Increasingly many are the threads I have read (and participated) in which Member#2 offers an opinion that differs from one expressed by Member#1. The predictable response has consistently become one in Member#1 responds with half-RAW statements and spurious connections between one rule and another designed to lend manufactured legitimacy to the opinion that Member#1 initially offered.
Why does Member#1 feel so threatened by a differing of opinion?
"I disagree" is much easier to defend than "you're wrong". It requires no defense.
"This is my opinion."
"I disagree with your opinion. This is my opinon."
"So you think I'm stupid or something?!?"
I liken it to the number of people who behave as though you have to love something to the point of orgasm or else you have to hate it so badly that you actively seek to remove every trace of its existence.
People in general have abandoned the middle ground. Many seem incapable of saying "I like..." without finishing the statement with "...and your choice sucks." When they encounter someone who can do that, they fill in the end with what they expect, which is that someone who doesn't care for their preferences must think that the choices they made suck. They beging to feel inadequate because not everybody agrees with them. Self-doubt creeps in and they force themselves to re-examine their choices. They'd rather be right the first time (as though they might be wrong for having different tastes than someone else).
These are some of the wild leaps I've seen people make. I have my own suspicions as to where this sort of thing came from, but as they're only musings without much foundation or research, I keep them to myself.
These are some of the wild leaps I've seen people make. I have my own suspicions as to where this sort of thing came from, but as they're only musings without much foundation or research, I keep them to myself.
Communism and a bad enconomy... and thereby our governments...everything in most of the world can be blamed on that...why not this? :P (pure tongue in cheek)
"Well, your opinion is wrong!"
Granted, some 'debates' here are reminiscent of Ron White's debate skills, but that's just how it goes.
If I disagree with your opinion, or you disagree with mine, so what? Big deal. I'd have to care about ya (just a li'l bit) before such a disagreement would really matter to me. I don't care about you. Really, I don't; it's nothing personal, promise.
Sure, I'll listen if ya wanna talk, heck, I'll even share a few thoughts of my own; all for the sake of conversation. If it's an actual debate your looking for, well, maybe if I cared about you a bit more, cared about the topic even. Usually, I don't give a damn. Most days, I drop in, shoot my mouth off (respectfully of course ;)) and I'm out. Cya! ;)
Don't take stuff so personal, don't let a simple opinion threaten ya. It ain't worth it.
From what I've seen, it's often the people who throw out opinion rather than fact that have the hardest time letting go and are the most irrational in their comments.
Communism and a bad enconomy... and thereby our governments...everything in most of the world can be blamed on that...why not this? :P (pure tongue in cheek)
LOL, I'm more inclined to say it's something in the food. I'm no health-food guru, but I started avoiding foods with MSG. It's a light preservative and flavor enhancer in small quantities, which is how you find it in most foods. The problem is that it's in a lot of foods and it stacks. Among it's effects are cancer, shortened attention span, "psychological stress", and impulsiveness. Because it's in such small quantities in food, it skirts under the radar. One grab-bag size bag of Doritos isn't going to send you into a paranoid rage, but add to that Cup-O-Noodles and other "convenience" foods, and some not-so-convenient foods, that most of us practically live on and it builds up. Of course, one food company isn't accountable for what other food companies put into their product, so blocking it on legal grounds could be a can of worms (no MSG added).
I'm not sure of the validity of the source of the information, but I cut MSG out of my diet altogether, and the change in behavior was noticed by friends and co-workers. It's hard to say if the change was brought about subconsciously or not. I just know I've felt better since making the effort.
Maybe we should just blame it on sunspots.
Maybe we should just blame it on sunspots.
The sun spots have been inactive lately, hence the global cooling. You could always blame the LACK of sunspots ;)
Well, there are some people who just like to argue...
Oh, come on; you know that's not true.
Opinion retracted. There's a chance this thread involves pertinent details of which I am not aware and have no interest in. As such, it's best I not comment at all.
When a question is asked in the Rules Q&A forum, it is expected that it will be answered with arguments based on the RAW, rather than somebody's houserule (even if that houserule makes more sense than the RAW).
When Member#1 points out that Member#2 has actually posted a houserule rather than how the RAW actually work, that's not evidence that Member#1 feels 'threatened' by Member#2's opinion.
Accusing somebody of being "deceptive" and "delusional" and then starting a new thread to complain about them disagreeing with you, on the other hand...
"I disagree" is much easier to defend than "you're wrong". It requires no defense.
We don't bow to compromise because reason shouldn't be afraid of unreason, and we only learn new things by standing on the dead bodies of all the ideas that turned out to be flawed.
Nobody is harmed by having their ideas challenged, providing there's no personal attack involved, and if their ideas are valid they can withstand the criticism. Saying "we can all be equally right" is a concession of mediocrity, and saying "I disagree but disdain to say why you're wrong" is the highest form of contempt - it's a simultaneous assertion that the person isn't important enough to be worth correcting and an assumption that your opinion is so obviously correct it won't benefit from robust analysis.
But of course, your opinion can be equally as valid as mine, and on this point we can agree to disagree, I'm sure.
Upholding the notion that some nebulous "other" is presumably to blame, often deludes people into believing that their own position is unassailable, due to it never/rarely having been challenged.
Therefore when a challenge is issued they immedately become defensive, as they fear being "the one who is blamed".
Follow that up with the poor citical thinking skills evident on "teh interwebs" and cue ad hominem, strawman and non-sequiter arguements a-go-go!
OK, is this about what I think it's about?
Nope.
We don't bow to compromise because reason shouldn't be afraid of unreason, and we only learn new things by standing on the dead bodies of all the ideas that turned out to be flawed.
Nobody is harmed by having their ideas challenged, providing there's no personal attack involved, and if their ideas are valid they can withstand the criticism. Saying "we can all be equally right" is a concession of mediocrity, and saying "I disagree but disdain to say why you're wrong" is the highest form of contempt - it's a simultaneous assertion that the person isn't important enough to be worth correcting and an assumption that your opinion is so obviously correct it won't benefit from robust analysis.
But of course, your opinion can be equally as valid as mine, and on this point we can agree to disagree, I'm sure.
Unfortunately, many of the arguments do include personal attacks couched in condescending language. Add to that some peoples' insistence on having the last word and such behavior can drive subscribers away from a thread.
I agree that if an idea is challenged, the challenger should back up his argument with reasoning. However, that reasoning should go beyond "because it's stupid." Even when something starts out intelligently, it can turn sour in an instant:
A: I play it as X.
B: The rules describe it as Y.
A: That didn't sit well with my group, so we do it as X.
B: Then you're doing it wrong.
I sat through one thread where I was railed by another poster for not playing Gromph Baenre as a cess-pit of evil. I foolishly tried a couple of times to disengage by explaining that for purposes of my game, the PCs had to be able to interact with him and so he tolerated their shenanigans as long as they remained useful. That apparently wasn't good enough. I eventually wised up and just stopped responding.
I do enjoy reading the debates that have some thought behind them, though. I learn a lot from those!
"Agree to disagree."
It really has been getting a lot better lately. Not that it's gone completely.
Hal
"But that's my opinion, I could be wrong...." --Richard "Demo Dick" Marcinko, counterterrorism expert (who, sadly, hasn't been wrong in his chosen field)
~I'm~ right.
Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaa. :P
You are all mutant maggots! Born from mutant eggs!
haldoran- I hadn't heard of the addiction. Thanks! One more reason not to eat the stuff!
We don't bow to compromise because reason shouldn't be afraid of unreason, and we only learn new things by standing on the dead bodies of all the ideas that turned out to be flawed.
BEST LINE EVAR!
I'm writing that down somewhere...
"Agree to disagree."
That saying is a personal pet peeve of mine, up there with "my bad" and responding "no, but..." to a question or statement where those two words have no place existing at the fore of a response.
In my head it instantly translates to "I surrender to your argument as I have no logical/sane/remotely resonable counter argument, but I wish to save face and appear the better person for being the first to offer any form of compromise since we are taught compromising one's ideals is perfectly acceptable conflict resolution."
