Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 3427121" data-attributes="member: 284">The other common meaning is &quot;I don't think you are right, but I'm tired of argueing about it and want to drop the subject&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; Unfortunately, some people take that as a sign of weakness and just means they become even more aggressive in pushing their point of view.In a perfect world, maybe.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some times there actually are multiple technically valid answers based on the available data and rules - or even in spite of the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; People then factor in nebulous factors like &quot;common sense&quot;, &quot;balance&quot;, &quot;intent&quot;, &quot;fun&quot;, or &quot;what I want for my character&quot; when deciding between them, and that is when it tends to break down from a reasoned debate to what I call &quot;bickering&quot; - restating the same arguements over and over, with the added benefit of sarcasm, condescending attitudes, and veiled ad-hominem attacks.I'm sure you are.&nbsp; Unfortunately, not everyone involved in the discussion is going to think that way.&nbsp; Saying &quot;there are multiple valid interpetations, pick the one you think will work for your campaign&quot; should be perfectly fine for a message board discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp; We are not all playing/running the same campaign.&nbsp; There are many ways to run a D&amp;D campaign, even using the same rules.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is a difference between saying &quot;I don't think it should work that way, here is how I would do it, but choose what works best for your game&quot; and saying &quot;Your interpretation is [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb], the sources you cite to support your position are [irrelevent/untrustworthy/not saying what you think they are], and you should do things my way or you are [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb/a cheater]&quot;.And that is oversimplifying things.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is easy to unconciously identify yourself with the position you are arguing for, and when somone disagrees with it too strongly, you can feel threatened or attacked.&nbsp; If they do it strongly enough, the urge is to dig in and strike back regardless of the validity of their arguements.&nbsp; There are people who revel in the debate itself (rather than the subject of the debate), and will deliberately take a contrary position (or no position at all) and goad others involved in the debate so that they can show off their ability to tie people into logical knots, or just to keep the arguement going because they are bored.In the end, don't expect a consensus.&nbsp; Some people are stuck in their point of view because they feel attacked, some people consider other factors more important, some people are just trying to prolong the debate for their own reasons.*shrug* Or maybe I'm just jaded because of my own experiences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 3427121, member: 284"] The other common meaning is "I don't think you are right, but I'm tired of argueing about it and want to drop the subject". Unfortunately, some people take that as a sign of weakness and just means they become even more aggressive in pushing their point of view. In a perfect world, maybe. Some times there actually are multiple technically valid answers based on the available data and rules - or even in spite of the rules. People then factor in nebulous factors like "common sense", "balance", "intent", "fun", or "what I want for my character" when deciding between them, and that is when it tends to break down from a reasoned debate to what I call "bickering" - restating the same arguements over and over, with the added benefit of sarcasm, condescending attitudes, and veiled ad-hominem attacks. I'm sure you are. Unfortunately, not everyone involved in the discussion is going to think that way. Saying "there are multiple valid interpetations, pick the one you think will work for your campaign" should be perfectly fine for a message board discussion. We are not all playing/running the same campaign. There are many ways to run a D&D campaign, even using the same rules. There is a difference between saying "I don't think it should work that way, here is how I would do it, but choose what works best for your game" and saying "Your interpretation is [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb], the sources you cite to support your position are [irrelevent/untrustworthy/not saying what you think they are], and you should do things my way or you are [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb/a cheater]". And that is oversimplifying things. It is easy to unconciously identify yourself with the position you are arguing for, and when somone disagrees with it too strongly, you can feel threatened or attacked. If they do it strongly enough, the urge is to dig in and strike back regardless of the validity of their arguements. There are people who revel in the debate itself (rather than the subject of the debate), and will deliberately take a contrary position (or no position at all) and goad others involved in the debate so that they can show off their ability to tie people into logical knots, or just to keep the arguement going because they are bored. In the end, don't expect a consensus. Some people are stuck in their point of view because they feel attacked, some people consider other factors more important, some people are just trying to prolong the debate for their own reasons. *shrug* Or maybe I'm just jaded because of my own experiences. [/QUOTE]

Verification