Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[AnotherGuy]

At a GenCon - might have been 2011 - I remember sticking my oar into a roaring beer-enhanced edition-war argument already ongoing between 4 or 5 other people*, most of whom I don't think knew each other going in. They were arguing about whether 3e or 4e was better, I muddied the waters by pushing for 1e instead and made it a 3-way fight.

That is awesome that you guys were strangers.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I read something in an article in Google news (I forget the source) that claimed that people in their 20's view the "thumbs up" emoji as negative or an insult.

Is there any truth to that?

This is a viral story based on a single comment on a social media post from a few years ago. It's a literal example of manufactured outrage.

 

[Alzrius]

This is a viral story based on a single comment on a social media post from a few years ago. It's a literal example of manufactured outrage.

 

[beancounter]

This is a viral story based on a single comment on a social media post from a few years ago. It's a literal example of manufactured outrage.

Thanks. That would be absurd if it were a real thing.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Life in general has definitely gotten more antagonist in general, and the board's certainly felt the impact. But out of all the rpg forums I lurk and occasionally post on, enworld is still the one that hits the right balance of moderation and disagreement for me.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

with no accountability to the community they ostensibly serve.

While I can see your point of view, it is a private place. They don't have to serve, since they are landlords. They are trying to keep the forum civil and alive so of course they can't behave an a way that will be disagreed with by the majority of the posters, but it's not really "serving the community", more like "shaping it", since people who are not comfortable with their decisions will progressively refrain from posting, disengage with the forum and eventually leave.

The second is what you correctly note- the increasing use of morality for all arguments. When you certain arguments or viewpoints are believed to be not just incorrect, but to be immoral, then it becomes easy to attack the individuals making those arguments as immoral. If, for example, you think that people who enjoy pineapple pizza are not just terrible bard-lovers, but also immoral bigots, then you will likely find it easier to behave cruelly to them (and those people, in turn, will behave cruelly to you).

That, and some people consider moral issues to be objective and, more often than not, that their moral determinations are superior to other people moral choices. So, when saying "it's immoral" they mean "you're a bad person and I'll chastize you for that" instead of "you're operating by a different worldview as I do, so probably we can't agree on this specific topic", so in fact, appeal to morality becomes "I won't accept criticism of my opinion as it's a matter of morals, yet I can totally attack yours."

 

[Morrus]

Otherwise, as far as everyone else is concerned, the mods can apparently abuse their status freely, with no accountability to the community they ostensibly serve.

I’ll reiterate the above post.

I don’t ‘serve’ you, Alzrius. I’m not an elected official or your employee. You’re a guest in my house. And if you put your feet on my furniture, or make me, or any of my other guests uncomfortable, we will have a problem (and by ‘we’ I don’t mean me). I think it’s important to be transparent and clear about this. If that’s not something you are comfortable with, your recourse is to find a community more to your liking.

People can make constructive suggestions and offer helpful opinions, but let’s stop short of entitlement and demands. This isn’t a democracy.

 

[MGibster]

I think there's an error in thinking that this is an "era of easily offended people".

Folks have always been offending, and taking offense - but social media make the offenses and the reaction more visible to us.

Also, lacking the feedback mechanisms human communication is designed to use that only work in person in realtime, folks are not self-moderating as much - we say things on the internet that we wouldn't say in person.

I do believe this is a large reason why online, ahem, discussions can become so heated. If we were writing letters and mailing them, each one of us would have time to seriously mull things over and send a reply only after due consideration. But on the forums, I can get hot headed and just type a reply as I'm thinking it (though I might be able to go back and edit).

I do wonder what role social media has shaped how we communicate with one another. Twitter, Face Book, etc., etc., seem designed to place us in silos and rewards negativity. And the general atmosphere in many places has been to pounce on people who disagree with us. I've been on forums (not here) where most of the participants are largely in agreement on the big picture but devolve into serious bickering becuase they disagree on some of the smaller details.

don’t ‘serve’ you, Alzrius. I’m not an elected servant or your employee. You’re a guest in my house. And if you put your feet on my furniture, or make me, or any of my other guests uncomfortable, we will have a problem (and by ‘we’ I don’t mean me).

I'm glad you're not one of those people who keeps plastic on their furniture all the time.

 

[Cadence]

I do believe this is a large reason why online, ahem, discussions can become so heated. If we were writing letters and mailing them, each one of us would have time to seriously mull things over and send a reply only after due consideration. But on the forums, I can get hot headed and just type a reply as I'm thinking it (though I might be able to go back and edit).

I've wondered sometimes what the web would be like if each person only got to post something like three things total each day.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And that really, really sucks. Really, everything is "just your opinion" no matter who is writing. And the whole reason forums like this exist is so we can exchange ideas with one another.

But the thing is . . . there are times when someone posts something as if it's fact and are adamant that it's the absolute truth and not just their own opinion. This is especially common when discussing any elements of the game that they think are bad for the hobby (instead of just being bad for their table or against their own preferences). So for some it's hard to tell when someone has an implied "In my opinion" in their post or are just going on a rant about how everyone else is having "badwrongfun" and their way of playing is the "One True Way".

And, as a person diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, it's pretty difficult for me to tell the difference between the two. Three words can go a long way to tell whether the person is engaging in good faith or bad faith for me.

It might be annoying or hard to remember, but it actually does help me quite often.