I perfectly realize that is rarely the conscious intent of the party that uses the phrase and that they were just conditioned to use it or have heard it enough times to accept it into thier personal common vernacular.
It just strikes me as a weak cop out. I'd much rather someone come out and tell me that they would rather not waste any more of their time trying to sway my rationale of a subject, tell me i'm suffering from ******/cranial inversion syndrome, or try a new angle from which to work thier argument. A great retort to get me to rethink my stance is always "Don't take my word for it, look up or double check the facts yourself and get back to me." That makes me question my own stance and at least force me to (if only briefly) re-evaluate my premise.
All posters above are maggots!
You are all mutant maggots! Born from mutant eggs!
No.
we are taught compromising one's ideals is perfectly acceptable conflict resolution.
I've found through experience that most opposing views are extreme and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But we can agree to disagree on this point I guess.
That saying is a personal pet peeve of mine, up there with "my bad" and responding "no, but..." to a question or statement where those two words have no place existing at the fore of a response.
(epxlanations of why snipped)
I suppose I agree with you on some level of principle. However, i also think there comes a time in a conversation when you realize that if the other side hasn't conceded any of your points by now, they're just not listening, or maybe you're just not listening, but for some reason or another, you're never going to see eye to eye on the subject. When such a time comes, "agreeing to disagree" is a much more polite way to bow out of a hopeless discussion than, "you're just not getting it! I'm out of here! Have fun in your cesspool of ignorance!"
Clearly, it's all Webster's fault.
You're probably right. (Didn't expect THAT did you? :D )
Back in the day, there was no internet to share ideas, so meeting someone else who played D&D was a great thing as it was your only chance to share opinions, house rules, rule fixes and so on.
Today, it doesn't matter if someone on the internet doesn't share your opinion 100% because chances are you'll never actually play D&D with them. So why worry about it?
Differing opinions can be handy as well. I'm not a rule lawyer or number cruncher. Nor do I apply game design theory. I just play D&D. So when someone who does like to crunch numbers, or is a rule lawyer comes along and points out "So and so at epic levels doesn't work", then I appreciate them finding the pitfalls for me so I'm ready to deal with it when the time comes.
I do think some people are a bit over sensitive. Why is it okay for me to say I don't like save or die effectes, or I never liked THAC0, or the CR/ECL system is a pain in the rear making it feel like boring homework, but it's not okay for someone to say they don't like the shortened skill list or they don't like everyone having powers?
You'll notice I don't close threads that just express such opinions.
The problems arise when either people don't know how to express their opinions, or they don't really have an opinion but would rather just lash out and insult people, couching the insult intentionally or unintentionally in "opinion"
An example would be "4e is WoW". Now, World of Warcraft is a great game. (Yeah, I know, my opinion.) But it's not either game that's being insluted, but the players themselves. There are many young players of WoW who seem to have just discovered swearing, so every comment is pofanity laced childishness. It's that player behavior that's insinuated when someone says "4e=Wow" "You like 4e, it has some elements similar to WoW, therefore YOU as a player are one of those elements and are childish."
This insult is often supported with other comments such as "They dumbed D&D down!" "They made the game simple so now only simpletons play it." (Not so new newsflash- the exact same accusation has been said about 2e as well as 3e.)
I suppose I agree with you on some level of principle. However, i also think there comes a time in a conversation when you realize that if the other side hasn't conceded any of your points by now, they're just not listening, or maybe you're just not listening, but for some reason or another, you're never going to see eye to eye on the subject. When such a time comes, "agreeing to disagree" is a much more polite way to bow out of a hopeless discussion than, "you're just not getting it! I'm out of here! Have fun in your cesspool of ignorance!"
Totally understandable, I just wish a phrase other than that was used more often. I'd be more happy with a frank "I can see i'm not getting through to you at all, let's discuss something else". For me, I suppose, I object philosophically on the percived 'need' of the other party to state agreement for the sake of agreement or that a discussion can only be concluded when some sort of agreement is achieved, which is how i interpret that phrase.
I find that it makes the whole debate feel... cheapend... somehow.
That and for some, it's also viewed as a legitimate tactic to end debate for a side that realizes it is losing in public opinion and wants to spin themselves into a better light before thier opponent can due any further damage to thier argument that may have become indefensible.
I've found through experience that most opposing views are extreme and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But we can agree to disagree on this point I guess.
Vigorous debate is the difference between settling for "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" and being able to say "the truth lies precisely here".
And the wonderful thing about debate in front of an audience is that neither side needs to concede the point in order for the exercise to be worthwhile; you can quite happily end up with two debaters, both wrong, and a large audience of better informed people who've had the benefit of hearing opposing viewpoints fervently defended.
That saying is a personal pet peeve of mine, up there with "my bad" and responding "no, but..." to a question or statement where those two words have no place existing at the fore of a response.
In my head it instantly translates to "I surrender to your argument as I have no logical/sane/remotely resonable counter argument, but I wish to save face and appear the better person for being the first to offer any form of compromise since we are taught compromising one's ideals is perfectly acceptable conflict resolution."
I perfectly realize that is rarely the conscious intent of the party that uses the phrase and that they were just conditioned to use it or have heard it enough times to accept it into thier personal common vernacular.
It just strikes me as a weak cop out. I'd much rather someone come out and tell me that they would rather not waste any more of their time trying to sway my rationale of a subject, tell me i'm suffering from ******/cranial inversion syndrome, or try a new angle from which to work thier argument. A great retort to get me to rethink my stance is always "Don't take my word for it, look up or double check the facts yourself and get back to me." That makes me question my own stance and at least force me to (if only briefly) re-evaluate my premise.
QFT. It annoys the heck out of me that so many discussions seem to revolve around who gets to "win," rather than trying to really work toward the truth - or a mutually acceptable resolution (which may include the 'agree to disagree' result). And once any discussion is about who "wins," then truth, courtesy, and general edification all become victims, along with anyone who isn't on the side of the biggest jerk.
...as a side note, my favorite phrase equivalent for the bolded phrase is : 'faeco-cerebral surrogacy.' At the very least, it provokes a pause and several rapid blinks while the target/witness tries to figure out what it means...
I was gonna say something, but my opinion is always wrong on here...
You're right, but wait that makes you wrong, which makes you right, wrong ,right, wrong, right, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1 ...
:headexplo;)
:P
once you accept that everything, even what you like the most, even yourself, are imperfect, you can accept that everyone is to, therefore I find that arguing is useless, because now I can see everyone's viewpoint and their reasoning behind it.
of course, one would argue against the point that arguing is useless with the practical reason that we need to argue in order to keep certain skills sharp, therefore it is not useless as it keeps us from justifying our views on illogical grounds, therefore arguing isn't completely useless, looking at it from that view point.
but yes, arguing enthusiastically rather than arguing rationally is bad, because then the argument is based on illogical grounds rather than logical ones. that said, opinions I think are valid as long as people are rational about it, going outside such bounds renders it invalid as they don't have good reasons to back it up. not that "invalid" doesn't mean "wrong", opinions cannot be wrong or right- they are opinions, not facts, it is just that an opinion stepping outside reason and logic are "invalid" because there is no logical way for others to take it seriously, therefore not valid in an argument.
therefore I must conclude that people must be taught to argue rationally, but of course, another person would just say that would be too impractical or something, that it cannot be done, and that emotions cannot be completely removed, plus that there will always be people who will just argue irrationally anyways. some might do it just out of spite, but still I think people should keep their emotions better controlled in arguments, as that is the most logical and rational way to go about arguing.
however, there is probably someone out there who would argue against all that for some reason.
"Welcome to the 21st century, where it is no longer your fault for all the problems in your life. It's obviously the fault of everyone around you for not being able to read your mind and bow to your arguements right away. We don't need to worry about civil discourse anymore, because it's all about the individual person and how you're right."
As you can imagine I say that with a hint of sarcasm in my voice, just a hint.
This insult is often supported with other comments such as "They dumbed D&D down!" "They made the game simple so now only simpletons play it." (Not so new newsflash- the exact same accusation has been said about 2e as well as 3e.)
