It's hard to avoid arguing

[avin]

I'm trying my best to avoid arguments here. People have different opinions and they must be respected.

Often, I'm most inclined to argue against people who I think are just defending a system just because they like it, matter not if they are wrong or right.

I was put on ignore list for people who quick read me and think I'm a 4E basher just because I'm critic to some aspects of 4E, like MM fluff, but in fact it's the opposite: I'm a DDI subscriber and DM three games in the new system, not thinking about going back, except for GURPS wich is teh winz0r \o/

Well, I ignored some people who just jump and mindlessly defend 4E too, so I think we all should step back and try to be polite to each other

 

[Umbran]

However, if we're going to split hairs, a 'debate' is usually a contest with winners and losers (at the very least, each side is trying to win).

If you'd prefer, we can refer to it as dialectic method, but that takes longer to type.

I would say that's more detrimental to the tone of the message boards than an argument any day.

Honestly, as a moderator, I have to disagree. Argument (as I am using the word) has all the negatives of debate, but none of the positives - like structure, a focus on maintenance of quality, and lack of personal attack.

That last is the biggie. If you are debating, and someone goes ad hominem, the weakness of the point is clear. If you are arguing, pointing out that getting personal weakens the whole discussion falls on deaf ears.

I get the sense that a lot of people here use "argument" to mean "discussion". I don't.

 

[Ktulu]

I agree 100% with the OP and often just move on. There are many times when I've got a nice laid out response and I'm ready to hit reply when I think, "you know, the person won't agree with my point, anyway, and I don't want to get into a 10 page argument".

I then just close up the page and continue on to another thread. Too bad, too, because the internet should be about open discussion, but too many people are rude and choose hyperbole over sound arguments.

 

[Arnwyn]

Which makes me wonder; can you see on whose ignore lists you're on? So you can find out if your talking to a brick-wall or not?

That would be pretty handy. What I would really like, though, is the ability to put myself on someone else's ignore list! Some people should really just not ever respond to my posts.

Unfortunately I don't use the ignore list myself, as it simply doesn't work. AFAIC, a working ignore list should scrub the entire existence of said ignored poster from the website.

 

[Greg K]

Honestly, as a moderator, I have to disagree. Argument (as I am using the word) has all the negatives of debate, but none of the positives - like structure, a focus on maintenance of quality, and lack of personal attack.

I believe that my critical thinking instructor had a word for that- fighting!

 

[JeffB]

I agree 100% with the OP and often just move on. There are many times when I've got a nice laid out response and I'm ready to hit reply when I think, "you know, the person won't agree with my point, anyway, and I don't want to get into a 10 page argument".
.

I'd say I type up 5 replies and close them without ever posting for every one that actually gets posted- Once in awhile someone will post something completely idiotic that gets my goat and I'll type up something snarky in return- nothing different than I'd do in person though- I've no patience for that sort of thing on the net or otherwise.

 

[SteveC]

I think this is a great thread. I changed my posting habits a couple years ago based on a baseball message board I also posted to. Sports boards are like one big edition war thread, but have the added benefit of having lots of numbers and statistics to argue along with the opinions.

So a couple years ago my team had this fantastic season, but throughout the whole time there were fans of our rivals who'd stop by and talk about how we were going to lose and that there was no way things were going to stay that good.

What I noticed that summer was that despite all that criticism (that eventually ended up being right...my team was in first place for 80% of the season and then didn't make the playoffs... D'oh!) I had this great year of enjoying baseball. I went to several games with my dad, started dating this great girl who also loved baseball, and got to a couple games with friends from college who I hadn't seen in a long time. It ultimately didn't matter what the team did, what mattered was that I had this fantastic summer.

I approach posting on gaming message boards in a similar manner now: does it really matter whether someone loves or hates 4E? No, what matters is that we're gaming and having a good time in our community. I mostly read threads about how to improve my gaming now, and only get pulled into arguments against my better nature (which still happens sometimes, I'll admit).

