Why are D&D discussions so angry? - Page 20





Closed Thread
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 203
  1. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by ThirdWizard
    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.
    I can take harassment of me. I'm a BIG boy. I have seen reasonable debate of positions. I also have seen certian people (not you) picking on other people like Raven who are very polite, and even shutting down his threads by constant derailments and segues. I will report these incidents more often in the future.

    BD
    "I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions -"

    James Heard

 

  • #192
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    ThirdWizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    5,764
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    9

    ° Ignore ThirdWizard
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    You got me, i don't know what that is.
    It's where someone has trouble reading others in social situations and thus generally ignores most social markers. Those with aspergers generally tend not to care for social niceties and are very literal in their approach to others. They tend to ignore subtle social cues that others take for granted and come at conversations and interactions in a very matter-of-fact mannar.

    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    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.
    Ahhh, no that's not what I consider this thread to be about. This thread is about the feelings of ENWorlders toward certain topics and whether or not they can be discussed civily in this forum. It isn't about change in an abstract way, it is about discussion itself. So, when you brought up "change" as a topic of discussion, I had no idea you were actually talking about this thread.

    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.
    I can almost gurantee you that noone posting in this thread is against change in the abstract. Noone.

  • #193
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Nightfall's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Morgantown, WV, USA
    Posts
    19,016
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Nightfall
    I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!
    Duly appointed Evangelist, Herald, and Sage of the Scarred Lands.

  • #194
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    ThirdWizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    5,764
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    9

    ° Ignore ThirdWizard
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightfall
    I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!
    Wow! You're even against anarchy then? That's deep man. You have blown my mind.

  • #195
    Ok, well, I've learned what I wanted to learn. One thing I've noticed is that the most constructive, insightful posters (in my opinion, of course) usually make their remarks and then back out. Most of them in this thread already did so a page or two back. I think the constructive discussion in this thread has already taken place. So i'm outty.

    BD
    "I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions -"

    James Heard

  • #196
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    what tends to really push my buttons is when people stubbornly keep pushing a thread off topic, usually by making what seem to be extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what I've said repeatedly and then sticking to it like tar, while trying to pick one of these fights over semantics.
    One, "extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what you say" isn't the fault of other people in general - it's your fault for not stating what you say in such a way that there can be no disagreement over what you actually say.

    Two, people "stick to mistakes like tar" because they're really trying to establish a compromise in their communication with you despite your incorrect communications that allows some middle ground of trust - very few people are arguing just because they don't like your screen name and you've really not been posting here long enough to established long term disagreements. You're mistaking people seeking to prompt you to state something in a way that doesn't stop communication with some sort of hostile intent. That's a little paranoid to be comfortable with talking with strangers I think.

    Third, semantic arguments are the nature of written communication where precision is established by semantics and not by body language. Debate over meaning is entirely appropriate, when meaning is the issue at hand even by your own admission. If you don't want to argue semantics then everything you say should be absolutely clear in context, intent, and content. That you believe those things to be true of your communication is irrelevant, because the communicator is only half of any message. The message must be recieved properly or else simply transmitting information is absolutely meaningless.

    To restate this: If you think you're being clear and people say that you're saying something you think you aren't, then the problem isn't with them - you're the one trying to communicate. The listener is passive. That's why tailoring messages to your audience is so crucial. Getting into a hissy about not communicating well and then communicating worse is awful form though.