Ah, yes. I remember a good friend ranting and raving about how 2e destroyed the game he loved so dearly. He was so furious that he gave me his entire collection of 1e D&D including a 1974 first printing with all of the supplements! When he settled down I offered to give it all back to him, but he insisted I keep it and he'd write it off to experience to keep his temper in check. He wound up joining my table.
Because they've been used completely interchangeably on these boards for at least the past decade.
"KFC is made of tofu! But you can't refute me because it's my opinion! Ahahahahahah! The existence of the word 'opinion' means I never have to support my arguments!"
Some people take Colbert's 'truthiness' as a personal philosophy.
But now I'm just complaining for the sake of doing so, so enough of that! :D
Vigorous debate is the difference between settling for "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" and being able to say "the truth lies precisely here".
And the wonderful thing about debate in front of an audience is that neither side needs to concede the point in order for the exercise to be worthwhile; you can quite happily end up with two debaters, both wrong, and a large audience of better informed people who've had the benefit of hearing opposing viewpoints fervently defended.
I would hardly qualify this place as a forum for vigorous debate, at least not in a constructive sense. Sure, you could call it debate in a loose (vernacular) sense, but I would prefer to call most "debates" here "arguments" as it's somewhat more precise.
For example, most posters here do not understand debate rules and fallacies. Of course, it does not prevent them from committing the fallacies nor does it prevent them from evoking the fallacies by name in incorrect circumstances. Also, there is a nasty habit of asserting something without sufficient proof to make the discussion anything approaching constructive.
In this case my opinion is that it’s better to just let certain topics die. There’s no reason to raise my blood pressure over a game.
If you say 'I think chocolate is delicious', then you've stated an opinion. This can't be refuted, but it can be disagreed with. This doesn't however, make your opinion immune to criticism. You can think that Citizen Kane was a bad movie, just don't expect other people to point out to you it's acclaims and positive qualities and impacts because while your opinion is your own, it is aberrant and you need to accept that.
However, most people don't even get that far because they don't even state an opinion, they state a belief. "Chocolate is the best!" They will say. "All other ice creams suck."
This is not an opinion, because you just stated it objectively and then added an inflammatory jab just to start something. People can declare your belief wrong because, clearly, chocolate being the best is subjective and you're being a dolt for declaring a subjective truth.
Finally, stating an outright insult and then using the fact that it's an opinion as a shield against being called on it is just childish. "You're mom is fat and ugly, IMO ;) " Is the usual form that takes around here, which I find to be the most passive aggressive thing ever and this coming from someone that lurked the mature boards where passive aggressive was an artform.
For example, most posters here do not understand debate rules and fallacies. Of course, it does not prevent them from committing the fallacies nor does it prevent them from evoking the fallacies by name in incorrect circumstances.
"Strawman strawman strawman strawman
I set up a macro to write strawman whenever someone dismantles one of my arguments! Wheeeeeee!"
I am convinced that the term 'straw man' has never -- NEVER -- been used right on these boards.
My favorite form being:
"You know, if you apply that houserule, it would make game element X not work properly"
"Nice strawman
""Wait, what? You weren't making an argument!"
"Oh wow, look at all the STRAWMEN in this thread.
"The
is a requirement, not an option. Used in multiples if possible. Alternately, make the only actual thing in your post after a quote. It shows your willingness to contribute to the discussion.Well, IMO, if a lot of the regular, usual condescending and smart-alec posters would stop being so condescending, smart-assy, and smug, that would probably go a long way in making things better...
But hey!,
That's just my opinion...
Actually, I would wager that is a fact. :P
Finally, stating an outright insult and then using the fact that it's an opinion as a shield against being called on it is just childish. "You're mom is fat and ugly, IMO ;) " Is the usual form that takes around here, which I find to be the most passive aggressive thing ever and this coming from someone that lurked the mature boards where passive aggressive was an artform.
Synonymous with "No offense, but [insert clearly offensive statement]"?
I chide my baby brother (16) on this frequently, as for him it is just a common vernacular habbit learned through school that he's never given any serious thought as to his words. That and his begining a rebuttal with "I'm sorry, but [insert rebuttal]". Instead of having, or at least feigning confidence in his stance on his opinion or rebuttal, he is (subconciously, also a habbit learned from school) more concerned that I might find offense that his opinion differs from mine and that he must pre-emptively apologize without knowing if I have truly been offended.
That saying is a personal pet peeve of mine, up there with "my bad" and responding "no, but..." to a question or statement where those two words have no place existing at the fore of a response.
In my head it instantly translates to "I surrender to your argument as I have no logical/sane/remotely resonable counter argument, but I wish to save face and appear the better person for being the first to offer any form of compromise since we are taught compromising one's ideals is perfectly acceptable conflict resolution."
I perfectly realize that is rarely the conscious intent of the party that uses the phrase and that they were just conditioned to use it or have heard it enough times to accept it into thier personal common vernacular.
It just strikes me as a weak cop out. I'd much rather someone come out and tell me that they would rather not waste any more of their time trying to sway my rationale of a subject, tell me i'm suffering from ******/cranial inversion syndrome, or try a new angle from which to work thier argument. A great retort to get me to rethink my stance is always "Don't take my word for it, look up or double check the facts yourself and get back to me." That makes me question my own stance and at least force me to (if only briefly) re-evaluate my premise.
I like to use Agree to disagree.
At least to me, it doesn't necessarily mean that I've lost the argument and have given up... I say it because I've had people tell me that i'm wrong without proving any evidence otherwise. Such internet trolls are trivial, yet deceiving.I like to use Agree to disagree.
I'm not saying don't use it ;)
I'm just giving my interpretations of what that phrase intones for a majority of discussions that I have been a party too. It's by no means an absolute. Only Sith deal in absolutes. And that is an absolute of itself ;)
I also hate when people use off the wall examples to try to prove someone else points wrong. Like a 2 legged horse riding a dragon will prove any point of view wrong. I mean if you have to go that far shouldn't you rethink your own points some first before posting back.
Well, IMO, if a lot of the regular, usual condescending and smart-alec posters would stop being so condescending, smart-assy, and smug, that would probably go a long way in making things better...
As would people who are only here to bash 4th edition and cause trouble and be antagonistic leaving.
As would people who are only here to bash 4th edition and cause trouble and be antagonistic leaving.
The problem is that condescension and smart-ass remarks aren't necessary to prove someone wrong, whereas they are commonly used to Troll. When a poster says something outrageous that you can objectively prove is mistaken, adding a sneer to the tone of your counter-post makes it harder to tell who is and is not Trolling and/or Baiting in the example discussion.
The problem is that condescension and smart-ass remarks aren't necessary to prove someone wrong, whereas they are commonly used to Troll. When a poster says something outrageous that you can objectively prove is mistaken, adding a sneer to the tone of your counter-post makes it harder to tell who is and is not Trolling and/or Baiting in the example discussion.
Just read all such posts in the Simpsons Comic Book Guy voice. It makes for a good time.
My point is, if someone challenges your opinion, they don't necessarily think you're an idioit. Opinions should not be somehow immune from discussion. I think the problem could be as much "member #2" assuming that "member #1" is actually offended and on the offensive.
My afore-mentioned friend isn't offended by my opinions and isn't out to prove me wrong, she just wants to dig deeper into my opinion. What do you think? If we assumed the best of other members' intentions, perhaps we'd have a more pleasant foruming experience.
Oh I don't know about that CL...
Seems to me that a lot of time a regular will come along and be a real condescending smart ass to prove somebody wrong or whatever.
I've seen it meself...
That was the point, my friend. Sometimes people are just having a bad day (I know I have them!), bot other times I see someone whose opinions I generally respect take a completely unnecessary tone with someone they disagree with. This is unnecessary because they've usually already made a decent point in their post; there's no reason to try and further degrade your opponent's opinions by attempting to make them look bad through "subtle" personal attacks.
