I have been a silent member of this forum since...a long time. Well before the release of 4e...and with 4e, I became a frequent poster for awhile, but I got tired of the flaming and arguing, so I withdrew to the off-topic tavern, and lurking, only once in awhile adding to the discussions here. I got to where I stay out of General entirely because of the lack of civility. But I had a matter I wanted to discuss with the D&D community at large, to hear some opinions on, so I made a post...
The thread was civil for about one and a half pages, before some people latched on to a theory proposed by an early poster, as though it were fact written by WotC itself. From that point on, several people jumped in defending 4th edition as written, which wasn't a problem. The problem came in how they chose to defend it. When anyone tried to rebutt the argument, by providing a counter point, it quickly descended into personal attacks, and derailing, and an example was misquoted until it overtook the thread. As the thread died out, it had posters coming on, and flaming other posters, by repeatedly informing them that they had no valid opinion. This ended in the equivalent of a shouting match.
I'm sorry about the ramble, that's just the context of what I am talking about. There is a post on the General Board that I have noticed, which lasted much longer, follows the same pattern of self-destruction. It begins with discussion, then arguing, then accusations and whining over what was and was not said, because people are adding things between the lines. And these are often posts not necessarily anti-4e, but potentially critical of 4e. It seems, in love of their game, many people may be so overzealous in defending it, they are writing the "edition war" history on every post they disagree with. This is not constructive at all, instead I have observed the forum become increasingly hostile toward older players.
But why does a thread have to break down into insults, personal attacks, accusations, generalizations, and what I consider forum bigotry. So, respect, as always, is important for an online community. So some suggestions...
1. Disagree, but tolerate someone else's viewpoint.
2. There is no "correct" form of D&D, by its very nature. Just because a poster has a different method or philosophy, doesn't mean it's the wrong one. Or that it's the right one. It's another way of playing the game.
3. When you criticize or respond to a post negatively, be sure to actually read the post and know what you are responding to. If you are unsure what someone means, why not ask them to clarify it, instead of assuming something else.
4. Don't jump on the bandwagon when posting. If you want to contribute something, awesome. Don't just reply "This" or "exactly what I was going to say", and expect to add something to the conversation. The result of this kind of post is simply ganging up on the person being responded to.
5. No personal attacks, insults, stabs at other people, whatever. It's not only rude and disruptive, it's against the CoC here.
6. Don't assume you know what a post is about before you read it. If a post mentions World of Warcraft, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a "4e = WoW" rant. And even if there is a topic that has in the past been abused, that doesn't mean the topic itself is a repeat of those viewpoints.
Just some ideas to keep in mind. Thank you and please ignore the rant section...
If I started from the point of view that I cannot be wrong that would allow me to reject all argument no matter their weight or number. If that happen the chances of discovering the truth is greatly reduced.
That being said, I really think that trying to convince people on the internet to be civil and/or polite is like trying to push back the ocean (or, as my Grandpa Roger would say, "******* into the wind").
In the end, all you can do is take responsibility for your own actions* and don't waste too much energy worrying** about the many, many others who can't or won't.
I'm a Quixote fan and I certainly applaud any and all who tilt at windmills (and have done a few times myself) but I feel it neccessary to point out how hard it can be.
But that's just me.
*I'm not saying you don't. See my first comment.
**Worrying is like a rocking chair, it gives you something to do but it doesn't get you anywhere.
"Edition War" is just an excuse to lock threads the fanbois don't like...
And do you have any evidence to support this? As far as I can see, over the last couple of months or so, the people keeping the edition wars going have been the 4e haters, not the 4e fanboys (or "fanbois" as you put it, but I refuse to use such an obnoxious term).
Of course not... it is my opinion and feeling I get from experience here. Feel free to feel differently... just don't start telling me my opinion is wrong. Thanks!
No need to be so condescending.
And that is your opinion.
Mine, of course, differs from yours. I see guilt on both sides...fanbois and haters...
No, it's not my opinion, it's my experience. There's a difference.
Sorry you felt that I was being condescending... I was just being thorough... perhaps you should follow your own advice... and check your posts too, for condescension.
Well, my experience (as well as my opinion) differs from yours.
Thanks!
Again, no need to be so condescending.
Of course not... it is my opinion and feeling I get from experience here.
I gotta cry foul on this one.
HATED, I rarely agree with your opinion, but find that you generally separate opinion from fact both effectively and strategically. But on this, you pulled a bait and switch and then feign offense when called on it.
You wrote:
"Edition War" is just an excuse to lock threads the fanbois don't like...
Samyueru responded:
And do you have any evidence to support this?
Locked threads is an observable, measurable, quantifiable phenomenon on the Boards. Although it may be your opinion that it is simply an excuse, the action of locking threads is not an opinion and does serve as evidence. The *reason* for the locked thread is usually given in the last post.
You baited with an incendiary statement.
Samyueru ignored the bait and called your bluff.
.I know I, for one, find the term offensive. Others may as well.
If you'd really like your opinion respected (I'm not saying I don't) then using insults can't really help you.
If I say that I think the government switched to digital TV just to be a pain to people without cable, it isn't my opinion, it's a theory. Most likely an incorrect theory. And I can't try to present it as unassailable simply by calling it an opinion.
More to the point, something being an opinion doesn't make it unassailable either.
You know, that's interesting considering how I once brought up how the word "grognard", being used as it was on here, was insulting to me.
You want to guess what was done about it?
OK, h4ater is insulting to me...
Let's see if people stop using it...
Look, I am sorry you feel insulted. And I am sorry that a word makes you feel that way, but I am not going to stop using it. Just don't take it personally.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Firstly, I don't use the terms "grognard" or "hater"*. If I ever used these terms in reference to you (or anyone else, for that matter) I apologize.
Secondly, I don't feel insulted so there's no need to apologize or get defensive. I was just pointing out that asking for respect while using a potentially offensive term can be counterproductive.
Third and most important, I'm not asking you to change the way the entire boards act. I'm not going to curse you like Sisyphus. All I'm saying is that maybe you, personally, should take a little responsibility for your posts and make a personal choice to not use potentially offensive terms in your posts. It's hard to feel sympathy for someone who complains about their threads getting locked when they go around insulting people.
But, whatever, it was just an idle thought. A nickle's worth of free advice. No biggie.
*I am aware of the irony of this sentence.
A theory about a fact isnt' an opinion. Your feelings about why threads get locked is one of those and thus is not an opinion because it really can be proven wrong.
If I say that I think the government switched to digital TV just to be a pain to people without cable, it isn't my opinion, it's a theory. Most likely an incorrect theory. And I can't try to present it as unassailable simply by calling it an opinion.
More to the point, something being an opinion doesn't make it unassailable either.
While I agree with you 100%, I've found that trying to change peoples' minds on the internet is, almost without exception, just an exercise in personal frustration.
Threads get locked because they go from discussing D&D to discussing individuals, groups (painted with a broad brush) or decent into nothing more than flame wars.
Someone posted "I come here to talk about 4e with other 4e users not read 3.5 fans complain about 4e." We DO have a previous editions area and my concern is if people are wasting time griping about 4e on the 4e boards rather than discussing 3e in the previous editions boards, someone will decide we don't need a previous editions board since it's not being used.
;)
They are not the same. But there is a connection. A feeling is quantifiable. This leads to opinions which one uses to build theories. The reverse can also be true.
One learns a theory and judges it to be good and so builds ones opinions around the theory and thusly has feelings to be stepped on when expressing the opinion.
It's true that all too often we "let ourselves go" online. Perhaps it's the lack of body language and facial expression that makese it easy to think the other person is entirely unaffected on an emotional level... one can neither see the nuances of the person's contentions, nor the building frustration as the nuances are continually missed.
Sadly, a courteous exchange requires that both/all parties take this kind of innitiative. I've often abandoned the notion of posting on a topic simply because it was (in my opinion) beyond saving. Even in threads untouched by the toted "edtion wars", people can and do entrench themselves in opposing camps of thought. At this point, my adding my voice to the din would not be beneficial at all. I can certainly identify with your frustration at having threads quickly degenerate into a stalemate or all-out war.
I thought i would offer a little encouragement and let you know you're not alone in hoping for a kinder internet. Like you said, we start with ourselves, for my own is the only mind i can decide.
Arn't theories built on opinions? As well as the opposite? Opinions inspire theories?
A theory is built on a belief, not an opinion.
An opinion is taking a stand on a subjective question. A belief is taking a stand that something is a fact.
An opinion cannot be proven wrong. It can be assailed but it cannot be proven wrong. You saying that chocolate ice cream is nasty tasting is an opinion and while I can disagree, I can't prove you wrong because it's subjective.
A belief can (possibly) be proven right or wrong because it is not subjective. It can be questioned and proven to be lacking. You saying that you're sure that chocolate ice cream is made from cow manure is a belief and one that I can prove wrong by taking you to an ice cream factory and showing you.
People use them interchangeably, but they're wrong to do so. The 'opinion' that has kicked up dust here is no such thing because it asserts that something is a fact. It can be disproved.
In fact, Webster came in and did so.
And so I guess it is my opinion that it is simply an excuse. Sorry my statement was so "incendiary"... perhaps it even was... and biased as well. At any rate, it remains how I feel... although I concede that the actual cause of thread lock can be attributed to either side, "edition war" is the excuse to lock it.
If people stopped expressing their feelings on these boards, the boards would improve in quality.
I do not mean that in a snarky way.
Looking historically, we can see how clubs and various social organizations operated in the past. Before the internet, before even the telephone.
And when you read accounts of those clubs and organizations, and letters written between members, and notes taken by members, you almost never see a pattern of people expressing their feelings about topics of discussion. Instead, you see discussion about facts and experiences, without much in the way of emotional impacts.
And those clubs and organizations were very popular and successful, up until technology got to a certain level where they were replaced.
I think we should learn the lesson of those past clubs and organizations, and try to pursue a less emotion-based approach. Instead of trying to express how upset we are about something, or how defensive we are of something, or sad/happy, I think discussions would be more productive if people tried to focus on facts and experiences instead (and speculation based on those facts and experiences).
[...]I think we should learn the lesson of those past clubs and organizations, and try to pursue a less emotion-based approach. Instead of trying to express how upset we are about something, or how defensive we are of something, or sad/happy, I think discussions would be more productive if people tried to focus on facts and experiences instead (and speculation based on those facts and experiences).
Certainly, we shouldn't base our responses entirely upon emotion. I'm sure you aren't saying that we should cut emotion and feeling completely out of the equation (i could make a cheesy reference to robots and/or androids, but i won't), but i'd still like to point out the importance of conveying these kind of things. As i stated earlier, i think part of the problem is the inadequacy of the medium (the forum) in allowing us to convey these things. Again, the lack of body language and facial expression being my example.
What we do need is to base our interaction in fact and experience, for sure. The reason we need to do this is because emotion and feeling is so poorly expressed and understood on a forum, IMHO. When someone starts to talk about their feelings, many people freak out because they're reading it as though it was a statement of percieved fact.
So, what i'm saying is, yes. I think you're right, but not because emotion and feelings are inherently bad or disruptive (i'm not saying that was necessarily your point, either), but rather because they are difficult to read and thus often misinterpreted.
A theory is built on a belief, not an opinion.
An opinion is taking a stand on a subjective question. A belief is taking a stand that something is a fact.
An opinion cannot be proven wrong. It can be assailed but it cannot be proven wrong. You saying that chocolate ice cream is nasty tasting is an opinion and while I can disagree, I can't prove you wrong because it's subjective.
A belief can (possibly) be proven right or wrong because it is not subjective. It can be questioned and proven to be lacking. You saying that you're sure that chocolate ice cream is made from cow manure is a belief and one that I can prove wrong by taking you to an ice cream factory and showing you.
People use them interchangeably, but they're wrong to do so. The 'opinion' that has kicked up dust here is no such thing because it asserts that something is a fact. It can be disproved.
In fact, Webster came in and did so.
To be honest, the above is a lot of semantics that do not mean much.
For instance, a theory is not 'built upon' a belief. A theory is a conjecture that something might be true. Theories can be proposed without being based upon a belief. They can be made with the intention of determining whether a claim is accurate without necessarily believing it to be true.
A made-up example:
Fact: every ant I notice in my backyard is black.
Theory: every ant in my backyard is black.
Test: dig up portions of backyard looking for ants that are not black. If any are found to be not black, the theory is false.
The main point here is two fold.
First, the theory is built upon a fact rather than a belief. One knows whether or not one notices a red ant as opposed to a black ant. The fact that it is noticed removes the chance that it is not noticed as being red unless one just wants to be silly with semantics but in that case we fall into saying nothing is known and everything is a belief, blah, blah, blah.
Second, one does not have to actually believe the theory to put it forth in a serious manner. One may decide that there is sufficient evidence to make a theory without reaching a judgement about its actual veracity.
The rest of the above post is just a continuation of semantics. Blah, blah, blah.
One does not need to be so hypercritical of such things. It is one thing to be critical of a proof being lain down to prove a case to others such as trying to prove that threads really are locked for those reasons. It is something else entirely to do what the above does.
It truly does reek of being a smartalec (sp?) and not actually attempting to engage. It is condescening but doing a terrible job of it.