    Anyways, semantics should be perfectable acceptable unless someone's just being a jerk about it - which for the most part only includes typo grammarians, grammar nazis, and deliberate trolls. None of which I'm seeing here, except perhaps in the fact with dozens of examples of people showing you post after post that they're willing to listen to what you have to say the continued repetition and repudiation of those examples in an almost deliberate misinterpretation and rejection of what should be a pretty clear message by now.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators?
    For what? Unless they're rude, harrassing, or spam it's really not against the rules. I know it has something to do with your perception that ENWorld is a hostile and mean place, but I know that's not true because I've not seen it myself and for the most part I hear most people saying the exact opposite. Instead, you're the one coming across as hostile. Are other posters being argumentative? Sure. But there's a difference between being argumentative and being hostile. Are some of the posters talking about other things than in the thread title? That's the great thing about internet forums - it lacks a focused message because people aren't obliged to sit passively and listen but are compelled to participate.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    . You are apparently never allowed to have any kind of discussion of general reform of D&D. You can of course address highly specific problems such as with this or that spell or this or that feat, especially if they are deemed to be balance problems. If you are discussing something a bit more broad, you will be shouted down and / or your thread will be attacked by kamikaze flamers / baiters.
    Make no mistake about it, with your unqualified "never" you just personified anyone who replies in the negative to you with an assumption of a broad spectrum of behavior. That's aggressive and impolite, it's a troll and it's rude.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primitive Screwhead
    However, stating opinions as definitive fact does need to be avoided as this leads to arguments... and even then you have to take the context of the statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    If I've done that, please show me where.
    Ok, just remember that I'm repeating your words and that you asked.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    Why is it that any time any discussion about D&D comes up which could even remotely somehow be construed as some kind of criticism of D&D as-is, a select few of the forum regulars swoop down with such venomous, vicious spiteful attacks to shut it down?"
    Statement of opinion as fact. Very many people have stated over an over again that this is a perception and assumption on your part, therefore opinion and a gross mischaracterization of your fellow community members.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    Anyone who knows these forums knows that unless you are ready for a big fight, to avoid a WIDE swath of subjects, or else face the near certainty that your thread will be hijacked (as mine recently was) into a completely off-topic diatribe of insults and vicious demands to "love it or leave it" until the temperature of the "debate" inevitably gets hot enough that the moderators shut the thread down, which is exactly what the attackers want from the start.
    Statement of opinion in context as fact. While it's true that threads about many different subjects are closed out of hand, those subjects are clearly defined in the forum rules. Religion and politics are indeed wide swaths of subjects, but it's obvious from context you are attempting to place other subjects under this umbrella and that's an opinion. Furthermore I challenge the idea that "anyone who knows these forums" knows what you proclaim to know. Some people might know this, but not everyone, else everyone would likely be a critical and dissatisfied as yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    The net result is a de-facto censorship. This is in many ways a great forum, but there cannot be any rational discussion about anything real about D&D in here in terms of improving it in any way or addressing anything but techincal or balance problems. Anything else will instantly turn into an all-or-nothing debate about D&D.
    Statement of opinion as fact. People challenge this and it's subjective, therefore it's opinion. People discuss all sorts of things in here regarding D&D in terms of things other than technical or balance issues. People discuss things besides D&D here. People discuss their children and divorces here, and their illnesses and deaths in the family. If there is some great conspiracy on topics resulting in censorship it's only in that Eric made it right from the start so that we'd only have a few things to argue about and that everyone should refrain from swearing like sailors.
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    Why does a role playing game bring out such intense feelings of hostility? What is it about D&D that makes people to devote hours to willing to insult and ridicule complete strangers? What is the ultimate effect of this self-censorship and passive aggression on the game itself?
    The questions themselves hinge upon opinions and assumptions that may or may not be true. Therefore their bald nature makes statements. It's like asking someone "How long have you been cheating on your wife, and how come you're always lying to me and being a jerk?" There are explicit statements backing up those sorts of questions, and those statements in this case are subjective and therefore opinion.

    And, since you did all of that in the FIRST POST it's going to color the whole thread because it establishes the tone of how people will respond to you. Even if you vetted out your entire opinion with qualifiers people would likely disagree with you, but stating your opinion as facts right from the get go establishes a confrontational tone and how people are going to respond to you. Note: I'm not saying that this somehow "forces" people to react to you in a certain way, but in my younger days I've been known to punch people without thinking about it just for their tone. That is to say, it's instinctual. Language is about tone, probably because we developed body language and tone long before we developed language.