If your point stands, then you've already "won," as it were. There's no reason to aim a cheap shot at someone except ego. :S
JP
Given that experience, I have to agree with many of those (such as shiftkitty) that claim a tendency to look at extremes is a significant cause of much of the debates/arguments. On many occasions (with regards to many class debates), I have had to repeatedly state that my opinion was not that the class I was defending was better then other classes, but that it was simply capable of doing what had been claimed it could not do... Example being the paladin's can't defend thread, where it was consistently and adamantly argued that the fighter was a better defender then a paladin... which has nothing to do with whether a paladin can defend or not, but it was nearly impossible to explain that something that is not the best does not automatically fail (an example I used repeated being, an olympic runner that comes in 3rd (AKA bronze) is not a slow runner, he's just "slowER" then the gold and silver medalists). This "if it's not the best, it's useless" mentality is becoming very prevalent in some of these discussions, and I have, and will continue, to challenge those who propagate that mentality. Why? because I think those reading the boards deserve to hear more then just one person's opinions/beliefs. Do I feel threatened by the opinions that differ from my own? No, but I will challenge it if I feel it's reason's are flawed, if it is an extreme or if it is being consistently repeated as a proven fact.
The problem is that condescension and smart-ass remarks aren't necessary to prove someone wrong, whereas they are commonly used to Troll. When a poster says something outrageous that you can objectively prove is mistaken, adding a sneer to the tone of your counter-post makes it harder to tell who is and is not Trolling and/or Baiting in the example discussion.
It's incredibly difficult to tell the same poster for the hundredth time that he's incorrect without being snarky. I could PM you the posters name, since I'm not allowed to post it.
It's incredibly difficult to tell the same poster for the hundredth time that he's incorrect without being snarky.
Some say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over yet expecting the outcome to change.
Why would you need to tell the same poster anything after the first time?
Some say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over yet expecting the outcome to change.
Why would you need to tell the same poster anything after the first time?
Because they're wrong! On the internet! We can't be havin' that!
It's incredibly difficult to tell the same poster for the hundredth time that he's incorrect without being snarky. I could PM you the posters name, since I'm not allowed to post it.
Is it me? I bet it's me, isn't it? Man, I'm always being wrong on the internet. I can't stop myself. It's like a drug.
:-)
Is it me? I bet it's me, isn't it? Man, I'm always being wrong on the internet. I can't stop myself. It's like a drug.
:-)
I think the person being referred to is the exact opposite of you. In fact, they're so opposite that you could be sock puppetting them. ;)
I know I can get baited by trolls a lot because, argh... whether you see something as a troll or not, often the point is SO FREAKING ANNOYING that you have to respond. That being said, it's true that once you get to a point you can tell that a person isn't going to change their ways and your response to them isn't going to convince anybody else (in that those with any history at this board or any other know what this person is up to) so the best thing to do is just not respond or, if we're talking about the particular person I think we're talking about, just do something to get the thread back on topic. Don't be afraid to run to the mods if they're violating board protocol either, although IME these kinds of folks are the living expression of Lawful Evil: always operating just inside the rules, waiting for you to slip up so they can get you banned or disciplined.
I think the person being referred to is the exact opposite of you. In fact, they're so opposite that you could be sock puppetting them. ;)
See, now I'm curious. It's not often someone gets to meet their evil twin. There's that guy who has my name only backwards (who I swear isn't me, he was actually on the boards first) but he generally seems pretty reasonable.
Some say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over yet expecting the outcome to change.
Why would you need to tell the same poster anything after the first time?
Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·san·i·ties
Date: 1590
1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable
Just messing with you all this time. Note: My job tells us that same thing you posted.
To expand on what I said earlier, people don't seem to get the difference between an opinion and a belief. And because of that, they state their beliefs and think them opinions. [snip]
I couldn't agree more and I've never seen this said in such a well thought-out manner. Kudos.
I've probably been guilty of many the things you say, and I will do my best to watch myself in the future.
I like to use Agree to disagree.
I use it when I've had a well thought out discussion with someone, we've both said our pieces and we have no new ground to offer and we both remain unconvinced of the other person's argument.
I agree.
People who only come here to bash 4e and cause trouble are a problem too...
Then there are the martyrs. Its difficult to take someone's opinion seriously when they're painting themselves as a matyr ;)
(NOTE: not a personal attack. Simply making a point that how you present yourself will influence how people respond to what you say).
Maybe we should just blame it on sunspots.
Its all the hidden acetomenophin really... really, how often do you see the FDA actually even considering banning a substance from most products. Its just crazy how much that stuff shows up in stuff when it can have so many bad effects when taken in large quantities, which can be suprisingly hard to avoid. MSG only wishes it had that much market penetration... ;)
Seriously though, I'm not sure where it comes from. The biggest problems I usually see are presenting opinions as facts, and interpreting things people say in the most adversarial ways possible. It seems like the current thinking goes that if you get really aggressive and dismissive then you have a better chance of winning an argument.
Does a lengthy debate better aid one type of question then another? Do short, direct answers always work best?
I try never to be dismissive, having been wrong oodles of times before, but being aggressive (to me, anyways) just means I actually care about the discussion at hand. I know some people might be offended, but usually I try to avoid that. :D
I'm very much the same way... and tend to get my most aggressive/abrasive when people start arbitrarily dismissing me for things other then my actual arguments.
Does a lengthy debate better aid one type of question then another? Do short, direct answers always work best?
Depends on the topic of the thread and the short concise answer (In a thread where someone asks if their strength paladin is viable, a short concise answer of "no, Str paladin's aren't viable" is not helpful, nor is debating that answer in that particular thread helpful. In a thread called are str paladin's viable, a lengthy debate can be very helpful (the longer the debate, the more potential information can be revealed)). A lengthy bout of "yes/no/yes/no" isn't helpful. But if actual valid points are being made, I think it can be very useful... moreso on the subjective opinions then not. I think there does need to come a point in some of the RAW debates where people need to acknowledge "there is no clear answer, both opinions of the RAW could be right, as both have some degree of support, but nether is clearly correct, therefore it is DM's call". They can then continue the debate on which they think is closer to the official answer, allowing DM's who want to rule on the issue to make as informed a decision as possible. But in these debates, when one or both sides refuse to acknowledge that the rules can be unclear, and continue to present their interpretation as the truth of it, that can degenerate into something not useful (particularly when it's only one side). Long lengthy debates on RAW vs RAI are also not useful (short ones, where one points out how they think it should work, then leaves it at that can be helpful, but dragging it it generally is not) unless that was the original intent of the thread.
I use it when I've had a well thought out discussion with someone, we've both said our pieces and we have no new ground to offer and we both remain unconvinced of the other person's argument.
I tend to use and/or accept it when it comes to a matter of degree. If I can agree with someone that a class or power is good and does what it means to accomplishes, but we differ marginally on just how good, "agree to disagree" is a reasonable outcome that takes into account the subjective nature of some debates, differences in personal play style and bias (such as a preference for offense over defense (and vice-versa)). If their is a significant disparity in the differences of opinion, then I just see it as a cop out to try and remove oneself gracefully from a losing position... and refuse to use it as such (I'd rather admit that I'm wrong).
Then there are the martyrs. Its difficult to take someone's opinion seriously when they're painting themselves as a matyr ;)
Not sure what you mean by this? How does one paint themselves as a martyr in debates/arguments?
We don't see it too much anymore, but for a week or so, it was the default response in any argument if anyone disagreed with the posters acting in this manner. If multiple people gang up on someone and start flaming them or making fun of them, then you report those people; ALL of them. Falling back to this kind of tactic is...deplorable, IMO.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
Not sure what you mean by this? How does one paint themselves as a martyr in debates/arguments?
Apparently saying so is a personal attack. It wasn't meant as an attack but as feedback as to how representing yourself on these forums will colour people's judgment of you.
So I'd love to provide this feedback. But I'm not allowed. I'm simply replying here to let you know I'm not ignoring the question, I simply can't answer due to the wonky CoC.
Also, I like your updated Sig, Hated. XD
"Some people are like Slinkies. They aren't good for anything, but they put a smile on your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."
That's how I feel about certain posters that are condescending. I have no stake in some conversations, but I intrude when I see being practiced.