About the following:
An opinion cannot be proven wrong. It can be assailed but it cannot be proven wrong. You saying that chocolate ice cream is nasty tasting is an opinion and while I can disagree, I can't prove you wrong because it's subjective.
A belief can (possibly) be proven right or wrong because it is not subjective. It can be questioned and proven to be lacking. You saying that you're sure that chocolate ice cream is made from cow manure is a belief and one that I can prove wrong by taking you to an ice cream factory and showing you.
The problem is that the word possibly is put in there. How does one determine if something can possibly be proven? Possibly can be defined by the limits of means available. if the limits of means available remove the possibility then it cannot be proven right or wrong.
The point is that this quote is just a bunch of semantics and falls short of its proof and was made in order to be condescending. Posts can have tenor to them. The post I have quoted is very condescending. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. End of story.
The post I have quoted is very condescending. Anyone saying otherwise is lying.
It is not very condescending.
Now you have accused me of lying.
*Reported*
:P
It is not very condescending.
Now you have accused me of lying.
*Reported*
:P
I know. Yes, you are correct.
In fact, that is the reason I placed that line in a short separate paragraph at the end.
however, I probably should have placed it by itself at the end. That way editing by mods could easily take place without disrupting the rest of the post.
The point is that this quote is just a bunch of semantics and falls short of its proof and was made in order to be condescending. Posts can have tenor to them. The post I have quoted is very condescending. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. End of story.
Not meaning to single you out, but there is a lot of this going on, where one person accuses the other of being condescending and will hear nothing of "no, that's not how i/(s)he intended it." I think it's rather divisive to think in that way.
[launching into a rant] You see, the big issue i see with the forum that tends to lead to most of this conflict is that one person thinks they know, without a doubt, how someone means something. They claim that the tone of a post is condescending, when it may not have been meant as such. Automatically taking offense in that manner just sets the conversation on the road to ruin, since the original poster may be offeded at the accusation and consequently voices this offense. [slippery slope] And so shall all things descend into chaos and be consumed in the flames of oblivion!
My recommendation is that we all take a step back and try not to take personal offense from posts that may seem condescending. Additionally, we should make a conscious effort to not project even the appearance of superiority or smugness in our own posts. Even if a post seems intended to be highly derisive, it's our choice to call the poster on his infinite rudeness and risk starting an enormous flamewar, or ignore the percieved slight (perhaps ignore the post in it's entirety, if we see no constructive content in it). I'm trying to consistently say "we" here, because it's something i don't always do and i really think everyone ought to, self included.[/rant]
Okay, you didn't deserve that and again, i'm not trying to direct this at you in particular Rumple.
If we must treat these forums like a big debate arena (and it seems we must), we should observe the rules and customs of debate. One of the primary things we must keep in mind is generosity. In debate, you are to be generous in your interpretations. If anything can be interpreted in more than one way, you assume the interpretation that is most favorable to your opponent. In other words, give benefit of the doubt.
A lot of what I've been seeing is "you obviously didn't even read what I said." the generous thing to do in this situation would be to assume that you did a poor job of getting your point across and try to explain more clearly, rather than to assume that the fault is with the reader. That is just one example of generosity.
I think if just a couple of the big players in the debate atmosphere of the forums adopted generosity, these debates would go much more pleasantly.
This goes into something I've been thinking about on these forums.
If we must treat these forums like a big debate arena (and it seems we must), we should observe the rules and customs of debate. One of the primary things we must keep in mind is generosity. In debate, you are to be generous in your interpretations. If anything can be interpreted in more than one way, you assume the interpretation that is most favorable to your opponent. In other words, give benefit of the doubt.
A lot of what I've been seeing is "you obviously didn't even read what I said." the generous thing to do in this situation would be to assume that you did a poor job of getting your point across and try to explain more clearly, rather than to assume that the fault is with the reader. That is just one example of generosity.
I think if just a couple of the big players in the debate atmosphere of the forums adopted generosity, these debates would go much more pleasantly.
THIS. Quite a few people seem hell-bent on taking things said in the worst possible way.
You see, the big issue i see with the forum that tends to lead to most of this conflict is that one person thinks they know, without a doubt, how someone means something.
My point was that there is no reason other than condescension and attempted one-upmanship to try and parse someone's words the way that was being done. Perhaps some contorted possibility can be construed out of it but context does matter and I believe there is ample enough context in both the present posts and past where the intention is evident to make a judgement.
I believe the notion that one can never really know anything about another's intentions is not a correct one.
Please come up with a reasonable explanation which is an alternative to my description of the post as condescending. Such a scrutiny of wording is in no means necessary or even important for what was being discussed. Why would one attack it that way if not to one-up the original poster?
People have a right to be wrong. And no one is right 100% of the time.
However the context was a previous poster stated that an opinion cannot be proven wrong and therefore you should not attempt to prove others opinions wrong. Thus the post you quoted was a clarification for what should be rebutted against and what should not be.
If the response seemed condescending, then it's largely the result of this being a subject I've been formally schooled in, so I can speak authoritatively on it.
Weasel0 asked me a question and I responded. Simple as that.
If the response seemed condescending, then it's largely the result of this being a subject I've been formally schooled in, so I can speak authoritatively on it.
But, your writings were incorrect.
I think if just a couple of the big players in the debate atmosphere of the forums adopted generosity, these debates would go much more pleasantly.
-And it's always the same six or seven people doing the representation of all of the "anger" going on.
Weasel0 asked me a question and I responded. Simple as that.
If the response seemed condescending, then it's largely the result of this being a subject I've been formally schooled in, so I can speak authoritatively on it.
Sorry about the double posting. You guys are overlooking this post when saying it is merely a response to a question from weasel0:
A theory about a fact isnt' an opinion. Your feelings about why threads get locked is one of those and thus is not an opinion because it really can be proven wrong.
This preceded the questioning post by weasel0. It is the same thing as the post I quoted. So, no it was not merely answering a question by weasel0. It was used in a condescending know it all manner previously.
Just as in this quote at the top where the poster claims authority on the subject and thus superiority over others views.
Have fun with that.
Edit: Nevermind. The point is some sort of attempt to indict me, not to have any sort of discussion.
Have fun with that.
I was pointing out the nature of your posts. If you think the nature of your posts indicts you, then I will certainly not disagree with you.
The argument was made that I took it out of context because it was a response to a question by weasel0 but I pointed out the same argument was made before weasel0 asked the question.
In the first quote there was no good reason to attack the semantics used by The_Hated. It was playing for semantics for the purpose of one-upmanship.
The point of this thread was to discuss showing people respect. Such parsing of words was not about the discussion of giving people respect. That would have meant taking the time to read and see what the poster meant. Parsing the words of The_Hated was not about giving respect. I merely returned the favor to make the point.
The point of this thread was to discuss showing people respect. Such parsing of words was not about the discussion of giving people respect.
Now, if i may, i'd like to remind you of my post and it's application to your current statements. I can see things from both your and VA's viewpoints. I see how you could interpret his actions as condescending... but i also allow myself to see his perspective -- something that you outright stated you would not do from the beginning. For clarity's sake, a quote:
The post I have quoted is very condescending. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. End of story.
Your decision to identify it as condescension, without allowing for the possibility of differing intent, is not kind. You proceed to assail him regardless of his attempt to clarify. Such closed-minded pursuit of a confession is not about the discussion of giving people respect. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. End of story.
Now, if i may, i'd like to remind you of my post and it's application to your current statements. I can see things from both your and VA's viewpoints. I see how you could interpret his actions as condescending... but i also allow myself to see his perspective -- something that you outright stated you would not do from the beginning. For clarity's sake, a quote:
Your decision to identify it as condescension, without allowing for the possibility of differing intent, is not kind. You proceed to assail him regardless of his attemt to clarify. Such closed-minded pursuit of a confession is not about the discussion of giving people respect. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. End of story.
First:
Your decision to identify it as condescension, without allowing for the possibility of differing intent, is not kind.
I asked for a plausible reason and none was given.
You proceed to assail him regardless of his attemt to clarify.
The attempt at clarification of not being condescending was an explanation that he is an authority on the topic, putting his judgment on the semantics being used as superior to mine, and The_Hated's, and that of weasel0's.
That is not a clarification of not being condescending.
I challenged the veracity of the judgement made upon the semantics. There was no rebuttal. The only statement was that he is an authoritry on the matter. That is being dismissive and condescending.
There was never any clarification attempting to not being condescending.
About this:
Such closed-minded pursuit of a confession is not about the discussion of giving people respect. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. End of story.
I did not ask for a confession. I asked to be shown why it was not condescending.
I asked for a rebuttal of my challenge of what was being semantic.
I explicitly stated that I participated in the same act and made no claim that I was giving respect.
The close minded bit is silly. It is silly because it states that it is impossible to make a judgement about what was said.
You (I think it was you, maybe I am wrong) argued that I took it out of context because it was a response to a question by weasel0.
But, I pointed out that it was a restatement of an earlier post parsing the words of The_Hated.
There was no justification for doing so. I have asked for anyone to give me justification for doing so. No one has, so there has been no attempt at clarification.
One can read a post in numerous ways as Ash2Dust posted(especially on a text based medium that carries no body language or vocal tones) and I prefer to read my posts(everyone's really) without the insinuations.
And to quote Dennis Miller: "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
I asked for a plausible reason and none was given.
Allow me to attempt.
As someone trained in the matters of opinion and belief (i'm going to assume that his claim is truthful, and that i'm recalling it more or less correctly), he saw it as something important to clarify. He stated in his posts how people often confuse opinion with belief. Opinon being one's feelings about a subjective matter -- such as the goodness or badness of chocolate icecream, to steal his -- and belief being one's feelings concerning a matter of fact -- such as the materials making up the moon (not cheese, by the way).
What he did wasn't intended to "one-up" anyone, but was done as a way to spread understanding on a matter that he is obviously passionate about, seeing as he decided to seek out formal training.
Viola! I have ascertained an intent other than outright condescension. This will probably be my last post on the matter, however, as i have an annoying headache. It may or may not be related to the discussion, i can't say with any certainty; but it's certainly not helping me to continue.
Either way anyone wants to read the posts, I put forth a question because I was looking for clarification of a stance and Vaalingrade Ashland posited. I hold a belief about certain words' definitions, and after the response, I must say that I do not disagree with any of the explanations.
One can read a post in numerous ways as Ash2Dust posted(especially on a text based medium that carries no body language or vocal tones) and I prefer to read my posts(everyone's really) without the insinuations.
And to quote Dennis Miller: "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
No, problem with you accepting the reasoning but I do not.
However, I still have received no justification opposed to 'condescension' regarding the purpose of the original parsing. There was no reason to do it in a thread about respecting posters.
Did you not understand what The_Hated meant?
Did Val not understand what he meant? If not, how could he have (as you seem to believe) so thoroughy explained how The_Hated misused the words?
That is the point. There was no reason for the original parsing that led to your question.
What bothers me is that posters do the above and pretend that they are being respectful when such things are being done. It is one-upmanship and not respectful.
I made no such claim. I have responded in a similar fashion to how the posts were originally made while attempting (with an exception of one sentence :P) to maintain the CoC. Only there is no guise of respect.
Did you not understand what The_Hated meant?
That, I did. It was Ashland's original post I was looking for clarification on as we were at the time using two separate definitions(though similar) for the words in question.
Did Val not understand what he meant?
... Don't pose a question to someone who can not possibly be able to answer.
If not, how could he have (as you seem to believe) so thoroughy explained how The_Hated misused the words?
See xXphilosopherXx's post just above yours as it is put fairly well.
"Thoroughness" is an opinion matter.
Allow me to attempt.
As someone trained in the matters of opinion and belief (i'm going to assume that his claim is truthful, and that i'm recalling it more or less correctly), he saw it as something important to clarify. He stated in his posts how people often confuse opinion with belief. Opinon being one's feelings about a subjective matter -- such as the goodness or badness of chocolate icecream, to steal his -- and belief being one's feelings concerning a matter of fact -- such as the materials making up the moon (not cheese, by the way).
What he did wasn't intended to "one-up" anyone, but was done as a way to spread understanding on a matter that he is obviously passionate about, seeing as he decided to seek out formal training.
Viola! I have ascertained an intent other than outright condescension. This will probably be my last post on the matter, however, as i have an annoying headache. It may or may not be related to the discussion, i can't say with any certainty; but it's certainly not helping me to continue.
No, you have not.
This thread was about respecting other people's words and postings. There was no reason to do this to what The_Hated had to say. In essence, he had to prove The_Hated wrong because he was passionate about it what he believed to be right. Why not just give The_Hated respect enough to not bother correcting him when everyone understood what was said?
I am still waiting for that to be addressed.
That, I did. It was Ashland's original post I was looking for clarification on as we were at the time using two separate definitions(though similar) for the words in question.
... Don't pose a question to someone who can not possibly be able to answer.See xXphilosopherXx's post just above yours as it is put fairly well.
"Thoroughness" is an opinion matter.
About this:
... Don't pose a question to someone who can not possibly be able to answer.See xXphilosopherXx's post just above yours as it is put fairly well.
This is a silly little word game being played. It is clearly evident from reading that Val understood what was being said by The_Hated. There is no reason that such a conclusion shouldn't be drawn and every sensible reason to do so. Your interpretation is such that absolutely nothing can be drawn from anything said. That is nonsense.
