It's not even a valid screenshot of a post.
It's arguments like that are the problem, unless I'm seriously missing your point.
The words fail and troll are repeated several times. Thats an attack on a poster.
That's why I'm trying to figure out why this thread wasn't bagged and tagged the moment it was posted.
The words fail and troll are repeated several times. Thats an attack on a poster.
While I agree that "fail troll" is an attack, your "quote" is a photobucket screenshot of text. It's not a screenshot of a post or anything. And in fact the link to the post provided in the quote leads to a thread where the word "troll" is not found once. Granted a WizO may have intervened before I got there, but using generic photobucket images doesn't really help your cause.
And yes, reposting troll threads is bad.
While I agree that "fail troll" is an attack, your "quote" is a photobucket screenshot of text. It's not a screenshot of a post or anything. And in fact the link to the post provided in the quote leads to a thread where the word "troll" is not found once. Granted a WizO may have intervened before I got there, but using generic photobucket images doesn't really help your cause.
And yes, reposting troll threads is bad.
Oh good, a moderator took care of the post so I'll kill that image. Now, the real kicker is that I didn't make that thread.
Opinions supported by deliberate misinformation and or willful ignorance of the matter opined do fail at providing any worthwhile contribution to the forum community. Opinions that simply repeat ad hominem attacks (especially when said attacks have been repeatedly asked and answered) fail to provide any new insight. Such opinions don't deserve a reasoned response. An opinion supported by flawed information and mean spirited rhetoric does fail to provide any meaningful contribution to the forums.
I for one don't think it is out of line to say so.
More like trying to make the forums a nicer place for people like me (debaters).
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I don't like the hostile environment,
You're kidding, right?
it's like you guy's don't want people like me here.
You are correct.
I agree. And even better, while we get comments like "make this place good for debaters", post histories prove that certain posters do not debate. It gets even worse via PMs, with such comments as
"They will never IP ban me, so I will continue this forever" or "If you use a mac, you're supporting communism" (I'm serious, actual PM). I won't post anymore because I do believe it's against the CoC; what exactly do I do to report the sort of crap I've gotten from PMs? PM a WizO?
This is some of what I've got from him:
It's soo much fun for me
I'd love to continue annoying you
I will post at least one complaint or bashing of 4e every day until a different edition of D&D comes out purely for consistency. Few things will stop me in my endeavors. These include:
-A permanent IP ban
-My death
-My inability to access my internet
-A new edition coming out
-4e flopping completely
-The moderators actually going out of their way to delete my posts."
Now, I know that the 4e tards (fou_re_tards) want me to stop, but I've made up my mind.
A relative gave me the PHB as a present. I had him set it down on a table and said I was playing a few campaigns already and they'd last me a few years but I'd get back to it. When he left, I put on gloves and two pairs of sunglasses (I could barely see the pages at all, not even the art, just the outlines), then I ripped out each page of the book and put it through a criss-cross shredder. I spray painted the cover (inside and all) of the book black and put it in the trash can over a white sheet of paper. I couldn't just return it for a refund. That would mean one more copy of that abomination available to poor unsuspecting children, and I couldn't have that for any price.
I'll admit to one other account I used to have but failed to migrate: gooddragon1 (not a banned account, just failed to migrate it in time).
A claim disproves by your own statement that read:
I've been banned on a day in which all I did was send a PM
A relative gave me the PHB as a present. I had him set it down on a table and said I was playing a few campaigns already and they'd last me a few years but I'd get back to it. When he left, I put on gloves and two pairs of sunglasses (I could barely see the pages at all, not even the art, just the outlines), then I ripped out each page of the book and put it through a criss-cross shredder. I spray painted the cover (inside and all) of the book black and put it in the trash can over a white sheet of paper. I couldn't just return it for a refund. That would mean one more copy of that abomination available to poor unsuspecting children, and I couldn't have that for any price.
The person who wrote this should seek professional help immediately. And probably confine themselves somewhere away from other people until they can receive said help.
The person who wrote this should seek professional help immediately. And probably confine themselves somewhere away from other people until they can receive said help.
But why?
Don't "rational debaters" destroy books all the time?
The person who wrote this should seek professional help immediately. And probably confine themselves somewhere away from other people until they can receive said help.
Nah, it's just bad hyperbole. Erm ... awful. Well ... actually ... deplorable. Hmm. Maybe they should. Not because this person (whomever they may be) actually destroyed a book in said fashion, but because they feel the need to weave elaborate false stories for the sole purpose of irritating others with their over-the-top, irrational and nonsensical ravings. That's downright sociopathic - if my Psych 100 memory serves ...
But why?
Don't "rational debaters" destroy books all the time?
Those with sociopathic tendencies, sure.
Nah, it's just bad hyperbole. Erm ... awful. Well ... actually ... deplorable. Hmm. Maybe they should. Not because this person (whomever they may be) actually destroyed a book in said fashion, but because they feel the need to weave elaborate false stories for the sole purpose of irritating others with their over-the-top, irrational and nonsensical ravings. That's downright sociopathic - if my Psych 100 memory serves ...
Whether we're talking about actually sociopathy or a severe detachment from reality (including fantasies of violence over perceived wrongs), this person should seek help either way.
