Why are D&D discussions so angry?

big dummy · Jun 7, 2006

Storm Raven said:
Which makes your statement basically navel gazing and pointless. Saying "reform" without saying what needs reform and why is a worthless statement. You need a direction to aim at, and without that,. you can yell all you want about how things need to change and you won't find anyone who agrees with you.

Lol. It is not pointless if that is what you are discussing, (which was the original point of the thread.) Perhaps you mean that it's "useless" because you can't think of any logical argument against it....

And? You talk about "reform" like it is some sort of goal in and of itself. Talking about things "in the abstract" is about as useful and productive an activity as wrestling with your own shadow. Reform is something that needs to be directed towards a goal.

No matter how many times you say it or how many belittling analogies you make, yes there is a point thats why this whole thread has gone on for so many posts.

And? Does it have to change?

Yes because WOTC has to sell books!

BD

prosfilaes · Jun 7, 2006

big dummy said:
3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)

4) People who are just playing around.

I respect the #1 and have heard enough of #2 to be encouraging and make it worth while to have started the thread. #4 is no problem. (and I don't mind being called 'dummy' in the least) As for #3, I can't say what I think about them because forum etiquette prevents me, but they are hardly unexpected.

It's funny; I don't think I've seen a reasonable poster who have a large problem with #3.

big dummy · Jun 7, 2006

prosfilaes said:
"!!!" seems a bit of an overreaction to me. I will join the others in pointing out that it's not an objective point of view at all; it's your point of view.

Frankly, it doesn't seem the least bit abnormal to me. Soccer fans will actually riot over their games, and two great physicists of the 20th century wrote thier greatest papers as a pair, and broke up over who should have their name first on the paper. People have got killed over what seem to me to be trivial differences in fundamentally the same religious beliefs. Goedel's first words upon meeting another mathematian was "I know of your work and consider it harmful", over an issue that would be incomprehensible to most people with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Concerns about things that others would consider trivial or incomprehensible seem part of the human condition.

Arguments on a message board getting heated seems relatively calm and subnormal.

Ok granted, in the overall history of human folly, this ranks fairly low. But it's still folly, does that make it a good thing?

BD

big dummy · Jun 8, 2006

prosfilaes said:
It's funny; I don't think I've seen a reasonable poster who have a large problem with #3.

I do. Raven Crowking strikes me as extremely reasonable and polite (and a lot less blunt than I am) and he seems to be harassed quite a bit, albiet perhaps less blatantly. He's just one of many I've noticed.

I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.

BD

prosfilaes · Jun 8, 2006

big dummy said:
Ok granted, in the overall history of human folly, this ranks fairly low. But it's still folly, does that make it a good thing?

So you're asking everyone else to have the patience of Ghandi?

I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.

I think it's provable that humans respond first to the tone, and most strongly to the tone.

James Heard · Jun 8, 2006

big dummy said:
I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.

Maybe it does, but the tone determines whether or not people think you're worth listening to. I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions - it's because I don't value what they have to say. If people think you're an aggressive confrontational person who doesn't listen to reasonable things when they're said back to them then they'll just ignore you and that pretty much ruins the purpose of an internet forum. As you said, with all respect due.

ThirdWizard · Jun 8, 2006

big dummy said:
I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.

Now, I don't want you to take this the wrong way (

) but I'm curious, and it could be a help to the conversation and understanding your position. Might you have Asperger's syndrome? Feel free to ignore the question if you think its an irrelevant tangent or whatnot.

big dummy said:
Lol. It is not pointless if that is what you are discussing, (which was the original point of the thread.) Perhaps you mean that it's "useless" because you can't think of any logical argument against it....

Think of it like this. How far can a discussion go if the thread is simply about the merits of change in an ambiguous context of existance? If people don't have something concrete to talk about, or at least latch onto, then a discussion has very little merit in and of itself. A discussion about whether or not D&D should change with no qualifiers beyond "change" will either go one of two ways.

Firstly, it could simply be a pointless agreement with the eventual change of the game or agreement with the game never changing. Either way, there's no discussion, its just an endless "me too" posting until nobody feels like saying "me too" anymore.

Secondly, people could disagree. But, since they have nothing to latch onto, they end up not really saying anything at all. Discussion how you think D&D might change might be interesting, but if you can't talk about how, then what's left? What's to keep the conversation running?

big dummy said:
I do. Raven Crowking strikes me as extremely reasonable and polite (and a lot less blunt than I am) and he seems to be harassed quite a bit, albiet perhaps less blatantly. He's just one of many I've noticed.