    Again, if you show your teeth and assume everyone's out to bite you then generally you get bit, or else on the lovely internet everyone eventually just bans you or sets you to ignore - the ultimate social castration.
    Click For Signature

    Inactive In:
    Spoiler:

    Janis Stormhand in Stonegod's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
    "Alan" in Zero Divide
    Adun Seafoam in Return to Ironstorm Mountain
    Lt. Qira Maru in Junk Yard Dogs
    Hawthorne Hap in Malvoisin's Savage Tide
    Dragen Kessler in The Game of Kings
    Mavic Larigne in The Reconquista
    Shuelsai Deng in The Tol Haggerun Prophecy
    Nelson Luttin in Warriors of the Coast

    Pithy Quote

    ôParleyö is the French word for ôeveryone else is flat-footed and bare-handedö


  • #197
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Nightfall's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Morgantown, WV, USA
    Posts
    19,016
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Nightfall
    Third,

    Hey it's no fun if I'm not against everything.
    Duly appointed Evangelist, Herald, and Sage of the Scarred Lands.

  • #198
    I am actually impressed that this thread, which has tottered dangerously close to thread closing verbal repartee, is still going and relativley usefull..

    Just wondering tho..what empirical evidence led to this?
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    More specifically I've learned that a lot of people are against the very existence of a 4th edition of D&D...
    I have not seen anything in this thread that even hints at this.


    Opinions as definitive fact, from the first post
    Quote Originally Posted by big dummy
    Anyone who knows these forums knows that unless you are ready for a big fight, to avoid a WIDE swath of subjects, or else face the near certainty that your thread will be hijacked (as mine recently was) into a completely off-topic diatribe of insults and vicious demands to "love it or leave it" until the temperature of the "debate" inevitably gets hot enough that the moderators shut the thread down, which is exactly what the attackers want from the start.

    The net result is a de-facto censorship.
    Of your 4 consistant reactions:
    1) People who are polite but frame their answers in terms of general forum etiquette rules and do not recognize any particular problem with ENworld or with D&D forums."
    Assuming of course, that there is a particular problem instead of one systemic of messageboards in general... {and yes, there are some interesting folks to debate with here..}

    2) People who agree with me and have some very insightful if depressing answers as to why things are getting the way they are.
    Some of the posters who agreed with you also stood out, in my mind, to be the very kind of posters you are decrying...

    3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)
    I kinda fall into this, altho I would say instead I disagree with you and want you to beleive that posting habits similar to what you have presented in this thread are a problem.

    4) People who are just playing around.
    These are the fun guys!

    I have debated, rather heatedly, with Raven Crowking, ThirdWizard, and many others on this thread. Actually its in these threads that I gained respect for them.

    YMMV
    Aut Tyalie is Elvish for "Go Play Games"


    Best of EnWorld: Stalker0's Obsideon Skill Challenge, Stalker0's Guide to the Anti-Grind

  • #199
    Registered User




    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Falls Church, VA
    Posts
    3,629
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Felix
    Quote Originally Posted by Primitive Screwhead
    I have not seen anything in this thread that even hints at this.
    Possibly he refers to some of the Poll threads plumbing the interest or desire for a 4th edition, in which some folks do indeed say they would not be interested in a 4th edition in any way.

    But no, that has not been the case in this thread. I think he refers to other threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightfall
    I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!
    "Are these Nazis, Walter?"
    "No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."
    Last edited by Felix; Thursday, 8th June, 2006 at 01:26 AM.
    BEFORE I USED IT
    Spoiler:
    THE KISSES I MISSED
    Spoiler:
    BUT AFTERWARDS, BOY
    Spoiler:
    THE MISSES I KISSED!
    Spoiler:
    Burma-Shave

  • #200
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Nightfall's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Morgantown, WV, USA
    Posts
    19,016
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Nightfall
    Felix,

    That works for me!

    *is enjoying being useful for comedy today.*
    Duly appointed Evangelist, Herald, and Sage of the Scarred Lands.

  • Closed Thread
    Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101112131415161718192021 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Gnomes got angry.
      By Blackrat in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 20
      Last Post: Saturday, 15th March, 2008, 08:59 PM
    2. I am angry
      By eris404 in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 20
      Last Post: Wednesday, 21st December, 2005, 02:51 PM
    3. When you get angry with your PC
      By johnsemlak in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: Tuesday, 22nd March, 2005, 12:29 PM
    4. I am so angry
      By Uzumaki in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 43
      Last Post: Monday, 7th April, 2003, 04:05 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •