big dummy said:
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.
big dummy said:
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.
big dummy said:
. 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.
Primitive Screwhead said:
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.
big dummy said:
If I've done that, please show me where.
Ok, just remember that I'm repeating your words and that you asked.
big dummy said:
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.
big dummy said:
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.
big dummy said:
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.
big dummy said:
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.