But one don't block the other.
(Also, you'd be surprised of what can be mental illness(es). I'm a sufferer and live around others, so...)
But why?
Don't "rational debaters" destroy books all the time?
No. See WWII for people who destroy books.
No. See WWII for people who destroy books.
Now now, let's not add godwin-ing to this already deplorable thread.
I was being sarcastic. At least, in the context of Batshido's post, I thought it was. Apologies if it was not clear.
It is. So what's the deal with all this taking Marvel Comics characters? What the heck does that have to do with 4th edition? Seems kinda silly. Why not just have that your a "4th ed Avenger" whatever that is? I'm tempted just to claim Deadpool cause he's the man. BTW how come sometimes my sigs show and other times they don't? That's really damned annoying.
The problem is that - take it easy dudes. It don't means that much than self-ironic humor. Peoples read too much in it.
All personal attacks should be reportable offenses, regardless of the form. "You lose", etc. is just a thinly vieled personal attack for the reasons the O.P. mentioned. As always, there should be degrees depending on the situation. From a mod merely posting a reminder to editing to warning to banning.
FWIW I second the original idea.
All personal attacks should be reportable offenses, regardless of the form. "You lose", etc. is just a thinly vieled personal attack for the reasons the O.P. mentioned. As always, there should be degrees depending on the situation. From a mod merely posting a reminder to editing to warning to banning.
It would be good... if there was not the problem of the OP. Such a message coming from him sounds... Phoney. Sorry.
Also, unless you break the CoC, it's not punishable. 'You loose' is not punishable in itself.
Also, unless you break the CoC, it's not punishable. 'You loose' is not punishable in itself.
Rather interesting considering how you have a problem with certain "anti's" posting their opinions without breaking the CoC. Surely this statement should apply universally, and not just to your "team" when it gets called out unfairly.
Rather interesting considering how you have a problem with certain "anti's" posting their opinions without breaking the CoC. Surely this statement should apply universally, and not just to your "team" when it gets called out unfairly.
People with posting styles similar to the OP, regardless of their views on 4E, may not be breaking the letter of the CoC, but they are certainly breaking the intent of it.
People with posting styles similar to the OP, regardless of their views on 4E, may not be breaking the letter of the CoC, but they are certainly breaking the intent of it.
I was not refering to the OP, but to a particular other disagreement I have had with the Ubbergeek. Note how I used the word "unfairly" to try and specify that, but it seems to have not been clear.
I should start reporting any video games that have "YOU LOSE!" when I die.
That's why I stick with Resident Evil and the wavy "YOU DIED" screen as your head is being eaten. As if there were any doubt...
I have noticed a problem with the same group of posters always appearing with one another in any given debate. There seems to be a group that consists of about 6 or more members. Once you start arguing with one of them, and it could be on any topic, the others make an appearance. Very odd. I am guessing some of them are sock puppets.
If their sentences, arguments, and thought process is the same, that might be the case, but you also have to take into account human nature. If I start a thread on the DM board about handling alignment in a game, and someone else starts one a few days later about adding a ‘detect evil’ spell, you’re going to get the same group of people posting: the group that finds alignment an interesting topic.
Ad hominem. Again the link explains it better than I could. Posts like "You fail." or "Use lose." fall under this.
Neither ‘you fail’ or ‘you suck’ are ad homs. I find this site far more helpful than the Wiki article, as the language in the wiki relies on the reader already understanding the concept.
Calls for civility from posters with a characterstic history of inappropriate behavior in the forums aren't worthy of recognition or serious consideration.
I disagree. Just because the pot calls the kettle black, doesn’t mean the kettle isn’t black. An uncivil poster can be correct when they point out that others are being uncivil.
The more serious issue is when problematic posters attempt to manipulate the moderators into punishing those they disagree with. Such behavior can be as detrimental as regular baiting.
Rather interesting considering how you have a problem with certain "anti's" posting their opinions without breaking the CoC. Surely this statement should apply universally, and not just to your "team" when it gets called out unfairly.
Repetively, though? Because it's the crux, kinda. Continualy, and in more flowery and haughty words. 'We know the truth.'
Or you try to see a contradiction in my words?
Or you try to see a contradiction in my words?
I am just saying this;
If it is good enough for poster A to observe the CoC, then it should be good enough for poster B to observe the CoC. Poster B should not have to observe some second, invisible, code that he did not sign up to when he registered his account. Either this "freedom within the code" is good enough for everyone, or no one should have it. You personally seem to want to deny this freedom to the perceived "other team", and yet are quick to claim it for your own idealogical bunkmates. You don't get to have it both ways without being a hypocrite.
If it is good enough for poster A to observe the CoC, then it should be good enough for poster B to observe the CoC. Poster B should not have to observe some second, invisible, code that he did not sign up to when he registered his account. Either this "freedom within the code" is good enough for everyone, or no one should have it. You personally seem to want to deny this freedom to the perceived "other team", and yet are quick to claim it for your own idealogical bunkmates. You don't get to have it both ways without being a hypocrite.
This:
The CoC specifically says 'no trolling', so yeah, the CoC's being violated by those guys.