And actually, I hate no one on here. I would like to shake a few people though!:D
And believe it or not, I do get something out of the conversations I do have on here...
Guilty of the above offense as well.
Keep being Hated
Just remember:
"Some people are like Slinkies. They aren't good for anything, but they put a smile on your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."
Haha! Awesome!
Nope.
Awesome.
No.
The person being referred to by Sam knows who he is.
As well as the type of person who CL and Lynch describes.
Well, technically he doesn't, since he hasn't posted in this thread yet, but I bet my waves of radiating hatred are somehow reaching him, and he's all like, "Hmm, Sam doesn't like me" ;).
I am growing increasingly saddened by the frailty of my Board peers.
Increasingly many are the threads I have read (and participated) in which Member#2 offers an opinion that differs from one expressed by Member#1. The predictable response has consistently become one in Member#1 responds with half-RAW statements and spurious connections between one rule and another designed to lend manufactured legitimacy to the opinion that Member#1 initially offered.
Why does Member#1 feel so threatened by a differing of opinion?
"I disagree" is much easier to defend than "you're wrong". It requires no defense.
Hmm, I must agree with this. My opinion of 4e, for example, is not widely appreciated.:D But its just that, my opinion. My opinion has never been an attack on the fans of 4e, but some could certainly take it that way if they misunderstood. I'm willing to live with those misunderstandings. Its a game, a hobby and nothing more.
Should we rumble like street gangs? Should we throw down in drunken brawls like raider fans? Is this soccer? Don't like the opinions of others that differ from your own, tough luck pal. This is a forum for discussion and debate on similar views as well as differing views. Deal with it. (general statement not directed at anyone yet directed at everyone.)
My view of 4e being like a giant steaming pile of turdsamich with tiny diamond chips in it shouldnt offend anyone anymore than their opinion of how 4e is the best of the best should offend me. Thats silly. Its just an opinion.
Right and wrong have nothing to do with opinions based on personal taste.;)
Hmm, I must agree with this. My opinion of 4e, for example, is not widely appreciated.:D But its just that, my opinion. My opinion has never been an attack on the fans of 4e, but some could certainly take it that way if they misunderstood. I'm willing to live with those misunderstandings. Its a game, a hobby and nothing more.
My view of 4e being like a giant steaming pile of turdsamich with tiny diamond chips in it shouldnt offend anyone anymore than their opinion of how 4e is the best of the best should offend me. Thats silly. Its just an opinion.
Right and wrong have nothing to do with opinions based on personal taste.;)
Where and how often you state that opinion plays a significant part in how that opinion is received as well. For example, posting an edition war opinion (which is a heated topic) that you have (presumably) stated often in other threads, that is offensive (and known to be such), in a thread where it doesn't belong (such as one about board etiquette and behavior), in the disguise as an example (which could have easily been worded in a far less offensive way then turdsamich), and where such opinions have not already been expressed (you are the first person to state their specific edition war opinion in this thread) could very easily irk people, particularly those who have invested some time in the debate, but also those of us who have invested time in avoiding that debate as well.
You aren't wrong for stating your opinion. You are wrong for stating it in a offensive way (calling anything other people enjoy a turdsamich is offensive) in a thread where the specifics aren't warranted (IE, saying "My view of 4e shouldnt offend anyone..." or "My dislike of 4E shouldnt offend anyone..." maybe even adding a link to another post where you stated the turdsamich opinion, so people could choose to get involved or not, would have been sufficient to get your point across) and have been avoided up until now, because it was simply an underhanded way of expressing your opinion again, in yet another location, where it was nether appropriate or wanted.
Not just 4e either, but any subject at hand. My opinion is blunt and sour. no sugar coating from me. I don't coddle or baby talk for the sake of the sensitive. I respect people enough to tell them the truth of what I think of something. It is after all, a product, not a loved one. No more important than a toilet or mailbox or dishwasher. My opinion of products and ideas may not be appreciated or even liked, but they're simply my opinions.
I'v breached no terms of service for the forums, even if my opinion bothers others (which is not my intent regardless of how people take it). My sig even supports my interest in 4e with no negativity at all.
But again, this is a form of saying my opinion is wrong because of "how I worded it".(translation: People don't like it so its wrong) Whether I sugar coat it or not, its the same. Maybe people are just too sensitive about a subject that really doesn't matter.
Now my opinion of (for example) setting conversions is far less friendly. But I chose to leave THOSE examples out of the thread. I'v got plenty of far more "heated" opinions on other aspects of the hobby that I choose to leave out.
PS: Don't stifle my colourful way of expressing my opinion. This isn't a dictatorship. My opinion may be leaning towards the extreme, slightly, but it is far from unacceptable or unreasonable.
I just use it as an example. I'm not afraid of my opinion or how others will react to it. I'm not posting my opinion in hopes to starting any sort of posting war. I enjoy 4e for what it is but I also dislike it for what it is. (if anyone can understand that.)
How can we be certain of this (bolded part)? You know the example used was related to a heavily heated topic. You know those participating in this thread are invested in that topic. And you know the example is offensive (you said "it shouldn't be seen as offensive" and therefore suggest you know it sometimes is). Why should I believe that you weren't attempting to thumb your nose at those in this thread who have had the decency to keep the edition wars separate. And for that reason, you are mistaken when you claim:
I'v breached no terms of service for the forums, even if my opinion bothers others (which is not my intent regardless of how people take it).
Troll or bait the community in general with inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
Your turdsamich comment is certainly inflamitory, and can easily elicit a negative response (and we only have your word that it wasn't designed to elcit such a response). So it could easily be seen as baiting the edition war debate, which then also violates.
Do not disrupt chat, forums, blog comments or other communication channels. For example:
Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)
Which then brings us to this next paragraph:
But again, this is a form of saying my opinion is wrong because of "how I worded it".(translation: People don't like it so its wrong) Whether I sugar coat it or not, its the same. Maybe people are just too sensitive about a subject that really doesn't matter.
You completely ignored my mention of "WHERE you worded it", which is very much an important part of my arguement. How you choose to word it was not wrong in and of itself, if the topic was about the edition war, but because this is not an edition war thread, stating a known offensive comment about a extremely heated topic can and should be seen as baiting and disrupting. Chances are, if I (who am not invested in the edition wars) had not responded to you so quickly, that comment would have spurned far more disruptive debate then is wanted.
Also, as to the bolded comment, please tell me where I stated your opinion was wrong. I didn't. I made no comment whatsoever about the actual opinion itself, just the choice of wording and how it related to the location in which it was posted.
Sugar coating it, as you call it, allows it to be accepted as an example of having an opinion, rather then forcibly shoving it in everyone's face. In addition, calling something a turdsamich is not an opinion, it is a derogatory statement used to express your opinion (you don't like it), and calling something a turdsamich while simultaneously having a sig that states you like something can VERY easily be seen as just trying to incite hostility. It is fine to have an opinion, expressing it openly in an inflamitory manner in places it is not required and can be disruptive is something else entirely.
Now my opinion of (for example) setting conversions is far less friendly. But I chose to leave THOSE examples out of the thread. I'v got plenty of far more "heated" opinions on other aspects of the hobby that I choose to leave out.
Except that many of the posters here are involved in the edition war, so those other topics may not have had the potential to cause so much disruption... you did say it wasn't your intention to cause any disruptions?
PS: Don't stifle my colourful way of expressing my opinion. This isn't a dictatorship. My opinion may be leaning towards the extreme, slightly, but it is far from unacceptable or unreasonable.
1: I wasn't styfling your expression, I was stating it was inappropriate and potentially disruptive in this thread.
2: Make sure your colourful way of expressing your opinion doesn't violate the CoC.
3: Stop painting yourself as a victim, when it was you who first expressed the forceful, inflammatory statement we are discussing. If you didn't want it to be responded to, you should not have made it so aggressive. (I think I get the Martyr mentality now)
4: Don't paint me as some kind of dictator attempting to enforce my ideals on the board because I dared to question the wording and relevance of your comments.
5: "Steaming pile of turdsamich" is not "slight" anything.