I am still waiting for that to be addressed.
This thread is proving itself by providing a clear example of a lack of respect for fellow posters. Which is far from what I intended by starting it, but probably a good thing.
As it comes down to "asserting opinion as fact", I believe by the time you reach 8th grade, your English class should have taught you how to separate the two in a sentence, it's standard. So someone who posts an opinion as a fact should be obvious. If it really is something that petty, it should just be disregarding it, else you are "feeding the troll" so to speak. And the result of such actions, is an argument like this one...
Any clearer now?
Sorry if i'm being a bit terse. I was beginning to understand you earlier, but now i think i have a better grasp... that being the reason i'm still here.
Certainly arguing over word definitions is meaningless, but just let it all rest. Because someone had an opinion, or personal thought. Doesn't matter what you choose to call it...labeling and redefining are examples of thinking errors. Sometimes people will use a word in the wrong way, or in a different definition. This doesn't mean it was what they intended to convey. In this case, this cross-examining of words is just pointless.
This thread is proving itself by providing a clear example of a lack of respect for fellow posters. Which is far from what I intended by starting it, but probably a good thing.
As it comes down to "asserting opinion as fact", I believe by the time you reach 8th grade, your English class should have taught you how to separate the two in a sentence, it's standard. So someone who posts an opinion as a fact should be obvious. If it really is something that petty, it should just be disregarding it, else you are "feeding the troll" so to speak. And the result of such actions, is an argument like this one...
Now, I have a question that I am asking for clarification on regarding this:
So someone who posts an opinion as a fact should be obvious. If it really is something that petty, it should just be disregarding it, else you are "feeding the troll" so to speak. And the result of such actions, is an argument like this one...
This gives the appearance that someone involved in the conversation is being referred to as a 'troll' (note: gives the appearance) Please elaborate on what is meant by that so that I do not misunderstand anything.
The_Hated made a statement about the intent of board moderators that essentially insinuated foul play, then tried to pass it off as an unassailable opinion. Val (as we seem to be calling him) saw the need to correct that situation by clarifying what is opinion and what is not. I saw the need, as well; i merely chose not to talk up that burden.
Any clearer now?
Sorry if i'm being a bit terse. I was beginning to understand you earlier, but now i think i have a better grasp... that being the reason i'm still here.
That is one-upmanship. He made his feelings known as his own and you guys had to prove him wrong.
He never said that he could not be wrong but you guys had to try and prove it.
I challenged the logic used in the post that said he was wrong and no one has challenged that rebuttal of mine and yet you are still saying that The_Hated 'tried to pass it off as unassailable opinion'. I have challenged this and you ignore it, pretending it is still unassailable (and The_Hated thus wrong) when I have posted otherwise.
It is still a one-upmanship going on trying to tell the world that The_Hated is wrong.
I was using a figure of speech in an extreme example. What I was saying is if someone's "opinion" was an attempt to enflame the other posters, responding back to it was feeding the fire. "Feeding the troll" is used to explain this phenomenon, although I think it is much overused to say "responding to someone you disagree with". I didn't specify that anyone here was a troll, nor is that my opinion. It's just a guideline, if you believe someone is egging you on, ignore it.
OK. I asked the question because it was possible to assume that someone in the debate going on was being referred to as a troll since the quote specifically referenced the debate going on. Thanks for the clarification.
That being said, as per my (much) earlier post, such things can, and probably should, be ignored. Val did chose to confront the situation head on, which wasn't necessary, but i believe i have a more accurate idea of his intent than you. My belief is supported by his direct claim that the post was not intended as condescension or one-upsmanship. Since he is the only person truly qualified to make assertions concerning his intent when posting, i'm inclined to add a little bit of weight to his words on the matter.
So there you have it. We're arguing about whether or not Val is a liar. I say he's not, you say he is... we seem to be making no headway. I'm done.
So there you have it. We're arguing about whether or not Val is a liar. I say he's not, you say he is... we seem to be making no headway. I'm done.
Which really is the problem in this thread, more than anything. Personal attacks and accusations are against the CoC here, for just this reason. From a certain perspective, many of the posts here have bordered on personal attacks. We shouldn't be posting things like like "poster 1 is a troll" and "poster 2 is a liar for calling out poster 1" and fighting with posters 5 and 6 over it.
Which really is the problem in this thread, more than anything. Personal attacks and accusations are against the CoC here, for just this reason. From a certain perspective, many of the posts here have bordered on personal attacks. We shouldn't be posting things like like "poster 1 is a troll" and "poster 2 is a liar for calling out poster 1" and fighting with posters 5 and 6 over it.
I agree. ~sigh~ I just have the compulsion to defend people i feel are being wronged. Honestly, it seems like Rumple feels the same way, we just chose different victims. Sorry for prolonging such an unpleasant and useless battle.
Sorry for prolonging such an unpleasant and useless battle.
No problem...I think it validated the original post in the long run. I hope your headache gets better.
No problem...I think it validated the original post in the long run. I hope your headache gets better.
I took half a tablet of Advil at the behest of my fiance'. It is all but gone now. Thanks a lot for your concern.
Okay, i'm officially lumped. "You guys" sort of did it. The only thing anyone (to my knowledge) was trying to "prove wrong" was that such a claim could be stated as opinion, when it's really a statement of percieved fact. If i say "it's my opinion that the former president was, and still is, involved in a far-reaching conspiracy to deprive me of internet access," i would be willfully misleading. That sort of thing isn't a matter or opinion and really doesn't describe my "feelings" about the man. It's stating a belief about a objective matter and should be acknowledged as such.
That being said, as per my (much) earlier post, such things can, and probably should, be ignored. Val did chose to confront the situation head on, which wasn't necessary, but i believe i have a more accurate idea of his intent than you. My belief is supported by his direct claim that the post was not intended as condescension or one-upsmanship. Since he is the only person truly qualified to make assertions concerning his intent when posting, i'm inclined to add a little bit of weight to his words on the matter.
So there you have it. We're arguing about whether or not Val is a liar. I say he's not, you say he is... we seem to be making no headway. I'm done.
(I have the staggering urge to shout, "you lose! Good day, sir!" Probably because i'm rather tired and a bit stressed. But that's not nice and i harbor no ill will toward you.)
I believe you keep missing the point. We all understood what The_Hated was saying. Language is fluid and not a court of law. He was not trying to prove that his belief was correct to anyone. There was no reason to try to prove what he said was wrong.
About this:
Val did chose to confront the situation head on, which wasn't necessary, but i believe i have a more accurate idea of his intent than you. My belief is supported by his direct claim that the post was not intended as condescension or one-upsmanship. Since he is the only person truly qualified to make assertions concerning his intent when posting, i'm inclined to add a little bit of weight to his words on the matter.
This is what bothers the hell out of me.
So, why should you choose to believe that The_Hated is being willfully misleading? Technically you just stated that if you did what you claimed The_Hated was doing then you would be willfully misleading instead of explicitly stating The_Hated was being willfully misleading.
Or...
Do you not think that he believed his interpretation of what it means to state what he believed was opinion as opposed to a belief? If so, then we all knew what he meant and he was not trying to be willfully misleading and there was no reason to parse his words.
So, either Val did not give The_Hated the same benefit of the doubt you wish to give to him (Val) with respect to truthfulness or he parsed the words with nothing to gain other than showing that The_Hated was wrong because everyone already understands what he was saying. Just letting him think what he wants wasn't good enough. He had to prove The_Hated wrong.
and yet you are still saying that The_Hated 'tried to pass it off as unassailable opinion'. I have challenged this and you ignore it, pretending it is still unassailable (and The_Hated thus wrong) when I have posted otherwise.
Of course not... it is my opinion and feeling I get from experience here. Feel free to feel differently... just don't start telling me my opinion is wrong. Thanks!
This was the post that I was addressing. I pointed out that not only was the statement not an opinion, but it was a statement that people not only had full right to say was wrong, but could, in fact, be proven wrong. It was actually proven wrong before my second post in the thread.
I feel it was very pertinent to the thread because simply saying 'it's my opinion, so you're not allowed to refute it' is not only inherently not conducive to discussion, but misuse of it (for non-subjective statements) is a phenomena that leads to the problem illustrated in the OP.
If we can all just tack on 'IMO' to everything we say to proof it from criticism, it's inherently disrespectful to everyone else because it's the psuedo-logical version of 'STFU'.
Luckily, we can't, because appeals to subjectivity only apply to things that are actually subjective, not to objective truth (proven or otherwise).
This was the post that I was addressing. I pointed out that not only was the statement not an opinion, but it was a statement that people not only had full right to say was wrong, but could, in fact, be proven wrong. It was actually proven wrong before my second post in the thread.
I feel it was very pertinent to the thread because simply saying 'it's my opinion, so you're not allowed to refute it' is not only inherently not conducive to discussion, but misuse of it (for non-subjective statements) is a phenomena that leads to the problem illustrated in the OP.
If we can all just tack on 'IMO' to everything we say to proof it from criticism, it's inherently disrespectful to everyone else because it's the psuedo-logical version of 'STFU'.
Luckily, we can't, because appeals to subjectivity only apply to things that are actually subjective, not to objective truth (proven or otherwise).
About this:
It was actually proven wrong before my second post in the thread.
No. It was not. There goes that dismissiveness again. My rebuttals of the logic used still stand.
About this:
I feel it was very pertinent to the thread because simply saying 'it's my opinion, so you're not allowed to refute it' is not only inherently not conducive to discussion, but misuse of it (for non-subjective statements) is a phenomena that leads to the problem illustrated in the OP.
The problem is that The_Hated never said that one cannot discuss or refute what those things in a discussion. He just said don't come up to me and tell me I'm wrong. The refusal to grant that was completely disrespectful.
And again, no one has refuted my logic on whether or not it can be proven. How can one determine what are the limits of proveability, etc.
If we can all just tack on 'IMO' to everything we say to proof it from criticism, it's inherently disrespectful to everyone else because it's the psuedo-logical version of 'STFU'.
Cute, but no.
The_Hated went to great lengths to make certain that it was his opinion/feelings or whatever you wish to call it. He never said people cannot engage in such discussions. He never said it was proof from criticism but rather said he was entitled to his opinion without having other opinions shoved down his throat. So cut the pseudo-logical ******** out.
I have refuted the logic used. My refuatation still stands. Plus, everyone damn well knows it his feelings. If he tells you that he is going to keep to what he feels then all you have to say is fine, do so.
And again you have still not proven it an opinion based upon how you define an opinion. The reason that is important is that once you change the definitions being used to make it fit appropriately, then you will have defined it so that there was no reason to parse it apart as was done.
Who will win the next super bowl is an opinion. Some peoples opinions will be on this subject will be proved wrong.
Which flavor of ice cream is the best cannot be proved wrong as it is subjective.
On another point an opinion backed by one of more premises is an argument. Consider what it sounds like when some suggests that an argument cannot be wrong. Especially to those that disagree.
He never said people cannot engage in such discussions. He never said it was proof from criticism but rather said he was entitled to his opinion without having other opinions shoved down his throat.
just don't start telling me my opinion is wrong
And then Webster comes in and tells us why those threads are closed. And it isn't for the reason previously stated as an 'opinion' that we were explicitly told that we couldn't say was wrong.
Good Night and Good Luck.
Originally Posted by RUMPLESTIX
He never said people cannot engage in such discussions. He never said it was proof from criticism but rather said he was entitled to his opinion without having other opinions shoved down his throat.just don't start telling me my opinion is wrong
And then Webster comes in and tells us why those threads are closed. And it isn't for the reason previously stated as an 'opinion' that we were explicitly told that we couldn't say was wrong.
Good Night and Good Luck.
(note: the second nested quote is from The_Hated, I believe.)
Well, you did not pay attention to what was being said in the quotes you used..
The quote attributed to The_Hated does not say anyone cannot say his opinion is wrong.
It says don't start telling it to him. How it reads is similar to how I wrote it at the top about shoving it down his throat.
Did webster come up to The_Hated and say 'what you are calling an opinion is not an opinion, it is a belief and it is a wrong one'? Did he try to shove it down The_Hated's throat?
No. He did not.
But, let's examine some another post of The_Hated:
OK, do you want to go collect all the locked posts, then examine each one and decide who was the culprit, and then compile all that info and present it?
I don't.
And even then, there can be debate as to who actually got the thread locked- fanboi or hater.
And so I guess it is my opinion that it is simply an excuse. Sorry my statement was so "incendiary"... perhaps it even was... and biased as well. At any rate, it remains how I feel... although I concede that the actual cause of thread lock can be attributed to either side, "edition war" is the excuse to lock it.
This is important because it let's us know who specifically The_Hated was referring to when he said 'just don't start telling me my opinion is wrong'. He was not referring to webster because webster makes the decision and gives the community action requests to the ORCs. He was referring to those who did not have a means of knowing those facts and who were also being critical of him.
Again, it goes down to the definition of how one can 'possibly' determine if something can be proved. That was the key issue I debated with your definition. The_Hated determined that a conclusion could not be reached because the ones in the discussion had no means to gain the evidence. It was beyond them and him. If the possibility to learn something is completely out of your hands there is no reason to differentiate so tightly between opinion and belief. The evidence was uncovered because of webster's intervention. The attempts to take his 'opinion' away did nothing but flame.
