D&D 5E Arguing, ideating and solution-seeking on the D&D Enworld forum

[Lanefan]

2. Diving down into examples instead of engaging the idea. This is something I'm more than guilty of. Poster says X, poster gives an example of X, and then spends the next five pages trying to show why that example is a good example of X instead of actually discussing the idea.

Not sure on this - I think the use of an example as a talking point rather than just discussing theory is very useful.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I sometimes wish ENWorld didn't have Likes. Because the likes are usually used to agree, it means that if I want to agree I can Like or Reply, and if I disagree I only have Reply.

I don't think Disagreeable Emojis are the way to go. But the Like button means there's an extra filter for positive replies, whereas negative replies only have one option!

 

[Casimir Liber]

Need one for 'intrigued'....also have been impressed at mods warning people when tempers get frayed.

 

[Aldarc]

I dunno, man. I understand what you're talking about, but I've also seen people who don't do the line by line thing and then end up introducing a massive amount of confusion into a discussion because its not clear what part of a prior poster's post they're actually addressing.

I kind of think its a no-win situation.

Responding to a particular piece of someone's argument doesn't somehow require the act of dissecting their entire post line-by-line into a wall of quotes that invariably devolves into a quoting battle. It only requires the person responds to that part of the prior poster's post that they are addressing. This can be done by highlighting the pertinent part in bold (or some other means), cutting out the rest of the post apart from the relevant portion, or clarifying what part they are responding to in their own reply.

 

[Lanefan]

Responding to a particular piece of someone's argument doesn't somehow require the act of dissecting their entire post line-by-line into a wall of quotes that invariably devolves into a quoting battle. It only requires the person responds to that part of the prior poster's post that they are addressing. This can be done by highlighting the pertinent part in bold (or some other means), cutting out the rest of the post apart from the relevant portion, or clarifying what part they are responding to in their own reply.

If someone puts up a ten-paragraph post and there's something different in each paragraph I want to respond to, I can either:

a) reply once, breaking up the original post so my responses go with the bit they're responding to
b) reply once, with my responses as a single block containing lots of attempts to indicate which bit of the post each part of my reply pertains to
c) reply with ten separate posts, each quoting just a bit of the post I'm replying to.

Of these, a) seems by far the simplest and easiest.

 

[Aldarc]

If someone puts up a ten-paragraph post and there's something different in each paragraph I want to respond to, I can either:

a) reply once, breaking up the original post so my responses go with the bit they're responding to
b) reply once, with my responses as a single block containing lots of attempts to indicate which bit of the post each part of my reply pertains to
c) reply with ten separate posts, each quoting just a bit of the post I'm replying to.

Of these, a) seems by far the simplest and easiest.

Then they do the same, and you do likewise in return. Then everyone else suffers from the inevitable breakdown in communication and the increasingly impenetrable wall of quote texts to read.

Maybe it wiser to pick one's battles carefully rather than create multiple fronts of conflict.

 

[Lanefan]

Then they do the same, and you do likewise in return. Then everyone else suffers from the inevitable breakdown in communication and the increasingly impenetrable wall of quote texts to read.

Maybe it wiser to pick one's battles carefully rather than create multiple fronts of conflict.

That sounds like something the party Thief would say; but as the Fighter my reply is bring 'em all on - it's why you hired me, isn't it?

 

[Umbran]

I will try. But I do want to note that due to the subjective nature of the request (it's not specified what criteria or judge that determines what an excellent example of the problem is) my efforts may be 100% on point in my eyes while failing to be in yours.

Human communication is almost never about specific criteria, and is always subjective. This is why, "Talk less, listen more, ask questions," is often a useful set of guidelines.

How about this - when folks are specifically talking about how certain rhetorical techniques, methods, or patterns present a problem, don't start using same without a frame explicitly showing you are doing so as an example.

 

[FrogReaver]

How about this - when folks are specifically talking about how certain rhetorical techniques, methods, or patterns present a problem, don't start using same without a frame explicitly showing you are doing so as an example.

IMO I wasn’t.

 

[Umbran]

IMO I wasn’t.

Ask yourself this question - is your opinion the one that actually matters here?

As in, you are in a discussion, and something is going awry - if you want to continue having a productive discussion, is your opinion of what you were doing really the thing for you to focus on?

As a purely practical matter, your opinion (I have now shifted to the generic you, not you, FrogReaver, specifically) of what's going on was part of what got you into the situation. There's evidence that it isn't working. Perhaps your opinion of the matter should be questioned.