6: It is "unacceptable or unreasonable" to express such opinions when they are nether required nor productive to the debate (and especially if they are quite the opposite), the CoC even says so.
Not just 4e either, but any subject at hand. My opinion is blunt and sour. no sugar coating from me. I don't coddle or baby talk for the sake of the sensitive. I respect people enough to tell them the truth of what I think of something. It is after all, a product, not a loved one. No more important than a toilet or mailbox or dishwasher. My opinion of products and ideas may not be appreciated or even liked, but they're simply my opinions.
I am also rather blunt and abrasive when posting, but I at least have the mind to know WHEN to express my opinion. In addition, HOW I state my opinions generally aren't worded as to offend those who think otherwise. In addition, calling something a turdsamich is not an opinion, it is an attack. It is a derogatory statement intended to offend those of a differing opinion, and it is therefore within the rights of those others to express their differing opinions in return.
EDIT: I think it should also be noted that one should expect that an opinion or statement they express is likely to be met with an equal response. So a forceful, offensive statement is likely to be received with an equally forceful and offensive response. One should not cry foul when such happens.
It comes down to being a grown up and not a egocentric sociopath.
Can't we all just get along?
NO!!! Roll initiative!!!!
That being said. I did NOT post my opinion to offend anyone and I was NOT aware that everyone is super sensitive about 4th edition. Now that I know that my opinion will only be taken as pointless "bashing", I will make a stronger attempt to keep all of you "feelings" in mind.
I didn't know dungeons and dragons or 4th edition was such a serious issue. I did not mean to upset anyone, Sorry. Have a great day.;)
;)
Sure! It's simply best to remember that, if there's no real point to stating one's opinion, then one should keep one's mouth shut.
;)
Never gonna happen.I'll try to tone it down a bit but I'm not going to stop expressing my opinion because it might bother you, just as you won't stop either. Its called a forum for a reason.:D
debate points
Just wanted to say that I think your in the right on the above argument. Though I think your getting a little heated in your posts.
Edit: Argument/Debate, whatever you want to call it.
Never gonna happen.I'll try to tone it down a bit but I'm not going to stop expressing my opinion because it might bother you, just as you won't stop either. Its called a forum for a reason.:D
As usual, no one generally says, "Don't post; we all hate you." It is generally considered Common Courtesy to not disrupt the Community by stating a purely subjective view for no reason. If the Thread were titled, "Do you like 4E?" then it would obviously be On-Topic and it would be perfectly acceptable. As-is, I understand using it as an example in the statement you made, and don't really care all that much; however, it's generally considered rude to go around bashing things others like just because you personally do not like those things.
If the opinion isn't used in a productive manner in the right context, then yes, many will take it as somewhat insulting.
An aspect of this "threatened by opinions" is the lengths to which some people will go to convince me (the holder of a different opinion) that I shouldn't have my opinion. They don't seem to be able to understand that it does not matter how much they try to convince me of the merits and wonderfulness of it, I am still not going to suddenly like tapioca pudding.
- Or guns in my D&D game.
- Or Spelljammer.
- Or good vampires.
- Or psionics.
These are preferences. I am not claiming that others should not like these things. When asked what I think of these things, I explain simply that *I* do not like them in my D&D. No imposing. No convincing. Just my preference.
You (the generic you) should not feel threatened by my holding a different opinion on these topics.
Update:
An aspect of this "threatened by opinions" is the lengths to which some people will go to convince me (the holder of a different opinion) that I shouldn't have my opinion. They don't seem to be able to understand that it does not matter how much they try to convince me of the merits and wonderfulness of it, I am still not going to suddenly like tapioca pudding.
- Or guns in my D&D game.
- Or Spelljammer.
- Or good vampires.
- Or psionics.
These are preferences. I am not claiming that others should not like these things. When asked what I think of these things, I explain simply that *I* do not like them in my D&D. No imposing. No convincing. Just my preference.
You (the generic you) should not feel threatened by my holding a different opinion on these topics.
I swear, sometimes I think Seeker and I were cloned, then seperated. The list he just made almosty perfectly matches my own dislikes. I gotta play D&D with this guy at least once.
Update:
An aspect of this "threatened by opinions" is the lengths to which some people will go to convince me (the holder of a different opinion) that I shouldn't have my opinion. They don't seem to be able to understand that it does not matter how much they try to convince me of the merits and wonderfulness of it, I am still not going to suddenly like tapioca pudding.
- Or guns in my D&D game.
- Or Spelljammer.
- Or good vampires.
- Or psionics.
These are preferences. I am not claiming that others should not like these things. When asked what I think of these things, I explain simply that *I* do not like them in my D&D. No imposing. No convincing. Just my preference.
You (the generic you) should not feel threatened by my holding a different opinion on these topics.
I am sorry but if YOU (the specific Seeker95 you) do not like tapioca eating good aligned psionic vampires, wielding guns in a spelljammer game then YOU (specific Seeker95 you again) are doing it all wrong.
;) :P
These are preferences. I am not claiming that others should not like these things.
You're entitled to hold preferences. We're entitled to convince you you're wrong. I personally think yours are pretty good preferences, but the principle stands.
If a small child says, "I don't like pineapple," the parent says, "You haven't tried pineapple." The kid says, "I tried some pineapple I found on the floor, it was yucky," the parent says, "Well, of course it's going to be yucky if it fell on the floor, you need to try it fresh."
The kid's not wrong for not liking pineapple, but the parent's not wrong for attempting to expand the kid's horizons.
Not comparing you to a child or anything - like I said, I think those are some mature preferences. But a preference that isn't subject to re-evaluation from time to time isn't a preference, it's a bigotry.
-Guns in D&D: I don't like the thought of guns in a sword-and-sorcery RPG. I can't imagine how they could spin them that would make me change my mind. They would still be guns, and they would still be in my sword-and-sorcery RPG.
-Spelljammer: I just never liked the idea of orcs in space. It never went with my particular play-style. I can't imagine them doing any modifications that would change that. There would still be orcs in space.
-Good Vampires: I don't like them in movies (Interview with a Vampire), TV shows (Buffy, Angel), books (Twilight...from what I hear), or RPGs (V:tM). Again...I can't see any spin they could put on them that would make me suddenly like them.
-Psionics: This one I'm flexible on. I liked the TSR psionics, but haven't liked them since they received the WotC treatment in 2.5. Perhaps they could make them much more pleasing and desireable than they were then with a little effort. I'm totally willing to give them a shot.
Naturally, I will reserve final judgement for when I read the new treatment they will all receive. Who knows? I might come around.
-Spelljammer: I just never liked the idea of orcs in space. ...There would still be orcs in space.
But what about...
[deep echoing voice]
PIGS IN SPACE!!!!
[/deep echoing voice]
But what about...
[deep echoing voice]
PIGS IN SPACE!!!!
[/deep echoing voice]
Oh, those are fine. Just not orcs. Gammorean (sp?) guards, FTW.
You're entitled to hold preferences. We're entitled to convince you you're wrong.
I don't really think you are entitled to convince anyone of anything. You are, however, entitled to express your own opinion and attempt a dialogue about the merits of your own opinion.
But a preference that isn't subject to re-evaluation from time to time isn't a preference, it's a bigotry.
Ok, now that is simply untrue.
I don't really think you are entitled to convince anyone of anything. You are, however, entitled to express your own opinion and attempt a dialogue about the merits of your own opinion.
Forgive my rhetorical flourish. I was using convince in the sense of "make an argument" rather than in the sense of "be successful in an argument". Which I'm sure you understood.
But a preference that isn't subject to re-evaluation from time to time isn't a preference, it's a bigotry.
Ok, now that is simply untrue.
It might have been more accurate to say it's zealotry, except that zealotry is subject to re-evaluation based on the personal moods of the invidual expressing it. Opinions that are genuinely not subject to dislodgement by any internal or external stimulus more often fall under the purview of psychiatry rather than rhetoric but it might be going a bit far to say that not conceding that your preferences can be changed is a mental illness.
Certainly the wise man hopes to like more things than he dislikes, and continually strives towards that state.