But again, this goes to the lack of respect. Everyone was trying to shove it down The_Hated's throat. That was what he was discussing.
And again you have still not proven it an opinion based upon how you define an opinion. The reason that is important is that once you change the definitions being used to make it fit appropriately, then you will have defined it so that there was no reason to parse it apart as was done.
And that is the key. There was no reason to pick his post apart and try to shove it down his throat to show why he was wrong. When one who had the answers gave them without telling him he couldn't have an opinion, it was accepted. Until then, he wished to not be told he could not have his opinion because it was not an opinion. He just asked for a little room for respect and was denied it.
About this:
Good Night and Good Luck
Just because you do not use a curse word does not mean you are not being a smart ass. The 'good luck' was a smart ass response because you think you nailed me. I disagree.
This thread is nothing if not the proof of that statement. Extend each other some basic charity, people.
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
You're aware that those who really need to hear this message just don't give a damn, right?
Well aware, my friend. Well aware.
And that serves to foster the discussion .... how?
The same way these 2 posts do.
I see however that the effort was in vain. My sympathy.
By perhaps getting you to reflect upon the past few pages, seeing the irony of the situation, and maybe, just maybe acting upon the issue and ceasing to provide ample proof of the OP's point...
I see however that the effort was in vain. My sympathy.
I disagree. I believe the past few pages were a display of a willingness to judge The_Hated by a different standard than others both themselves wished to be judged and that which they extend to those around them besides The_Hated. It is done under the guise of not being uncivil when it is being uncivil.
I cannot begin to count the number of times where I saw posts telling Hater tat the reason his posts regarding his dislike of 4.0 and his claims of problems were met with such derision and heated responses were because of how he came across and that it would change if he came across differently. Warweavewr's thread was always used as an example.
Then there was a thread in this forum talking about the tenor of the forums, I believe. Or, maybe it was about edition wars but I do not remember which. Anyway, an example was being made of how terrible the conduct was in one of the role forums by showing how a fine and respected poster (usually in 4th ed general I believe) had challenged the math on the armor and AC scaling of a particular new class (the Avenger?) and had been flamed. I thought, Wow. I guess what they keep telling Hater over and over is not true. It does not matter how a case is presented it matters whether or not the posters know and respect you. Hater was owed an apology but it never came.
Another case has to do with a poster who will remain unnamed. In a particular thread this poster began referring to a particular troll in a generalsense. However, if one actually reread the previous few posts it could easily be told by the accusations being made that Hater was specifically being referred to. Then the posts, whose context when reading the previous posts could clearly be seen to be referring to Hater began to be very flaming. The first mega flamer resulted in a response of "
" from Hater. As did the second flame. As did the third flame. As did the fourth flame. There might have been a fifth but this eludes me. This was in a thread in this forum regarding respect. No one called out these posts. I left them untouched for a while to see if anyone would respond and call them out for what they were since it was closely related to the topic of the thread. No one did. So, I reported all of them and referenced them to the earlier posts so that it would be clear that Hater was being referenced flamed without actually using his name. The whole lot of posts were deleted.There was another occasion where Hater made a post that others jumped on and he backed away and did not stick to it. Then after a few more posts in the thread and twelve hours after the next most recent post which were after Hater backing away from the statement the same poster mentioned above returned with another post calling Hater a troll or something like that. I reported that one too and te tread was locked.
After that, The_Hated appeared.
I am not trying to argue that Hater was (or that The_Hated is) a sterling member of the community but rather that he did (does) receive a lot of flaming which no one got (gets) called out on even while he was (is) receicing such calling out.
That is the problem I have with this stuff.
That was a rhetorical you, rather than a specific you... forgive me for not making that more painfully clear. To be honest, I think both sides of the debate are supplying the irony in profusion.
Clarification accepted. Sorry for the trouble.
I am under no illusions.
And I do not think all the hater threads get closed and none of the fanboi threads do.
But it can appear as though more hater threads do get closed than fanboi threads. But to be fair, more of the hater threads are flamebait than the fanboi ones... but also, some of the critical threads probably could have stuck around had it not been for the fanbois aggravating the situation... or baiting the op...
but I can't speak on/for every situation.
The fanboys wouldn't have been aggravating the situation were it not for trolls hanging around here and constantly trying to cause trouble and having a ton of sockpuppets.
Yes they would. The fanboys of whom you speak are merely trolls that voice a pro-product brand of baiting. The fanboys of whom you speak are the pro-4e crowd who see flame in *everything* HATER might say. They are the folks who assume that if someone says they do not like 4e, they must be baiting.
The distinction between fans and "fanboys" lies in the content of their posts, not the position they hold.
-Quite. As someone who doesn't participate on the 4e boards, most of the back-and-forth bickering I heard between various individuals was from this section. From that cross-sample, I often found myself sympathizing with many of the (or, just one? I don't know anything about different people and different accounts if it has no impact on myself, which this doesn't) accused trolls. In the looking around that I did, it often seemed that, regardless of what these (or this one) people/person said, five people ( a made-up number, to demonstrate that it normally is more than one or two people) arrived to harass them/him/her about things not even necessarily related to the post.
-In arguing with actual trolls, or just people they disagree with, many people have become twisted parodies of the posters they most vociferously disagreed with, to the point that so many of their posts come off as containing righteous indignation (when others disagree with a point [that has sense and logic, not random spammy comments]), entitlement ("your kind aren't wanted here") and passive aggression that only further causes problems in threads. That "they" have been aggravating "us" is a justification for behaving in this manner is not acceptable (on the internet here, as well as in real life in general).
-It's a shame I'm going away for the weekend, because I'd like to stick around and more closely follow how things work out.
Irony writ large.
Now on the topic of respect and thread closing two edition warriors wondered down to the previous edition boards around the beginning of the year and began throwing poo at the posters down there.
These two caused a large amount of disruption, several thread locks, and showed no respect for those that had different opinions of than them on 3rd, 4th, and pathfinder.
I disagree. I believe the past few pages were a display of a willingness to judge The_Hated by a different standard than others both themselves wished to be judged and that which they extend to those around them besides The_Hated. It is done under the guise of not being uncivil when it is being uncivil.
Generally I really don't understand how The_HATED atracts things negative posts, but The_HATED isn't looking for a disscusion on the matter.
quotes
But it is soooo hard to just let douchebaggery be...
My problem is I get offended by condescension, smugness, smart-assness, and people telling others that their opinion is wrong.
It is no secret how I feel about the game, and I have found that as long as I stay away from "mechanical" issues, everything is usually fine. There is still flaming and stubbornness, but it's not terribly bad.
Now, eveytime someone brings up a negative point about 4e, whether it is flaming/baiting or not, it is quickly declared "an edition war" and the conversation is cut off.
"Edition War" is just an excuse to lock threads the fanbois don't like...
IMHO of course...
"Edition War" is just an excuse to lock threads the fanbois don't like...
And do you have any evidence to support this? As far as I can see, over the last couple of months or so, the people keeping the edition wars going have been the 4e haters, not the 4e fanboys (or "fanbois" as you put it, but I refuse to use such an obnoxious term).
And do you have any evidence to support this?
Of course not... it is my opinion and feeling I get from experience here. Feel free to feel differently... just don't start telling me my opinion is wrong. Thanks!
Someone posted "I come here to talk about 4e with other 4e users not read 3.5 fans complain about 4e." We DO have a previous editions area and my concern is if people are wasting time griping about 4e on the 4e boards rather than discussing 3e in the previous editions boards, someone will decide we don't need a previous editions board since it's not being used.
It is dangerous to assume that anyone who "gripes" about 4E is a fan of 3E, or someone whose only goal is to compare 4E unfavorably to 3E. Some people (I, for example, who have never played 3E in my life) are quite enjoying the new edition, and yet still see weak areas in the new rules.
(And I assure those of you who hold doubts, it is entirely possible to enjoy something while simultaneously agreeing that the thing we are enjoying isn't perfect. I like films by Michael Bay, for example, but I wouldn't nominate a one of them for an Oscar...)
Is it not possible to come to the forums in order to discuss the "weak areas" we perceive in the rules and how to possibly strengthen those areas without being labelled fanboys and haters who only want to a) hate on 4E and b) start "edition wars"?
One would think so, though experience does not carry this out. It is my experience, in fact, having the temerity to criticize 4E, regardless of how reasonably stated or well-supported your criticism, leads inevitably to you being condescended to, belittled, and flamed by those who have self-appointed themselves as 4E's defenders.
It is dangerous to assume that anyone who "gripes" about 4E is a fan of 3E, or someone whose only goal is to compare 4E unfavorably to 3E. Some people (I, for example, who have never played 3E in my life) are quite enjoying the new edition, and yet still see weak areas in the new rules.
Unfortunately many in the past that griped about 4th where by their own admission 3rd fans whose only goal was to bash 4th. One notorious poster loudly and frequently boasted that he hadn't even read any of the 4th edition books even as he bashed it.
The problems that you have been experiencing could be a blow back from those posters.
However, it not a valid reason for the hostility and I wish the edition warriors would stop it.
Unfortunately many in the past that griped about 4th where by their own admission 3rd fans whose only goal was to bash 4th. One notorious poster loudly and frequently boasted that he hadn't even read any of the 4th edition books even as he bashed it.
The problems that you have been experiencing could be a blow back from those posters.
I understand how that happens, but (to again use myself as an example), when one returned to these forums (I left shortly after the release of 3.0, in protest over what I saw as a sack of bad rules... a subject for another time), "fresh faced and enthusiastic" as it were over the new 4th edition, and wanted to discuss how (for example), you see a problem with the new skill set, being told you were just a troll trying to "restart" a war you weren't even a part of can be quite the unpleasant experience.
However, it not a valid reason for the hostility and I wish the edition warriors would stop it.
And in this it seems we hold common ground. I admit to being a bit of a hothead, and I admit that I have, since my return to the forums, come to hold certain posters in the utmost contempt. Mostly, its because I don't particularly like tossing poo back and forth with people who have no interest in discussing things, and have tried on several occasions to reinstitute intelligent conversation.
Its sad that, regardless of how polite the discussion starts, or attempts to be, invariably, the poo-tossers return, and the discussion becomes heated. (And I am admitting my own culpability here, I assure you; I have a hard time not responding when someone waves a red flag under my nose.) It ought to be possible for someone to say "4E is great, but I wish the equipment list was a bit more detailed" (or make some other minor criticism of the game) without some overly-enthusiastic person responding with a variant of "You want to ram moar rulez down my throat! Go back to 3.5, you loozer!".
The question is, how do we prevent that sort of reaction from occurring? Or at least, how do we discourage it?
The question is, how do we prevent that sort of reaction from occurring? Or at least, how do we discourage it?
There is no direct way to prevent it.
First and formost is not to assume hostile intent. It is possible that posters come of more hostile that they really are, or that a fundamental misunderstanding occurred.
The second is not to post when angry. If you do it raises the hostility of your posts which generally causes hostile reactions that can made you angrier, then it goes around again and again, possible ending with a ORC raid.
Not responding to the insults generally prevents the post from having the opportunity from throwing more. It also prevents the cycle above from happening.
Using the report button might help if it crosses to the point of a code of conduct violation. Generally baiting would be the most likely violation.
Reading the following might help as well.
[post=15679705]How to be a Responsible forum member[/post], by mudbunny
[post=17282274]Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters[/post]
Not responding to the insults generally prevents the post from having the opportunity from throwing more. It also prevents the cycle above from happening.
Exactly. And the nice thing about it is, if someone is insulting and flaming in the thread, and no one replies, their idiocy sticks out in the thread. And it ultimately makes them look like idiots.
There is no direct way to prevent it.
First and formost is not to assume hostile intent. It is possible that posters come of more hostile that they really are, or that a fundamental misunderstanding occurred.
It should be recognized that even following the debate standard of being generous in one's interpretation of one's opponent's comments, its hard not to see hostility when your first post in nearly eight years garners responses that describe my post as "a very stupid question stupid people keep asking", or straw-man your wish for more depth in coverage of non-combat time in the game into a wish for "MOAR DICE!", and imply that you don't know how to roleplay yourself, much less a character in a fantasy game. But you make a valid point nonetheless.
Something that should be recognized and corrected are occasions where insults and condescension have become institutionalized and "accepted", yet remain insulting and condescending to a certain percentage of the participants on these forums. I'm pointing directly at the use of the term "CraPPer", a term I find to be not even a veiled insult, but a quite obvious and direct one.
Even interpreting that generously, you cannot deny the derogatory nature of such a label, nor the derogatory intent behind the coining of such a phrase. Yet when I added my statement of intent to report all uses of the phrase I encounter (it is, after all, baiting in its rawest form), I was ridiculed for it.
Reading the following might help as well.
[post=15679705]How to be a Responsible forum member[/post], by mudbunny
[post=17282274]Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters[/post]
Very helpful, thank you.
Something I think might actually help is some of the more calmer heads actually stepping in and asking the hotheads to calm down on both sides. even if you happen to agree with one side or the other.