As someone who has "harassed" Raven in the past, I have to say that I still like the guy. He often takes an opposing stance to things and sticks to his guns no matter how many people are against him in a debate. I don't think that constitutes harassment, though. People disagree, they debate/argue for pages upon pages of threads, and yeah sometimes things can get heated at times. But, I don't think that these discussions are personal, and I certainly don't remember any personal attacks (or at least egregious ones).

If you think harassment is taking place, perhaps you need to take a step back for a bit. Debate is rife with conflict, and debate is going to be a big part of the forums and especially the long posts on the forums. It doesn't mean the posters don't like each other. It's just the nature of the beast.

big dummy · Jun 8, 2006

James Heard said:
I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions -

ROFL!!!!!! Woah!!!! Ok you got me there. Thats funny as ... thats funnier than i can fairly describe here. Damn. Good one. I'm serious. I love that. New Sig.

You got me, I give up. I'm going to try not to come across like a crack addict.

BD

big dummy · Jun 8, 2006

ThirdWizard said:
Might you have Asperger's syndrome? Feel free to ignore the question if you think its an irrelevant tangent or whatnot.

You got me, i don't know what that is.

Think of it like this. How far can a discussion go if the thread is simply about the merits of change

Man, I'm trying hard not to be sarcastic.... must...not....be...sarcastic.

Whew!! That was close.

Man you have no idea how close.

LOL!

Ok, calm down big dummy. Don't want to come across like a crack head.

This thread is pretty much about change in the abstract sense, specifically whether or not it can be discussed here and on other D&D forums, regardless of the specific type of change. Whatever else you want to say about it, this has been a fairly rich discussion. I know I learned a lot. Among other things I learned that several people including the guy i was arguing with in the post you are responding to ARE against change in the abstract. That is rather amazing. More specifically I've learned that a lot of people are against the very existence of a 4th edition of D&D, which is also somewhat incredible to me.

I'm essentially an engineer in my job. As an engineer, you learn to keep simplifying a given system until you can find the nature of the problem. I think I'm getting close, finally to understanding this one.

BD

Piratecat · Jun 8, 2006

big dummy said:
Piratecat said:

To everyone: If you're a poster who finds that most threads you participate in break down into fights, it's quite possible that you're feeding that pattern. Breaking away from your pugnacious tendencies and being deliberately non-aggressive can really help in those cases. If you aren't trying to prove something, arguments usually don't occur.

Click to expand...

So you are supposed to have the patience of Ghandi i guess. It's asking for a lot piratecat.

No, it's not. This is one of the basic rules of human interaction, as useful at home and work as it is on the internet. 95% of people on this site do it automatically, as do I, and I'm hardly Ghandi.

More importantly, this isn't optional. It's mandatory. As moderators, we periodically cut people loose when they've consistently proven that they can't keep their temper or be polite. That's just about as true for subtle sniping as it is more outright profanity and insolence. If a person is going to pick fights, this isn't the right place for them.

I sometimes remind myself that no one has a God-given right to hang out at EN World; we're all here at Morrus' forebearance, really, and its the job of the moderators to ease out the people who just can't consistently play well with others. Jabs like the "with all due respect" are a good example of behavior I detest. I don't care if you stare at the computer screen and call the other person names, but being a jerk to them on the boards just isn't okay.

I've addressed this .... seemingly off topic.... seeemingly intentionally off topic thing about the bloody baby, and the (whether intentionally or not) switcharoo between the idea of reform in general vs. my alleged specific ideas several times, and people keep throwing it in my face. And I'm the one who is wrong for getting just the slightest bit sarcastic?

Yes. Each of us is responsible for our own posts. No one else. You can not lay blame for your own inflammatory posts at someone else's feet. Is someone trying to derail your thread? Ignore them. If you respond to them at all, you give their derailment credibility. If you rise to the bait and are rude to them, doubly so.

Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators? Isn't there at least supposed to be some kind of effort to keep things on topic?

That effort is generated by the people posting in the thread. Want it to stay on topic? Only respond with on topic posts. Threads are living, breathing conversations -- and they're "about" whatever is talked about the most in them. If you talk about a hijacking, you're actually contributing to it.