It might have been more accurate to say it's zealotry, except that zealotry is subject to re-evaluation based on the personal moods of the invidual expressing it. Opinions that are genuinely not subject to dislodgement by any internal or external stimulus more often fall under the purview of psychiatry rather than rhetoric but it might be going a bit far to say that not conceding that your preferences can be changed is a mental illness.
It is still a bit too much of a blanket. I prefer women, but I am in no way some sort of misandrist. I don't think most people would liken my preference of women to a mental illness. (Though there are some that may.)
It is still a bit too much of a blanket. I prefer women, but I am in no way some sort of misandrist. I don't think most people would liken my preference of women to a mental illness. (Though there are some that may.)
Without getting into a debate on sexuality that will get the thread locked, can we agree that sexuality and gender preference might have things going on that don't apply to preferences for RPGs?
I'm willing to argue your general point, but can you come up with a different comparison?
We're entitled to convince you you're wrong.
You are entitled to support your preferences all you want. But there is very little (if anything) you can say about my preferences to make me change them.
Certainly the wise man hopes to like more things than he dislikes, and continually strives towards that state.
The wise man is not concerned with the number of his likes and dislikes. He has important things to focus upon, like his actions and how he treats and respects others (including their opinions).
The wise man is not concerned with his own like or dislike of tapioca pudding.
Nor is he concerned with yours.
-Spelljammer: I just never liked the idea of orcs in space. It never went with my particular play-style. I can't imagine them doing any modifications that would change that. There would still be orcs in space.
No, no, no. There aren't any orcs in Spelljammer.
However, there are scro in Spelljammer, along with Githyanki pirates that essentially go "Arrrh!", and militaristic space hippos.
Excuse me, I think I have to go puke now.
As usual, no one generally says, "Don't post; we all hate you." It is generally considered Common Courtesy to not disrupt the Community by stating a purely subjective view for no reason. If the Thread were titled, "Do you like 4E?" then it would obviously be On-Topic and it would be perfectly acceptable. As-is, I understand using it as an example in the statement you made, and don't really care all that much; however, it's generally considered rude to go around bashing things others like just because you personally do not like those things.
If the opinion isn't used in a productive manner in the right context, then yes, many will take it as somewhat insulting.
It was an example, get over it already. I was on topic when I replied to the OP and my example was a good one since it touched nerves. Which is a wonderful example of how an opinion is never wrong no matter how much people hate it.;) I'm going to let this specific debate ( 4e the turdsamich with diamond chips comment ) slide so we can get back on topic and to avoid this thread getting locked or worse. But I understand where everyone is coming from and I'm sorry it bothers all of you so much.
[edit] You are correct, I should have considered how my words would affect others. I just didn't know everyone was so uptight about it. Its a freaking game after all. I love 2e and 3e but if you bash it, it wouldnt bother me at all. Why should it? Its your opinion based on your personal taste. I see nothing wrong with telling the truth in the most blunt and brutal way possible. So, I'm sorry and I will try to keep all of your feelings in mind from now on. (no sarcasm at all) I'm not here to cause problems or **** you off. I'm just not very sensitive, especially when it comes to crap that does not matter at all.
(oh, I guess that word isn't allowed on this site. :p didn't know that was a naughty word. lol.)
Opinions can be wrong; anyone who uses, "It's an opinion, so it can't be wrong!" is either trying to say, "Well, I don't want to change my mind, and you can't make me do that," (which is quite true!) OR they are simply holding that opinion for purely subjective reasons that have no basis in Fact or Logic, but they want to make it look like their opinion holds some kind of Objective Truth (and it doesn't if their only defense of it is, "It can't be wrong because it's an opinion!").
Well when it comes to sharing an opinion on liking something like a hobby, then no, opinions can't be wrong. I don't like so and so because of this reason. (not subject to right or wrong) So my point stands.;) You know what I meant to begin with.
I just hate it when people use that statement as if it were some Blanket Cure-All for people disagreeing with them.
Without getting into a debate on sexuality that will get the thread locked, can we agree that sexuality and gender preference might have things going on that don't apply to preferences for RPGs?
I'm willing to argue your general point, but can you come up with a different comparison?
I don't see the need to continue arguing if I already poked a hole in your argument. I won't provide an easier argument to argue, because the point has already been made and I don't feel like arguing the matter further.
Hmmmm...
Would it make any difference if I prefaced my posts with "in my opinion and preferences"?
I think the problem arises most when people repeat their opinion/belief ad-nausium, as often as they can in any post they can manage an excuse to express it. The more aggressive, offensive, absolute and/or extreme the opinion, and the more often it is seen (particularly when expressed by the same few individuals), the more those who's opinion differ are going to want to speak out against it (this applies regardless of where your opinion sits). I'm not familiar with how, where or what you post, but no amount of prefacing your posts are going to help if you are one of those who posts in the above manner, and it won't be needed if you don't.
Hmmmm...
Would it make any difference if I prefaced my posts with "in my opinion and preferences"?
I suppose it depends on what you say after it. If you say "In my opinion and preferences, you're a stupid, smelly butt face who doesn't deserve to live!" then you're going to have some problems. If you say "In my opinion and preferences, fourth edition's lower number of skills do not represent the diversity I feel my gaming style needs." then it's a bit redundant, but not offensive, and can help drive the point home that you're not calling anyone out as wrong if you notice you have a problem with being misinterpreted.
Hmmmm...
Would it make any difference if I prefaced my posts with "in my opinion and preferences"?
I think saying it before some of your statements would be a much better idea, as when you state it after a statement, putting it in Bold or some such, it draws too much attention and feels...sardonic or something. Really, though, I think you generally do a fine job of making it apparent that you aren't trying to cause trouble, you just (gasp!) have an opinion on the subject at hand. ;)
Hmmmm...
Would it make any difference if I prefaced my posts with "in my opinion and preferences"?
Yes.
But just you...nobody else.
And, for the sake of clarity, you should also add:
"This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine. You don't have to share my opinion, but you do have to grant me the right to express it. If you don't like my opinion on this matter, then feel free to question it, but do not dare state that it is wrong or any less valid than your own opinion. If reading my opinionated statements angers you, please take a moment to relax before responding to my opinions with hostility and malice, as that does nothing to better the community or the discussion we are all active participants in. If you cannot respond in a calm manner and respect my opinions, then please don't respond to me as I do not wish to argue over something as subjective as opinions."
There...that should do it.
Put this at the beginning of every post you make, and you should be OK.
Of course, there are always d-bags who will ignore it and attack you anyway, but hey...some people belong in cages more than most animals do.
You are entitled to support your preferences all you want. But there is very little (if anything) you can say about my preferences to make me change them.
If your opinions are fixed in stone, why do you bother having conversations? Or for that matter - (sudden personal realisation) - what's the point of ever saying anything to you?
I mean, I'll say it again - the only people who don't regularly re-assess their opinions based on new information are bigots and corpses. I'm sure you change your mind from time to time - what with being human and all - which leaves me with nothing left to assume except that your unwillingness to concede that your preferences are modifiable stems from being - as the thread title suggests - threatened by opinions.
If your opinions are fixed in stone, why do you bother having conversations?
I did not say they are fixed in stone. I said there is very little you can say about my opinions that will cause me to change them. Present a differing opinion and you stand a chance. If I deem it to be a better opinion, then I'll consider.
Or for that matter - (sudden personal realisation) - what's the point of ever saying anything to you?
Again, if you say something worthwhile (your own opinions), we're having a conversation. Offer a comment about my opinion, and I might feel the need to explain myself more fully, clearly, or carefully. But attempting to change my opinion is usually a fruitless endeavor if it is done via attacks on my opinion.
I mean, I'll say it again - the only people who don't regularly re-assess their opinions based on new information are bigots and corpses.
That reassessment comes with new information. Rarely does that mean attacking my opinion. It means presenting differing viewpoints about the subject at hand. And rarely is the subject at hand *my opinion*. Generally, the subject at hand is that topic on which I hold an opinion.