Another personal example: Several of you who sat on the other side of the fence in the recent dust-up I was involved in made comments about how I was acting inappropriately, but gave those persons on your side of the argument who were acting in the exact same manner as myself a pass, thus giving tacit approval for the hotheads on one side, while you were simultaneously complaining about the hotheads on the other.
Perhaps more balanced responses are in order.
"a very stupid question stupid people keep asking"
I didn't see that! Maybe I missed it, but that kind of thing would be baiting.
When that happens use the report button.
Or could this be a personal interpretation that might have come off as far worse that what was intended?
Some of the posters that you clashed with are usually snarky at best.
It can really come off wrong to those that are not used to their posting style.
[S]traw-man your wish for more depth in coverage of non-combat time in the game into a wish for "MOAR DICE!",
Yet when I added my statement of intent to report all uses of the phrase I encounter (it is, after all, baiting in its rawest form), I was ridiculed for it.
Generally saying that you're going to report someone is considered baiting itself.
Try to do so quietly and they should get the point without you having a target on your back.
Something I think might actually help is some of the more calmer heads actually stepping in and asking the hotheads to calm down on both sides. even if you happen to agree with one side or the other.
That generally doesn't work.
It can also end with moderation of the one that asks for calm.
Another personal example: Several of you who sat on the other side of the fence in the recent dust-up I was involved in made comments about how I was acting inappropriately, but gave those persons on your side of the argument who were acting in the exact same manner as myself a pass, thus giving tacit approval for the hotheads on one side, while you were simultaneously complaining about the hotheads on the other.
I did try to help.
For several posters what you encountered it actually their regular posting style that they usually use.
I'll look back over that thread and double check.
Perhaps more balanced responses are in order.
Well, whatever happens, try to keep a level head.
It you reply logically and don' get drawn in to the poo throwing it would help your arguement.
[edit]Having reviewed the thread in question, I have additional comments.
"a very stupid question stupid people keep asking"
The second half of this statement wasn't actually said.
You read into it more than what was said.
[S]traw-man your wish for more depth in coverage of non-combat time in the game into a wish for "MOAR DICE!",
"MOAR DICE!" was your characterization of a argument, rather than what was said.
Again you read into a statement something that wasn't actually there.
No. It is a stupid question. A very stupid question people keep asking.
You can go search for it. You'll notice a lack of edit lines due to it having not been edited.
Edit: Granted, stupid does appear twice in the quote, but it's because the question is an especially annoying push-poll.
While I got the specific details wrong, Calron, I did not get the general feel of the attitudes wrong at all, as a rereading of that thread makes clear to anyone.
Edit: Granted, stupid does appear twice in the quote, but it's because the question is an especially annoying push-poll.
I was asking what I thought was a serious question, and it's labeled and dismissed as "an especially annoying push-poll" instead of something I would have appreciated an actual response to that didn't involve condescension and insult. As I said, its hard not to read hostility in this sort of thing, especially when its combined with the other attitudes I mentioned.
Oh, and Calron, "MOAR DICE!" is a direct quote, not "reading more into it". Someone actually did label my points thus.
Also, again, misquoting has been declared:
It would be utterly insane and highly intrusive for the game to assign dice rolls and charts to dating, or the deliciousness of a meal or other subjective situations that require actual playing of roles. Why? Because these things are things that aren't quantified by probability and mathematics. Attempts to do so are at best, stilted and artificial and at worse quash real roleplay in favor of 'moar dice'. And at far worse, the results may prove to be FATAL >>link removed<<
Also, note that the line about assigning rolls to dating -- at that point in the thread -- was a reference to something I did two years ago here as a joke and had previously mentioned.
Edit: Wait, no, it was Calanar, not nf67. Still clearly not ChefJackButler
Ninja Attack. Though I can see why ChefJackButler might have though you did so, as you quoted him before addressing another poster you didn't quote.Oh, and Calron, "MOAR DICE!" is a direct quote, not "reading more into it". Someone actually did label my points thus.
I found the post in question. It's close, but not a direct quote.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=18547174&highlight=MOAR+DICE%21#post18547174
The "moar dice" was not a characterization of your argument, but the worst possible outcome of a secondary skill system in Vaalingrade Ashland's point of view.
This kind of thing shows that possible misunderstanding can cause a good deal of trouble and make posts seem insulting and disrespectful even when they are not.
I'm not so sure of that, because he was being quoted because he was yelling at me for calling the question stupid the first time.
I called that question stupid at least 4 times before Jack even posts in that thread. It was... not a good question. Like I said, it's kind of like me asking "Vaalingrade: Great poster? Or GREATEST poster?" No matter how you answer, you have to call me a great poster because the question just assumes I'm great.
My points, since we've gone off the rails, were the following:
1. It is possible to be critical of 4E without hating 4E.
2. It is possible to be critical of 4E without wanting to go back to 3.x.
3. It is possible to be critical of 4E and still have fun playing 4E.
4. Not everyone who feels that some parts of the rules could use with a bit of bolstering wants to shove entire volumes-full of rules down your throat.
5. Given 1 through 4, it should be realistically possible to discuss the perceived weaknesses (or the perceived lack thereof) in a calm and rational manner without resorting to condescension, name-calling, and the use of ridicule.
In addition, I pointed out the following:
1. It is much easier to advocate calm and reasonable responses to hostility than it is to put it into practice, especially given the propensity of some people (including, but certainly not limited to myself) to read the absolute worst intentions in what are otherwise borderline comments.
2. That institutionalized ridicule was only adding to the problem and should be stopped, regardless of how innocuous the majority finds the institutionalized ridicule.
3. That voices of reason need to be balanced in their calls for calm by not favoring one side over the other and pointing out that people on both sides are being unnecessarily disrespectful, because failing to do so leads to the appearance of approval when the side not called out acts in a disrespectful manner.
And the last point I made was that condescending dismissal of an argument out of hand is a form of hostile disrespect, regardless of how polite the dismissal was, and should be discouraged alongside of more open forms of hostility.
Can I get an apology for mischaracterizing my posts in order to make 'an example of uncalled-for hostility'?
EDIT: No, strike that.
Vaal, respectfully, no, I will not apologize, because I do not think I mischaracterized the tone of your posts, or the attitude displayed in your posts, at all. I will, however, apologize for misquoting you.
Further Edit: I will, however, agree to adopt a formal stance of non-antagonization from now on, if you are amenable to that.
You can't really impose a method to reduce immaturity in the posts, without more people to impose it. There's only so much having the rules written on the wall will do. It's why there are still "edition warriors."
Generally, the best way to, yourself, avoid spiralling down (if you feel you're prone to it; I feel I can get a little gritty with it) is to simply take everything verbatum. Don't read stuff and make conclusions about how that person is talking to you, what that person is thinking that he's not saying, and don't make assumptions of any other kind. Ever. Yes, I mean that. '
Yes, you're a human being who is able to get it right, because you're a smart person; but you need tone of voice and a social conduct board in your head that you check off while you think about connotation of words. On the internet, you are not able to get any "between the lines" information with any measure of certainty. Seriously, you're running with five toes missing, for a bad analogy on it.
And most important -- and often the toughest -- is to learn to admit when you're wrong, because it's just too easy not to and to point at something else so that you can save some grace. Some people go as low as pointing at someone.
My best guess as to all of the behaviour we see is that people come onto the internet and onto the D&D forums specifically for hours if they're people without much to do in their day, or with a fascination for the internet and the people on it. The problem comes about when they're also people who are looking for acceptance, mistaking that they need to be elevated to get that. So they take the initiative and elevate themselves; they take a strong stance that is either ragingly popular or ragingly unpopular, and try to sound smarter, more civil, yet they're as tooth-and-claw as the people they talk to, and maybe (maybe) moreso.
There are some people who try and stop the edition wars that, themselves, get involved in the arguing; because they try to stand "above" the people who were in the edition wars, and so they act as if they are literally above those people in mental stamina. That they have the right to say crude things because of their opinion.
On another forum site I go on (one that, interestingly, has none of this arguing. 99.9% of it is never like as we speak), I have a signature that is but one line: "I don't use those smily things, so please just assume what I'm saying is in the nicest way possible." Not as related as I would like, but it'll do: it's a way of me keeping my peers aware that I'm trying to be kind and I'll never intentionally bite at people. Kinda like everything that sounds nice, it's harder to get a good community going because you need everyone to be involved. Enough people just going with the flow, and you can watch one guy with a particularly heavy-handed perspective knock them all astray.
No one gets to insult someone else for their opinion. That is all there is to it. You're not a more important person than them for having a different opinion or even for making what you've been told to be the more mature choice. There's no good enough reason that the guy who "doesn't want the Edition Wars to start up again" can insult the person that baits them. It doesn't "teach them," it doesn't "get them to shut up," it doesn't do anything.
So uh... that's probably all I have to say on the subject. Ehn, I'll probably argue anything that seems arguable. The other thing I've noticed is that most of the posts I make are so neutral, no one ever replies to me.It's almost lonely.
Only kinda.
Edit: I also, interestingly, only ever arrive and post when the dust has settled. That might contribute to the way I don't get replied to.
"Edition War" is just an excuse to lock threads the fanbois don't like...
IMHO of course...
I originally percived this a being unquestionably phrased as an accusation, then passed off as an opinion. I may have been wrong. It wasn't worded quite in the way that i would expect for an opinion, and i'm afraid that i did take it in a worse way than it was intended. I apologise, if that's the case.
As an asside, if it had been phrased: "It seems like the 'edition war' is just and excuse to lock threads the fanbois don't like..." i actually never would have had a problem with it. Perhaps it would have prevented some others from assailing you?
Regardless, there you have it. I'll keep my eyes open a bit more from here on out.
Yes, if I had put it like that, maybe it wouldn't have ruffled so many feathers.
But I guess I am not so eloquent. And it is kinda what I said anyway...
I smell what you're cooking though...
Just keep in mind that politely phrased, unintentional insults are still insults. So next time what you should do when someone reacts badly to something you think was innocuous is not go off the deep end yourself but perhaps apologizing for offending people and clarifying what you meant to say.
As opposed to raising your hackles and going on the offensive.
Just a suggestion.
when someone reacts badly to something you think was innocuous [...] apologizing for offending people and clarifying what you meant to say.
I have no objections to clarifying what I meant to say if it appears that someone else has taken offense. But I won't apologize for their misunderstanding.
To me, "I'm sorry" is a phrase that requires sincerity. I will not use it casually any more than I would say "I love you" without meaning it. And I am rarely sorry for how someone else feels, and never sorry for how someone else chooses to interpret.
Just keep in mind that politely phrased, unintentional insults are still insults. So next time what you should do when someone reacts badly to something you think was innocuous is not go off the deep end yourself but perhaps apologizing for offending people and clarifying what you meant to say.
As opposed to raising your hackles and going on the offensive.
Just a suggestion.
Here, here. This is advice every poster would do well to follow.
I have no objections to clarifying what I meant to say if it appears that someone else has taken offense. But I won't apologize for their misunderstanding.
To me, "I'm sorry" is a phrase that requires sincerity. I will not use it casually any more than I would say "I love you" without meaning it. And I am rarely sorry for how someone else feels, and never sorry for how someone else chooses to interpret.
You misunderstand my intent. My point isn't that you should apologize every time you speak, but rather that you should strive to be courteous. There is never a bad time to show courtesy to other human beings, and if you phrased something badly it is your fault when someone turns around and misinterprets your words.
You don't have to constantly apologize for things, but be aware that, given the medium through which we're communicating, it is better to be cooperative and helpful as you can to others when it comes to those others understanding your intent and your meaning. And if you are as helpful and cooperative as you can be... if you've used the simplest language possible and explained what you are trying to say as well as you can explain it... then and only then is it not your fault if someone still doesn't get what you're trying to say.
Yeah, but that seems the modus operandi on here though...
And one can only take so much and one does have the right do defend oneself.
I have tried to be nice and cordial, and I believe I am... until one of the usual suspects shows up...
I smell what you're cooking though...
I understand what you are saying. My recent history here in the forums is marked by bloody swathes of me leaping for someone's throat after they make some snide comment or veiled (or direct) insults.
But so what? In the end, if you choose to be the better man and not respond to the insults, what have you lost? Nothing. After all, the greater majority of the participants (even the "usual suspects" as you call them) are people you are never going to meet in person, will have absolutely no impact on your day to day life, and absolutely do not matter a whit when it comes to the people who actually do have an impact on your life.
As far as your day to day life is concerned, we are all just pixels on a screen, and our opinions (be they about the sun, the moon, how to build the perfect deva paladin of the Raven Queen, or whether you bathe regularly) don't matter a squirt of warm urine in the long run when it comes to you waking up, going to work, and living your life.
So keep it in perspective, and the next time a gang of hotheads goes off on something you say, do what I plan on doing: put them all on ignore and move along with it.
You'll likely be happier in the long run. I certainly expect to be.
It ought to be possible for someone to say "4E is great, but I wish the equipment list was a bit more detailed" (or make some other minor criticism of the game) without some overly-enthusiastic person responding with a variant of "You want to ram moar rulez down my throat! Go back to 3.5, you loozer!".
It IS possible...in the 1 out of 1,000 posts that bother to be worded so nicely. Seriously, look over the boards. If you can find 5 posts that show a criticism of 4E that are worded this politely (and are not by the same person), I'll personally buy your lunch. It just doesn't happen.