Debate is good and useful, but in my opinion it stops being worth spending time when the question changes from "how should this work/be made better?" to "is game X even worth my time?" I think we all know what we like enough to make the latter decision.

Anyway, good thread...those are my rambling thoughts.

--Steve

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I believe that my critical thinking instructor had a word for that- fighting!

Formulated -- of necessity -- by my friends and me in law school:

Discussion -- Talking about things. Can be vague, and include things like preference and weak opinions. There may be no disagreement between parties whatsoever.

Argument -- Presentation of the premises supporting a conclusion. The best arguments start with -- or at least quickly come to -- a recognition of which premises the parties hold in common as true, and the argument proceeds from there.

Debate -- A formal argument, with some (at least semi-)objective way to score, be it a moderator or "how many times Joe left Bob stammering for a response."

Quarrel -- Heated disagreement, usually with personal attacks and lots and lots of fallacies. Oh, and sarcasm. A quarrel can, and often does, have argumentative content, however. (Those make the most entertaining flames, IMO.)

Of all of these, I find argument and quarrel to be the most fun, for almost entirely different reasons. But the important thing, as far as these definitions go, is that I can -- and do, extremely often -- have arguments with my best friends in which nobody feels attacked in the slightest.

Anyway, I know it may seem odd to go to such lengths to establish those definitions, but it truly helps. If Joe wants to have a discussion, and Bob wants to have an argument, they can figure out in advance it won't work. Otherwise, Joe thinks they're discussing things, and Bob thinks they're arguing things, and hopefully it's pretty clear how that can go badly.

"Argument" is not a negative word. If any reader thinks it is, I urge you to reconsider. You're cheating yourself out of, at the very least, a useful word.

(As an aside, I wince everytime I hear someone say something like, "It's his opinion, and we have to respect it." That's so horribly, horribly wrong it should make your teeth ache. What we should respect is someone's right to have an opinion, not the opinion itself. Oh, and while I'm at it, there's a fundamental difference between an "opinion," and a "preference." The difference is truly worth learning.)

 

[dbm]

Personally I don't have difficulty avoiding arguments on the internet. In fact, I generally make it my business to avoid them.

When posting I remember two simple guides:

1) What positive outcome do I wish to achieve?

2) Do not feed the trolls.

Cheers,
Dan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It takes even more for me to recognize names attached to well-presented, well-reasoned, helpful posts, unfortunately. I kinda wish EN World had a "Highlight" list, counterpart to the Ignore list, that would make posts by Highlighted posters more visible. That'd be pretty cool.)

I'd like the "highlight" list, too, though for different reasons. For better or worse, I remember posters fairly well. I don't hold grudges or anything of that nature, but there is a certain kind of passive/aggressive behavior that creeps just below the rules on message boards--that I really can't stand. There is a certain "nature" of a board that is the collective coming to terms with what is tolerated or not, the mods enforcement, the subject matter, etc. that is different from board to board and can change over time. I'm interested in a slice of certain conversations. A highlight list would let me focus on people who enjoy those kinds of conversations--and then read the whole thing--including people that I would be happy to ignore otherwise. It's not a case of like/dislike. Rather, it's a means of finding the conversations you want to find.

OTOH, I appreciate ignore lists far more for the ability of other people to ignore me, than vice versa. On another board, I have four or five people on an ignore list, most of them banned. I'm fairly certain, however, that I'm on several ignore lists. In any case, I'm a lot happier now that certain people never reply to me.

As to why I "discuss", it is because over the years (even before message boards), I observed that I often had a slant on things that was a minority viewpoint (or at least a little off from the majority even when I was largely in agreement). Not many people value it, but the people who do value it seem to value it a lot--maybe because there aren't that many of us. When I read someone with another minority, interesting slant besides my own, I value reading that. So I like to think for every person I tick off, there is someone who got some little nuggest out of what I said, even if they didn't buy the whole thing.