Mods shutting down threads for threadcrapping

[Mercurius]

It doesn't seem that hard to me. Don't tell people they're not experiencing what they tell you they're experiencing. Don't tell people they're inventing reasons to feel offended. Discuss one's own thoughts and reactions without telling others, directly or passive-aggressively,that theirs are invalid.

Again, saying you disagree with someone's interpretation is not "telling people they're not experiencing what they say they're experiencing." It is saying, "I disagree with your interpretation." I do hear what you and others are saying, which boils down to "the medium is the message." But I think that only goes so far, and we can't invalidate a perspective simply by saying "But they said it in a bad way, therefore I can ignore what they're saying, because it wasn't served just right."

I can tell you that I don't see the reactions you've described on this forum. But I'm not going to tell you that you're seeing them only because you're looking to be offended.

If you express concerns that an RPG product is harmful or off-putting or insensitive or thoughtless, and if it's my sincere belief that your expressed concerns are coming from a place of misplaced outrage because you're trying to get yourself and others riled up about something that doesn't actually matter, then, yes, absolutely, I should just be quiet and not participate. Yes, I should assume I'm wrong and look for a better way to see things. Yes, I should examine myself thoroughly.

Examining oneself is a good rule of thumb for all of us, as is questioning one's assumptions. These are things that I do all the time. But just as you want others to examine themselves and come to a "better way to see things" (meaning, your way), so too should you do the same. I mean, we can all, always see things in a better way; the onus is on us to evolve our own perspective, rather than focus on whether or not other people are examining themselves and recognizing how wrong they are. All we can do is engage in dialogue, and hope that we get our own view across, while continuing to evolve our own. Or at least that's my approach!

 

[Mercurius]

From the official point of view of the boards, it is not the fact of disagreement that is the issue.

It is the manner of disagreement. Being a jerk about it makes it trolling or disruptive.

Thanks for the official word, and I hear you about manner vs. "the fact of disagreement" itself. My concern is that there seems to be a very fine line that is easy to cross, that sometimes "the fact of disagreement" is too quickly interpreted as trollish. But I recognize that it is an impossible task - not only moderation, but online communication in general.

 

[Umbran]

But I think that only goes so far, and we can't invalidate a perspective simply by saying "But they said it in a bad way, therefore I can ignore what they're saying, because it wasn't served just right."

So, if someone is speaking about the real harm they have taken, we should not be overly concerned about whether they are nice about it. We generally shouldn't police the tone of victims of racism or misogyny, or the like, when they are speaking on that subject.

But, if someone is asserting that they should not have to worry about harm they may be doing, they darned well ought to be nice about it!

 

[Irlo]

Again, saying you disagree with someone's interpretation is not "telling people they're not experiencing what they say they're experiencing." It is saying, "I disagree with your interpretation."

I agree! That's exactly what I'm saying. One can express disagreement without invalidating others' experience or impugning their motives.
It's not walking a tightrope. It's not complicated. And one won't be considered a troll or uninclusive. Win-win!

Examining oneself is a good rule of thumb for all of us, as is questioning one's assumptions. These are things that I do all the time. But just as you want others to examine themselves and come to a "better way to see things" (meaning, your way), so too should you do the same.

Let me clarify. Coming to a better way to see things does not mean coming to an agreement with me. It means coming to realize that people have experiences and opinions that are sincere and valid, that they're not "trying to be offended," etc. etc.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree! That's exactly what I'm saying. One can express disagreement without invalidating others' experience or impugning their motives.

Which is fine until and unless what you want to question and maybe even specifically disagree with are the perceived motives underlying whatever is being said, regardless what that might be or what point of view is being upheld.

I've had far far too much real-life experience with people - including so-called friends at the time - saying the right things for what turned out then or later to be the wrong reasons, to the point now where all too often my first thought on hearing or reading anything remotely political or 'sensitive' is "what's the motive here?".

In an online forum setting there's no body language or anything to indicate whether somebody is dissembling, all we have to go by are the words posted; and while taking those words at face value might seem like the proper thing to do, having been burned by doing so in person in the past causes me to want to reserve the right to question motives whenever my little alarm bells start going off.

Cynical? Oh, yes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In an online forum setting there's no body language or anything to indicate whether somebody is dissembling, all we have to go by are the words posted; and while taking those words at face value might seem like the proper thing to do, having been burned by doing so in person in the past causes me to want to reserve the right to question motives whenever my little alarm bells start going off.

And that lack of other information- such as body language- is why one must be especially cautious in being accusatory & confrontational in online discussions.

That doesn’t mean you need to set your cynicism and mistrust aside. But it DOES mean you may need to ask better questions before reaching conclusions about others’ hidden motives and positions just based on their postings on ENWorld, etc.

 

[Jahydin]

I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.

Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?

Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.

 

[TheSword]

I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.

Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?

Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.

I think that’s called Reddit…

 

[Jahydin]

I think that’s called Reddit…

Used to be!

r/DnD is locking threads left and right, haha.

Edit: Actually, lots of good discussions happening now.

 

[MNblockhead]

I would love to see "-" threads, where opinions on things could be shared in a non-safe space.

Let only people who sign up and opt in be able to see them? Maybe even block it form Google search engine bots?

Don't know, but would be cool to see everyone's unfiltered opinions on things.

Eh, there are other forums for this.

I would worry that the attitudes engendered, and communication habits developed, in such threads would inevitably bleed into other threads.