No one (read: a very, very sparse few) makes posts like that. What they DO make are posts like: "4E is Dumbed Down", "4E = Combat Only", "4E = No RP", and dozens of other patently false statements, then want to jump on the waah-train when someone tries to prove them wrong. Keep in mind...there's a HUGE difference in telling someone they're wrong and telling them to go back to a previous edition. I don't care what editions people have played. Hell, if you ask around, the majority will lie and try to convince you they've been playing since day one, and taught Gygax everything he knew about gaming.
This is not "an innocent group of simple question-askers" coming up against the "evil 4E-love horde". This is a group of rampant trolls intentionally skirting the CoC while attacking with everything they have, then crying to everyone else when they get told something they don't like about how the evil 4-E fanbois are "out to get them", "singling them out", and "picking on them". It's elementary-school mentality at it's worst, and it's sad that there is little to nothing the mods do about it.
Unfortunately that isn't entirely true. I have seen several threads where it started off very polite criticizing 4e and then degenerated when certain individuals joined the thread. Just because there is a troll population does not mean there are people who genuinely are trying to offer constructive criticism and are being flamed for it.
Hence the reason I said "a very, very sparse few". Those posts are rare in the strictest sense of the word. Take the first page of General Discussion, for example. There's a thread labeled "bring back 3.5" in which the OP starts by telling his experience with 4E, then offering a "humble request" for WotC to bring back 3.5. This, of course, is followed by questions such as "why do you feel this way", and suggestions offered to help remedy the OPs issues. Just as I suspected would happen, within 10 posts it had already went from a humble request by the OP to the OP saying "I wouldn't pay a spoonfull of **** for any 4E products".
Were I a betting man, I could have made money off of that one. I saw it coming from post one. Haters think they are getting more clever by disguising their attempts to slam the new system with "innocent questions", but it's as see through as a white tee-shirt in a thunderstorm. They just want excuses to poke 4E, nothing more. I do, however, feel bad for the occassional real poster seeking help, because the trolls have now made any questions about 4E a mine-field for new posters to cross. It's a shame.
It IS possible...in the 1 out of 1,000 posts that bother to be worded so nicely. Seriously, look over the boards. If you can find 5 posts that show a criticism of 4E that are worded this politely (and are not by the same person), I'll personally buy your lunch. It just doesn't happen.
A polite post that is critical of the "hit point grind" factor that is present in too many 4E combat sessions.
A polite post that is critical of the power system that is, perhaps, the heart of 4E
A polite post that is critical of the perceived thin nature of the 4E skill system (specifically, a lack of Knowledge-based skills).
A polite post that is critical of the perceived paucity of At-Will powers in the 4E power system.
A polite post that is, to a point, critical of 4E in that it lists the poster's likes and dislikes of the game.
For lunch I'll take the crab cakes with pomodoro and black truffles and a nice bottle of something red at Victoria and Alberts in Orlando, Florida. :D
No one (read: a very, very sparse few) makes posts like that.
Demonstratably not true. I could have posted a dozen more polite posts that ae critical of 4E. The problem isn't the 4E criticism... its that in response, the polite poster who only wants to talk about what they see as a weakness in the system gets roasted alive as soon as the people whom The Hated refers to as "the usual suspects" enter the thread.
What they DO make are posts like: "4E is Dumbed Down", "4E = Combat Only", "4E = No RP", and dozens of other patently false statements, then want to jump on the waah-train when someone tries to prove them wrong.
This is part of the problem I was talking about. You've just condescended and marginalized people whose criticisms of 4E you disagree with by saying they "jumped on the waah-train". That's belittling.
If you want less flame wars, don't belittle people. Don't make fun of them. Don't sneer at them. Don't call them names. Be polite. See how that works for you.
This is not "an innocent group of simple question-askers" coming up against the "evil 4E-love horde". This is a group of rampant trolls intentionally skirting the CoC while attacking with everything they have, then crying to everyone else when they get told something they don't like about how the evil 4-E fanbois are "out to get them", "singling them out", and "picking on them". It's elementary-school mentality at it's worst, and it's sad that there is little to nothing the mods do about it.
And you know for a fact that everyone who posts things you disagree with does it out of some malevolent purpose rather than simple curiosity or concern? If not, then your characterization of them is not only vastly wrong, its vastly insulting and dismissive even before they post. Certainly there will be a small number who fit your description, but you are waving around a remarkably broad brush, there.
I've read dozens of threads on these boards where a person makes some critical comment, and in response gets flames, disrespect, and calumny. Please do not try to say that the critics of 4E are the only trolls creeping about, because that's simply silly. I'm sorry, but there it is.
If you want people to behave better, then perhaps you should start behaving better toward others. Don't wait for them to act more nobly; do it yourself and be an example instead of just another part of the problem.
Just a suggestion.
Haters think they are getting more clever by disguising their attempts to slam the new system with "innocent questions", but it's as see through as a white tee-shirt in a thunderstorm. They just want excuses to poke 4E, nothing more. I do, however, feel bad for the occassional real poster seeking help, because the trolls have now made any questions about 4E a mine-field for new posters to cross. It's a shame.
I don't know how religious you are, but Matthew 7:12 works wonders in these situations. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
If you're sick of people starting flame wars, the thing to do is avoid responding to people you think are trying to start one. That poster you're talking about? If he bothers you so much, try ignoring him from now on.
A polite post that is critical of the "hit point grind" factor that is present in too many 4E combat sessions.
The responses were not inflammatory in any way. Everyone is being polite and offering advice.
A polite post that is critical of the power system that is, perhaps, the heart of 4E
This one...you win. He was attacked.
A polite post that is critical of the perceived thin nature of the 4E skill system (specifically, a lack of Knowledge-based skills).
There's been one response, from an ORC, and it directs the OP to a page number in a rule book. No flaming here, either.
A polite post that is critical of the perceived paucity of At-Will powers in the 4E power system.
All was fine until post #6 in which another h4ter jumped the gun and began the flaming.
A polite post that is, to a point, critical of 4E in that it lists the poster's likes and dislikes of the game.
Links to the same thread as the above one does. Nice try, though.
Now, out of the ones you listed, we have:
1- in which the OP gets flamed for his opinions without provocation.
2- non-inflammatory in any way
1- in which an anti 4E poster starts the flame-war
1- repeat of a thread
All you have shown is that you were able to find 1 thread in which the OP was flamed for nothing more than a criticism or opinion. There's little left to say, honestly. These posts (provided by you, humerously enough) prove that.
The thread is about respect. Show none, receive none. Come on the boards ranting like an idiot, people will respond in kind. Come on and act like you've evolved past caveman-status, and (the majority of) people will respond in kind.
There will always be a few that take things too far, no matter what side they're on. It's nothing more than a sad fact of the internet. Can't handle the "lack of respect"? Too bad. If you're looking to the internet to get the respect you want in life, you've got so many more issues that need addressing. I don't expect anyone to respect me in this kind of anonymous venue. I can't understand why others would. Entitlement issues, perhaps?
Nice try, though.
Of course its a "nice try". I did precisely what you asked me to. Specifically, you said:
Seriously, look over the boards. If you can find 5 posts that show a criticism of 4E that are worded this politely (and are not by the same person), I'll personally buy your lunch. It just doesn't happen.
Emphasis added by myself. You asked me to find four posts critical of 4E that were worded politely, and I did so. You'll forgive me if I refuse to allow you to move the goalposts now that I've scored a touch down.
And you still owe me lunch.
The thread is about respect. Show none, receive none. Come on the boards ranting like an idiot, people will respond in kind. Come on and act like you've evolved past caveman-status, and (the majority of) people will respond in kind.
This is demonstratably incorrect. More people than just I have admitted that there have been many times where politely worded posts are met with condescension and insult. By your logic, it is the fault of the original, polite poster rather than the hothead who responded.
There will always be a few that take things too far, no matter what side they're on. It's nothing more than a sad fact of the internet. Can't handle the "lack of respect"? Too bad. If you're looking to the internet to get the respect you want in life, you've got so many more issues that need addressing. I don't expect anyone to respect me in this kind of anonymous venue. I can't understand why others would. Entitlement issues, perhaps?
So because there's no way to eliminate all rudeness on the internet, there's no point in promoting politeness and respect for each other, so we shouldn't even try?
As for why one should expect respect and politeness, how is this for an answer: its a part of basic courtesy that should be a basic part of all human interaction. That it isn't says volumes about how discourse in this world has degraded, and the lack of proper manners among those who disagree.
I don't know how religious you are, but Matthew 7:12 works wonders in these situations. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
If you're sick of people starting flame wars, the thing to do is avoid responding to people you think are trying to start one. That poster you're talking about? If he bothers you so much, try ignoring him from now on.
I thought it went without saying that bringing up religious topics in this forum is a sure way to get people's dander up, but obviously not. I put as much faith in real-world gods as I do in D&D gods (read: none).
And the poster in question? He doesn't "bother me so much". He humors me. It's like some sort of bizarre social experiment. It's entertaining, to say the least, despite its predictability.
Emphasis added by myself. You asked me to find four posts critical of 4E that were worded politely, and I did so. You'll forgive me if I refuse to allow you to move the goalposts now that I've scored a touch down.
And you still owe me lunch.
Look again. I said 5 posts. But that's besides the point. No goalposts were moved. I was responding to the accusation that even polite posts are attacked, saying that that was not always the case, and in many instances there is no "polite post" to begin with. All you did was find a few polite OPs, the majority of which were NOT attacked, but supported and discussed. In effect, you proved my point nicely. By quoting the posts you did, and putting them in the context you did, you not only moved the goalposts, you changed to a different game altogether.
And I will still gladly buy you lunch. The next time you're in Florida, I'll take you to some of the finest seafood restaurants around, my treat. :D
I thought it went without saying that bringing up religious topics in this forum is a sure way to get people's dander up, but obviously not. I put as much faith in real-world gods as I do in D&D gods (read: none).
I am not promoting religion. I am not a Christian, nor do I put my stock in any faith, really. What I was saying is this: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a pretty good piece of advice.
Think about it.
And the poster in question? He doesn't "bother me so much". He humors me. It's like some sort of bizarre social experiment. It's entertaining, to say the least, despite its predictability.
You just insulted him, marginalized him, and condescended to him, all in the space of five sentences. And yet you got upset with him when he said "I wouldn't pay a piece of **** for a 4E product."
This is what I was talking about when I said that the way to get people to be more polite is to act more polite. You are sparing no pains to insult someone who isn't even a party to this conversation. Why is that? What does it gain you, other than my bad opinion of you?
And I am in Florida. Born here, lived here all my life, barring eleven years in the military.
A theory is built on a belief, not an opinion.
An opinion is taking a stand on a subjective question. A belief is taking a stand that something is a fact.
Just so you know...
opinion (n.) A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:“
theory (n.) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
So your opinion of what the definition of opinion is, is just your opinion...not fact.
You just insulted him, marginalized him, and condescended to him, all in the space of five sentences. And yet you got upset with him when he said "I wouldn't pay a piece of **** for a 4E product."
I'm not upset with him. I just stated that I saw it coming...and come it did.
This is what I was talking about when I said that the way to get people to be more polite is to act more polite. You are sparing no pains to insult someone who isn't even a party to this conversation. Why is that? What does it gain you, other than my bad opinion of you?
Your opinion of me is of no concern to anyone...myself especially. I'm a married father of two with a successful business (despite the tanking economy), a college degree, prior military service, a member of the local chamber of commerce, and so on. The opinions and views of unknown, anonymous folks on an internet site devoted to game...well...they mean nothing. I don't exactly need their approval, I guess I should say. I'm not better than anyone here, but I'm not worse, either. Demanding respect from a group of people over the internet is like demanding respect from the clouds. Sometimes your parade just gets rained on.
And I am in Florida. Born here, lived here all my life, barring eleven years in the military.
Come to Panama City Beach. We'll eat lobster, drink wine, and talk about matters a bit more important than a game.
1. It is possible to be critical of 4E without hating 4E.
2. It is possible to be critical of 4E without wanting to go back to 3.x.
3. It is possible to be critical of 4E and still have fun playing 4E.
4. Not everyone who feels that some parts of the rules could use with a bit of bolstering wants to shove entire volumes-full of rules down your throat.
All true.
5. Given 1 through 4, it should be realistically possible to discuss the perceived weaknesses (or the perceived lack thereof) in a calm and rational manner without resorting to condescension, name-calling, and the use of ridicule.
Given the number of people who are merely here to cause trouble and start flamewars (and I can think of 3 names straight off, and no, for the record, you aren't on that list CJB), having a critical discussion of 4e is often met with cries of "Yeah, you totally can't RP in 4e" "Yeah there's no out of combat in 4e" and the oh so common "4e is WoW".
There are only so many times I can hear falsehoods like that and keep my cool, and I assume that others feel the same.
It compounds the problem that thise posters have currently hit upon a strategy of starting 'polite' threads full of false information (My favorite example being complaining that iron and flesh golems in the MM aren't immune to poison -- when iron golems weren't in the MM and flesh golems WERE immune to poison) and then pulling a martyr complex when they're called on it.