I'm sure you change your mind from time to time - what with being human and all
Sure I do. When I'm presented with a better differing opinion.
which leaves me with nothing left to assume except that your unwillingness to concede that your preferences are modifiable stems from being - as the thread title suggests - threatened by opinions.
I Have not claimed my opinions are unmodifiable. I have said that there is very little you can say about my opinion that will lead me to change it. If you manage to present a legitimate counter-opinion, I might be changing mine.
But, if, after presenting your opinion, I share with you that I simply disagree with you, then you should probably let it rest. Perhaps seek a greater understanding of my opinion so as to understand where our differences lie, but stop with the attempts to change my mind.
heh-heh...
sigged!
Would it even fit? There is a sig limit you know!
I am growing increasingly saddened by the frailty of my Board peers.
Increasingly many are the threads I have read (and participated) in which Member#2 offers an opinion that differs from one expressed by Member#1. The predictable response has consistently become one in Member#1 responds with half-RAW statements and spurious connections between one rule and another designed to lend manufactured legitimacy to the opinion that Member#1 initially offered.
Why does Member#1 feel so threatened by a differing of opinion?
I'm not so sure the portrait you paint is accurate. Being rational means being open to your mind being changed (but also demanding you be convinced first). This requires a discussion to take place. There are always black sheep who rather than learning and bettering themselves simply use a debate to push an agenda, but this behavior is always obvious when it occurs and such people quickly lose credibility.
"I disagree" is much easier to defend than "you're wrong". It requires no defense.
Actually, both require a defense. If you are willing to throw your opinion into the pot, decency would dictate that you be willing and able to explain and defend it when it's inquired into or criticized. And subsequently change your stance if you find a more credible theory (something called intellectual honesty).
I don't see the need to continue arguing if I already poked a hole in your argument. I won't provide an easier argument to argue, because the point has already been made and I don't feel like arguing the matter further.
What I was saying is that I can't rebut your argument without getting the thread locked, not that I can't rebut the argument. I'm sure we can sensibly argue the point without having to discuss sexuality, so why don't you raise an example that won't inevitably lead to a violation of the CoC?
Hmmmm...
Would it make any difference if I prefaced my posts with "in my opinion and preferences"?
I had a slight and rather indirect clash with one of your opinions before and, honestly, i'm very glad i did, because now i feel that i understand you better as a person. You're no troll.
I would actually suggest putting it inside your statements, in a sense. I find that, if the statement itself feels like an opinion, it will tend to be taken as such. The one that i ran afoul of was worded in a way that it felt like a statement of fact, thus people felt they needed to refute it. It would be good to avoid things like "A is B" and in it's place use things like "A seems like B, to me". It's a more passive approach and, in my experience, causes fewer catastrophic misunderstandings.
Hope that helps get some people off your back.
I am growing increasingly saddened by the frailty of my Board peers.
Increasingly many are the threads I have read (and participated) in which Member#2 offers an opinion that differs from one expressed by Member#1. The predictable response has consistently become one in Member#1 responds with half-RAW statements and spurious connections between one rule and another designed to lend manufactured legitimacy to the opinion that Member#1 initially offered.
Why does Member#1 feel so threatened by a differing of opinion?
"I disagree" is much easier to defend than "you're wrong". It requires no defense.
The internet is a weird place…thing…whatever. In some ways it functions in almost complete opposition than how do things in the real-world.
In the real-world, for example, it is a laudable thing to modify one's premise as new information comes to light - indeed this is one of the foundations of of science and philosophy - but on the net changing one's premise in any way from one's initial stance is considered a form of weakness, many going so far as to claim that doing so immediately nullifies one's position entirely and that one "loses" or "fails" because of it.
Hmmmm...
Would it make any difference if I prefaced my posts with "in my opinion and preferences"?
Not in the slightest.
For a while I ended every post with "In my opinion, of course" and later with "Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" and people simply ignored it.
People will take from your posts what they wish, even if they have to give it to your first.
"When you wrestle with a pig, all that happens are two things... you get dirty and the pig gets mad"
Of course, there's always the other one: "Never argue with idiots. They just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."
"Thor is stronger than Iron Man, he's a god!"
"No, Iron Man's strength is only limited by the available power source. Given enough juice, he could theoretically move mountains!"
"So could Thor! He's a god, Iron Man is a dude inna armor suit!"
Back-n-forth, back-n-forth; I forget now who was on which side ;). My sister used to laugh her butt off at us. Even back then I knew though, it's really not about who's right or who's wrong; it's all opinions. Unless my friend decided to be a straight up jerk that morning (or evening, on the way home from school), I had no problems with his opinions. I could just as easily be a jerk too ;).
I don't care so much about my friend's opinions, in a face-to-face conversation, why in the world am I gonna give a crap what some anonymous somebody thinks on an interent forum? I know how I think, I know what I like, what I don't, so be it; ain't nobody gonna change my mind (much).
Oh, you want some sort of 'formal', logical debate? Opinions don't matter there either, just presenting facts, rebuttals, its all technique I s'pose. Have fun with that ;).
Saying "In my opinion" is largely pointless anyway. Unless you're playing the devil's advocate, it is generally assumed that what you write is your opinion, and it only makes your prose look weak.
"IMO" and "in my opinion" are my two biggest Internet pet peeves, so I agree, in my opinion.
"IMO" and "in my opinion" are my two biggest Internet pet peeves, so I agree, in my opinion.
But... But you just... And then you... But that doesn't... *head 'splode*
I think that "Most Implausible Martial Exploit" thread is a good example of how some people feel threatened by different opinions.
Seems to be a lot of unnecessary bickering for little or no gain... as it all seems to be a matter of taste and opinion.
Oh well...
I avoid purely subjective Threads like those after it becomes apparent it's not going anywhere except two people getting hotheaded and smashing their heads against one another until the Thread's Closed. I like to learn things, or at least debate them.
Conflict is my Lifeblood. :D
I'm always right and everyone else is usually wrong. That's all that matters. :P
Actually, reminds me of my rule 1, 2 and 2'
RULE 1: I am always correct
RULE 2: If I'm not correct, the universe adapts to me
RULE 2 ': Everything in the world that's wrong is my fault, because I could have prevented it by saying it didn't happen, ...
(Rule 2": Rule 2 does not create paradoxes - ref to rule 1)
Problem is that some people don't know much of these boards. Excluding these , and a few bad apples, we're all friends here - sharing the passion for our hobby.
Looking at the history as I type this post, I recognize most of the people posting. calronmoonflower, The_HATED, Crimson Lancer, Artifact, Titanium Dragon ...
Even as I dont know these people, I've come across these people a lot of times
... and because of that, I can respect their oppinion. (as they are no longer anonymous to me)
However, with the new edition, the vacation, and maybe other factors, new people have joined us (or people who don't visit much, now visit more). - and it seems that these people forget - or don't know - this isn't 4chan (for example). Here we're not all out to get you ...
... that and the innate nature of humans to think that they are correct ...
... and because of that, I can respect their opinion. (as they are no longer anonymous to me)
Just wanted to clarify something...
Does this imply that you don't respect the opinions of people you don't recognize? Does one need to make a name for themselves before they can be taken seriously? and if one does make a name for themselves with opposing views to your own, are they're opinions that have been dismissed previously because they were unfamiliar to you taken seriously now, or have they simply been recognized as someone to dismiss?
I don't mean to be villianizing you (hence why I'm asking for clarification), but I have gotten the distinct impression that some posters actually function like this, dismissing anyone they don't recognize, and only eventually recognizing and respecting the opinions of those who are effectively "yes men".
Just wanted to clarify something... Does this imply that you don't respect the opinions of people you don't recognize?
no no no of course not. But one of the biggest problems with forums is that one does not know the person on that other sides, and that everyone is anonymous.
There is some guide for good posters around here, where one of the points is something like: type your posts, as though you would talk to actual people.
Because I recognize the people, they are no longer 'anonymous' to me - which makes it easier to talk to.
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong: I know there are many things I don't agree with them.
Maybe it has something to do with the psychology friendship:
I think its human nature allows us to easier forgive/ignore/... things that irritate you / disagreements/ ... from people you know, in comparison with people you don't know)