The end result is that some people draw snapfire instantly due to thier post history more than thier actual thread. This is especially true for people who have had many, many fake moments of 'turning over a new leaf' of the 'I'm sorry you guys are still stupid' variety.
People are frustrated and angry that there are people here to do nothing but start fights, but nothing has nor will be done about it beyond another flame war until they get bored and leave on thier own.
removed
I saw what you wrote..and yes. Exactly. Trust me man, I am on your side. I have seen how they jump at you just because of something from before, or what ever, more some individuals than other.
Your opinion of me is of no concern to anyone...myself especially.
As it should be. That's one more reason to not go off on someone just because they post something you don't like. They don't matter to you in the long run, so what does it matter what they post?
The opinions and views of unknown, anonymous folks on an internet site devoted to game...well...they mean nothing. I don't exactly need their approval, I guess I should say.
Precisely. And the same holds true for them. So if someone posts something that gets under your skin, just walk away from it.
Come to Panama City Beach. We'll eat lobster, drink wine, and talk about matters a bit more important than a game.
Last time I had lobster in the Panama City area it was at Captain Anderson's. Good food, but I felt a bit herded...
There are only so many times I can hear falsehoods like that and keep my cool, and I assume that others feel the same.
I'll make you a deal. I won't excoriate people who assume that any criticism of 4E is a restart of the edition wars, if you don't burn down people who say things that could possibly be intended as a restart of the edition wars.
The end result is that some people draw snapfire instantly due to thier post history more than thier actual thread. This is especially true for people who have had many, many fake moments of 'turning over a new leaf' of the 'I'm sorry you guys are still stupid' variety.
Good point. The passive-aggressive bull **** needs to stop too.
The end result is that some people draw snapfire instantly due to thier post history more than thier actual thread. This is especially true for people who have had many, many fake moments of 'turning over a new leaf' of the 'I'm sorry you guys are still stupid' variety.
Good point. The passive-aggressive bull **** needs to stop too.
We all know what assuming does don't we...?:D
Stuff like this line for example. :D
Good point. The passive-aggressive bull **** needs to stop too.
So...this thread is about showing respect to people and such.
Does that mean you believe it is appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt regarding posting to some people and not others?
If so, would you complain if I chose to extend that 'courtesy' differently than you?
There's probably a thread where that happens on every other page of the community forum. Where the same person asked for understanding, then tells us to bite him.
I'll make you a deal. I won't excoriate people who assume that any criticism of 4E is a restart of the edition wars, if you don't burn down people who say things that could possibly be intended as a restart of the edition wars.
How about we make a better deal? I won't be a jackass towards you, and you continue to post your issues with the game so that I, and the community, can help you (and maybe ourselves, if we also find the issue a problem) out?
Hey... I smilied it!;)
I actually didn't take it offensively to be honest. I thought you were making a stab at the haters and people who are only here to cause trouble to be honest.
Although, I stand by my assessment. There's only so many times I can hear "4e=WoW" and "No RP in 4e, because no Craft/Perform/Profession (hereafter CPP skills)" and the like before I snap.
It should be noted that post history comes into it too.
On this point I am cynical, because to give a quick example, in the thread that inspired this one, I was claimed to have said a number of things I simply did not say...that's "post history" for you. Certainly, a troublemaker ought to be remembered if they cause trouble for you...that doesn't mean everything word out of their mouth is trouble. What eventually happens (and it is just human nature), is you start parsing every sentence for a veiled attack, waiting for the "gotcha!" moment, where you can call them out. Or you can disregard their posts. Which extreme you go to is your choice. One results in a flame war, one does not. The solution to threats, even veiled threats, is the report button. The response to trolling is the same thing.
As for the banning process here, I absolutely agree it is far too lax (and I followed your posts in frequent agreement on this topic when it first happened with the OTT and GD picture postings). There should be a banning system in place for repeated abuse. But that is another matter for another thread.
Sam, can you honestly say that is what I do and that is the way I post?
Did I mention your name in relation with that posting style?
No, but you and I mix it up quite frequently over nonsense, more or less...
Nonsense!? Why I oughta! ;)
Although, I stand by my assessment. There's only so many times I can hear "4e=WoW" and "No RP in 4e, because no Craft/Perform/Profession (hereafter CPP skills)" and the like before I snap.
Similarly, I feel annoyed every time I read statements along the lines of:
-"4e didn't kill anyone's earlier edition campaign, just continue what you were doing before if you don't like it"
Some of us played Living Greyhawk as our primary (or only) campaign. Continuing is not so much of an option.
-"Melee characters could do nothing in 3.5 except "I hit it with a sword""
Tell that to my dervish. I've tried converting him to 4e as a ranger/stormwarden and his options (from feats, skills, class abilities and magic items, plus powers in 4e) are very, very close in the two editions.
-"If you played a spellcaster in 3.5 you were doing it to take over the game and ruin your friends' fun"
Oddly, my most popular character in LG (among other PLAYERS, not necessarily PCs) was my sorcerer / wild mage. Given my biggest problem in mustering for certain games was that everyone wanted to be on my sorcerer's table, I'm pretty sure she wasn't ruining people's fun.
To clarify, I've played 4e. I've had fun playing 4e. However, I also like 3.5, I spent five very enjoyable years playing 3.5, and I know from personal experience that some of the problems people had with 3.5 can be avoided.
In general, throwing out uninformed falsehoods about people's preferred systems is going to annoy people. It would be really nice if people could stop doing it. Barring that, it would be nice if people could stop reacting in kind.
As for me, I try not to post when annoyed. Unfortunately, this has meant that I mostly don't post in 4e forums. I suspect this has quite a bit to do with my interest in RPGs going effectively to zero after Living Greyhawk ended (although I still wander by these boards occasionally when procrastinating): the online community was always a fairly large part of my enjoyment of the hobby.
Take care and good gaming. I do hope this thread achieves some of its intended purpose.
So...this thread is about showing respect to people and such.
Does that mean you believe it is appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt regarding posting to some people and not others?
No. I'm advocating showing respect to everyone, pretty much. Those people who you feel have either thrown away your respect or somehow never earned it should be ignored rather than fought with.
If so, would you complain if I chose to extend that 'courtesy' differently than you?
That is always your perogative.
How about we make a better deal? I won't be a jackass towards you, and you continue to post your issues with the game so that I, and the community, can help you (and maybe ourselves, if we also find the issue a problem) out?
Helpfulness is always a good thing. But can we make it a mutual pledge to generally not be jackasses?
The fuel for these flamewars is members on both sides are not willing to give an inch in any thread in which the two are compared. Adding fuel to the fire is others reluctance to let any thread which criticizes 4e not compare it to 3.5. IMO, until this plethora of problems is fixed no 4e criticism thread will be able to go anywhere productive.
People (pretty much all people) have a psychological need to feel that they are correct. Regardless of what the subject is, they base their own self-worth on knowing that they are right about the things they believe, regardless of whether the belief in question is about religion, politics, sports, movies, music, food, or what-have-you.
What needs to happen is to depersonalize the discussion. Don't make it about you. Make it about the issue. It doesn't matter if you think A is true and the guy who just posted says that he thinks B is true. What harm does it do for the two of you to disagee?
So I'm pretty much urging everyone to be brave and take the first step. Don't respond to hostility. Don't respond to unkindness or impoliteness. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, be willing to doubt your own infallibility just a touch, especially if in the end we have a more pleasant environment around here to talk about the game.
The real problem here is that [some] members of both sides believe that "their" is absolute perfection incarnate.
Just inserting a word to more specifically characterize the nature of the problem. No offense taken, and none intended. Others may assume you are painting with a wide brush, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt that you simply meant that there are offensive members on both sides of any given argument fence here.
Just inserting a word to more specifically characterize the nature of the problem. No offense taken, and none intended. Others may assume you are painting with a wide brush, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt that you simply meant that there are offensive members on both sides of any given argument fence here.
Thank you. My intention was only a few members and not everyone on a side as a whole.
I actually didn't take it offensively to be honest. I thought you were making a stab at the haters and people who are only here to cause trouble to be honest.
Although, I stand by my assessment. There's only so many times I can hear "4e=WoW" and "No RP in 4e, because no Craft/Perform/Profession (hereafter CPP skills)" and the like before I snap.
I can make valid arguments supporting how 4e is similar to WoW, how it downplays roleplaying by the design, and how the aforementioned skills are an important part of character building in part because they represent an investment in the character's creation which has tangible benefits which can allow specific roleplaying that cannot otherwise be allowed.
So, if you think you are going to snap on me you can blow it out your ass.
Well, I'm waiting.
But, I don't get involved in these debates because people do not wish to show respect and many of those who claim to be doing so are not in the least.
And if this post is going to be edited, it should be taken into account that the post I responded to is flaming and begging for me to respond to it. Both shouldr be edited.
We all have our own valid beliefs and opinions. If someone disagrees with you there is no reason to trash someone. Hypocritical? I don't care if you believe so or not. I am just making a point and really don't care if someone thinks that or not. It would not make the case being made in the first two sentences of this paragrapf less valid but would rather reinforce them, I believe.
Some people have been given the benefit of the doubt many, many times and have consistently used it to say 'I'm sorry -- Sorry you're all such jerks!' which sort of removes all shadow of a doubt.
There's probably a thread where that happens on every other page of the community forum. Where the same person asked for understanding, then tells us to bite him.
And you honestly expect me to believe that your posting was not intended to be passive aggressive toward The_Hated? It appears to imply that you do not think everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt but rather a select few. I believe that many who are being given the benefit have been just as guilty many times over and have never stopped receiving it.
note: already answered.
No. I'm advocating showing respect to everyone, pretty much. Those people who you feel have either thrown away your respect or somehow never earned it should be ignored rather than fought with.
That is always your perogative.
Thankyou for the response. Others are arguing differently.
So, if you think you are going to snap on me you can blow it out your ass.
Well, I'm waiting.
Was that strictly necessary?
And if this post is going to be edited, it should be taken into account that the post I responded to is flaming and begging for me to respond to it. Both shouldr be edited.
If so, you should have been the better man and left it alone. As it is, you lowered yourself to the perceived level (and I say perceived because I did not see the post you are responding to in the same manner) of the person to whom you are responding.
In short, you're coming off as begging for a fight and only waiting for a reason. And there is no call for it. None at all.
And you honestly expect me to believe that your posting was not intended to be passive aggressive toward The_Hated? It appears to imply that you do not think everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt but rather a select few. I believe that many who are being given the benefit have been just as guilty many times over and have never stopped receiving it.
I have personally tried to step in between two posters in two separate threads asking both to stop their attacks as it was not on topic of the thread. When the anti 4e poster said he would if the other would I asked the other to do so...yet the anti4e poster was still attacked by the other one. In both threads.
No one is innocent...well few are...but in these two instances (and other I have noticed) it is the hated poster that gets attacked by the pro4e crowd (not all, just some).
Was that strictly necessary?
No, it was not. But, it is my perogative. You said so yourself.
If so, you should have been the better man and left it alone. As it is, you lowered yourself to the perceived level (and I say perceived because I did not see the post you are responding to in the same manner) of the person to whom you are responding.
Perhaps you should reread my earlier post referring to a poster who was hassling Hater. It can be found here:
post 89
The poster being referred to in post 89 was the one being responded to in my post. I have seen what I believe is sufficient to draw the conclusion that I reached.
But, to go farther, look back to this quote at the earliest part of this thread and those that immediately follow it:
But it is soooo hard to just let douchebaggery be...
My problem is I get offended by condescension, smugness, smart-assness, and people telling others that their opinion is wrong.
That was the start. Notice how in post 5 there is mention of anger at the use of 'fanbois' and yet a willingness to use '4eHaters'. So, it is ok to use one and not te other. The_Hated used both when referring to the groups but only one word use drew criticism from the poster and the other use was actually used by the poster as well as placing the blame there. Then a great deal of people go to pont out how wrong The_Hated was about what he believed as the pile on started. It is obvious where the pile on originated.
The post of mine you responded to was a response to the post that not only placed blame on 4th edition haters but brought out and mentioned the arguments which were being made in a condescending manner.
If the poster believed the arguments had a legitimate basis then there would be no reason to snap at someone for mentioning them. Therefore telling someone you will snap at him for making a legitimate comment is either a.) telling him his comments are not legitimate or b.) trying to lure him into a slugfest or c.) both.
To be blunt, if I have a legitimate argument to make and I am told by someone that he will snap at me for making such an argument then he is calling me out. That is pretty damn simple logic. Simple but sound.
One might argue that the 'snap' was not to be directed at anyone but that the poster meant just 'snap' in general. Still, that means that I am being told that my opinions are not worth discussing. Otherwise there would be no reason to snap at their discussion.
From the post proceeding the one I responded to:
How about we make a better deal? I won't be a jackass towards you, and you continue to post your issues with the game so that I, and the community, can help you (and maybe ourselves, if we also find the issue a problem) out?
So, you are allowed to post your issues but the issues I might mention will cause him to snap. The respect I am being displayed is truly overwhelming. The poster may not have known he was singling me out based upon my criticisms because he did not know my criticisms but that still leaves that I was being singled out for my criticisms.
In short, you're coming off as begging for a fight and only waiting for a reason. And there is no call for it. None at all.
No, I am merely responding to the fight bell rang before me. I did not misinterpret it. But, the point is that I did not ring the bell and no one wants to point out who did in this case. It was the same poster who rand it at the earliest stages of this thread.
removed
I saw what you wrote..and yes. Exactly. Trust me man, I am on your side. I have seen how they jump at you just because of something from before, or what ever, more some individuals than other.
Your opinion of me is of no concern to anyone...myself especially.
As it should be. That's one more reason to not go off on someone just because they post something you don't like. They don't matter to you in the long run, so what does it matter what they post?
The opinions and views of unknown, anonymous folks on an internet site devoted to game...well...they mean nothing. I don't exactly need their approval, I guess I should say.
Precisely. And the same holds true for them. So if someone posts something that gets under your skin, just walk away from it.
Come to Panama City Beach. We'll eat lobster, drink wine, and talk about matters a bit more important than a game.
Last time I had lobster in the Panama City area it was at Captain Anderson's. Good food, but I felt a bit herded...
There are only so many times I can hear falsehoods like that and keep my cool, and I assume that others feel the same.
I'll make you a deal. I won't excoriate people who assume that any criticism of 4E is a restart of the edition wars, if you don't burn down people who say things that could possibly be intended as a restart of the edition wars.
The end result is that some people draw snapfire instantly due to thier post history more than thier actual thread. This is especially true for people who have had many, many fake moments of 'turning over a new leaf' of the 'I'm sorry you guys are still stupid' variety.
Good point. The passive-aggressive bull **** needs to stop too.
The end result is that some people draw snapfire instantly due to thier post history more than thier actual thread. This is especially true for people who have had many, many fake moments of 'turning over a new leaf' of the 'I'm sorry you guys are still stupid' variety.
Good point. The passive-aggressive bull **** needs to stop too.
We all know what assuming does don't we...?:D
Stuff like this line for example. :D
Good point. The passive-aggressive bull **** needs to stop too.
So...this thread is about showing respect to people and such.
Does that mean you believe it is appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt regarding posting to some people and not others?
If so, would you complain if I chose to extend that 'courtesy' differently than you?
There's probably a thread where that happens on every other page of the community forum. Where the same person asked for understanding, then tells us to bite him.
I'll make you a deal. I won't excoriate people who assume that any criticism of 4E is a restart of the edition wars, if you don't burn down people who say things that could possibly be intended as a restart of the edition wars.
How about we make a better deal? I won't be a jackass towards you, and you continue to post your issues with the game so that I, and the community, can help you (and maybe ourselves, if we also find the issue a problem) out?
Hey... I smilied it!;)
I actually didn't take it offensively to be honest. I thought you were making a stab at the haters and people who are only here to cause trouble to be honest.
Although, I stand by my assessment. There's only so many times I can hear "4e=WoW" and "No RP in 4e, because no Craft/Perform/Profession (hereafter CPP skills)" and the like before I snap.
It should be noted that post history comes into it too.
On this point I am cynical, because to give a quick example, in the thread that inspired this one, I was claimed to have said a number of things I simply did not say...that's "post history" for you. Certainly, a troublemaker ought to be remembered if they cause trouble for you...that doesn't mean everything word out of their mouth is trouble. What eventually happens (and it is just human nature), is you start parsing every sentence for a veiled attack, waiting for the "gotcha!" moment, where you can call them out. Or you can disregard their posts. Which extreme you go to is your choice. One results in a flame war, one does not. The solution to threats, even veiled threats, is the report button. The response to trolling is the same thing.
As for the banning process here, I absolutely agree it is far too lax (and I followed your posts in frequent agreement on this topic when it first happened with the OTT and GD picture postings). There should be a banning system in place for repeated abuse. But that is another matter for another thread.
Sam, can you honestly say that is what I do and that is the way I post?
Did I mention your name in relation with that posting style?
No, but you and I mix it up quite frequently over nonsense, more or less...
Nonsense!? Why I oughta! ;)
Although, I stand by my assessment. There's only so many times I can hear "4e=WoW" and "No RP in 4e, because no Craft/Perform/Profession (hereafter CPP skills)" and the like before I snap.
Similarly, I feel annoyed every time I read statements along the lines of:
-"4e didn't kill anyone's earlier edition campaign, just continue what you were doing before if you don't like it"
Some of us played Living Greyhawk as our primary (or only) campaign. Continuing is not so much of an option.
-"Melee characters could do nothing in 3.5 except "I hit it with a sword""
Tell that to my dervish. I've tried converting him to 4e as a ranger/stormwarden and his options (from feats, skills, class abilities and magic items, plus powers in 4e) are very, very close in the two editions.
-"If you played a spellcaster in 3.5 you were doing it to take over the game and ruin your friends' fun"
Oddly, my most popular character in LG (among other PLAYERS, not necessarily PCs) was my sorcerer / wild mage. Given my biggest problem in mustering for certain games was that everyone wanted to be on my sorcerer's table, I'm pretty sure she wasn't ruining people's fun.
To clarify, I've played 4e. I've had fun playing 4e. However, I also like 3.5, I spent five very enjoyable years playing 3.5, and I know from personal experience that some of the problems people had with 3.5 can be avoided.
In general, throwing out uninformed falsehoods about people's preferred systems is going to annoy people. It would be really nice if people could stop doing it. Barring that, it would be nice if people could stop reacting in kind.
As for me, I try not to post when annoyed. Unfortunately, this has meant that I mostly don't post in 4e forums. I suspect this has quite a bit to do with my interest in RPGs going effectively to zero after Living Greyhawk ended (although I still wander by these boards occasionally when procrastinating): the online community was always a fairly large part of my enjoyment of the hobby.
Take care and good gaming. I do hope this thread achieves some of its intended purpose.
So...this thread is about showing respect to people and such.
Does that mean you believe it is appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt regarding posting to some people and not others?
No. I'm advocating showing respect to everyone, pretty much. Those people who you feel have either thrown away your respect or somehow never earned it should be ignored rather than fought with.
If so, would you complain if I chose to extend that 'courtesy' differently than you?
That is always your perogative.
How about we make a better deal? I won't be a jackass towards you, and you continue to post your issues with the game so that I, and the community, can help you (and maybe ourselves, if we also find the issue a problem) out?
Helpfulness is always a good thing. But can we make it a mutual pledge to generally not be jackasses?
The fuel for these flamewars is members on both sides are not willing to give an inch in any thread in which the two are compared. Adding fuel to the fire is others reluctance to let any thread which criticizes 4e not compare it to 3.5. IMO, until this plethora of problems is fixed no 4e criticism thread will be able to go anywhere productive.
People (pretty much all people) have a psychological need to feel that they are correct. Regardless of what the subject is, they base their own self-worth on knowing that they are right about the things they believe, regardless of whether the belief in question is about religion, politics, sports, movies, music, food, or what-have-you.
What needs to happen is to depersonalize the discussion. Don't make it about you. Make it about the issue. It doesn't matter if you think A is true and the guy who just posted says that he thinks B is true. What harm does it do for the two of you to disagee?
So I'm pretty much urging everyone to be brave and take the first step. Don't respond to hostility. Don't respond to unkindness or impoliteness. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, be willing to doubt your own infallibility just a touch, especially if in the end we have a more pleasant environment around here to talk about the game.
The real problem here is that [some] members of both sides believe that "their" is absolute perfection incarnate.
Just inserting a word to more specifically characterize the nature of the problem. No offense taken, and none intended. Others may assume you are painting with a wide brush, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt that you simply meant that there are offensive members on both sides of any given argument fence here.
Just inserting a word to more specifically characterize the nature of the problem. No offense taken, and none intended. Others may assume you are painting with a wide brush, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt that you simply meant that there are offensive members on both sides of any given argument fence here.
Thank you. My intention was only a few members and not everyone on a side as a whole.
I actually didn't take it offensively to be honest. I thought you were making a stab at the haters and people who are only here to cause trouble to be honest.
Although, I stand by my assessment. There's only so many times I can hear "4e=WoW" and "No RP in 4e, because no Craft/Perform/Profession (hereafter CPP skills)" and the like before I snap.
I can make valid arguments supporting how 4e is similar to WoW, how it downplays roleplaying by the design, and how the aforementioned skills are an important part of character building in part because they represent an investment in the character's creation which has tangible benefits which can allow specific roleplaying that cannot otherwise be allowed.
So, if you think you are going to snap on me you can blow it out your ass.
Well, I'm waiting.
But, I don't get involved in these debates because people do not wish to show respect and many of those who claim to be doing so are not in the least.
And if this post is going to be edited, it should be taken into account that the post I responded to is flaming and begging for me to respond to it. Both shouldr be edited.
We all have our own valid beliefs and opinions. If someone disagrees with you there is no reason to trash someone. Hypocritical? I don't care if you believe so or not. I am just making a point and really don't care if someone thinks that or not. It would not make the case being made in the first two sentences of this paragrapf less valid but would rather reinforce them, I believe.
Some people have been given the benefit of the doubt many, many times and have consistently used it to say 'I'm sorry -- Sorry you're all such jerks!' which sort of removes all shadow of a doubt.
There's probably a thread where that happens on every other page of the community forum. Where the same person asked for understanding, then tells us to bite him.
And you honestly expect me to believe that your posting was not intended to be passive aggressive toward The_Hated? It appears to imply that you do not think everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt but rather a select few. I believe that many who are being given the benefit have been just as guilty many times over and have never stopped receiving it.
note: already answered.
No. I'm advocating showing respect to everyone, pretty much. Those people who you feel have either thrown away your respect or somehow never earned it should be ignored rather than fought with.
That is always your perogative.
Thankyou for the response. Others are arguing differently.
So, if you think you are going to snap on me you can blow it out your ass.
Well, I'm waiting.
Was that strictly necessary?
And if this post is going to be edited, it should be taken into account that the post I responded to is flaming and begging for me to respond to it. Both shouldr be edited.
If so, you should have been the better man and left it alone. As it is, you lowered yourself to the perceived level (and I say perceived because I did not see the post you are responding to in the same manner) of the person to whom you are responding.
In short, you're coming off as begging for a fight and only waiting for a reason. And there is no call for it. None at all.
And you honestly expect me to believe that your posting was not intended to be passive aggressive toward The_Hated? It appears to imply that you do not think everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt but rather a select few. I believe that many who are being given the benefit have been just as guilty many times over and have never stopped receiving it.
I have personally tried to step in between two posters in two separate threads asking both to stop their attacks as it was not on topic of the thread. When the anti 4e poster said he would if the other would I asked the other to do so...yet the anti4e poster was still attacked by the other one. In both threads.
No one is innocent...well few are...but in these two instances (and other I have noticed) it is the hated poster that gets attacked by the pro4e crowd (not all, just some).
Was that strictly necessary?
No, it was not. But, it is my perogative. You said so yourself.
If so, you should have been the better man and left it alone. As it is, you lowered yourself to the perceived level (and I say perceived because I did not see the post you are responding to in the same manner) of the person to whom you are responding.
Perhaps you should reread my earlier post referring to a poster who was hassling Hater. It can be found here:
post 89
The poster being referred to in post 89 was the one being responded to in my post. I have seen what I believe is sufficient to draw the conclusion that I reached.
But, to go farther, look back to this quote at the earliest part of this thread and those that immediately follow it:
But it is soooo hard to just let douchebaggery be...
My problem is I get offended by condescension, smugness, smart-assness, and people telling others that their opinion is wrong.
That was the start. Notice how in post 5 there is mention of anger at the use of 'fanbois' and yet a willingness to use '4eHaters'. So, it is ok to use one and not te other. The_Hated used both when referring to the groups but only one word use drew criticism from the poster and the other use was actually used by the poster as well as placing the blame there. Then a great deal of people go to pont out how wrong The_Hated was about what he believed as the pile on started. It is obvious where the pile on originated.
The post of mine you responded to was a response to the post that not only placed blame on 4th edition haters but brought out and mentioned the arguments which were being made in a condescending manner.
If the poster believed the arguments had a legitimate basis then there would be no reason to snap at someone for mentioning them. Therefore telling someone you will snap at him for making a legitimate comment is either a.) telling him his comments are not legitimate or b.) trying to lure him into a slugfest or c.) both.
To be blunt, if I have a legitimate argument to make and I am told by someone that he will snap at me for making such an argument then he is calling me out. That is pretty damn simple logic. Simple but sound.
One might argue that the 'snap' was not to be directed at anyone but that the poster meant just 'snap' in general. Still, that means that I am being told that my opinions are not worth discussing. Otherwise there would be no reason to snap at their discussion.
From the post proceeding the one I responded to:
How about we make a better deal? I won't be a jackass towards you, and you continue to post your issues with the game so that I, and the community, can help you (and maybe ourselves, if we also find the issue a problem) out?
So, you are allowed to post your issues but the issues I might mention will cause him to snap. The respect I am being displayed is truly overwhelming. The poster may not have known he was singling me out based upon my criticisms because he did not know my criticisms but that still leaves that I was being singled out for my criticisms.
In short, you're coming off as begging for a fight and only waiting for a reason. And there is no call for it. None at all.
No, I am merely responding to the fight bell rang before me. I did not misinterpret it. But, the point is that I did not ring the bell and no one wants to point out who did in this case. It was the same poster who rand it at the earliest stages of this thread.