"Nerd Rage" = Thinly-Veiled Flamebait

[Felon]

Quite possibly. In which case, it would be just the same as "dumbing down". Or "videogamey". Or "rollplaying not roleplaying". Or....



"I'm not being rude to you, just saying rude things about what you like" does not seem that far removed from the above. And if you don't feel insulted by it, there's no reason you should be insulted by nerd rage either; they're both similarly distanced.

No, they are not similary distanced. I can be derisive towards General Motors without any inherent derision towards people who drive a GM. I could even belittle a specific model of car without any inherent disdain towards those who drive that model.

Of course, it's possible to couch such derision so that there's explicit or implicit derision towards GM owners. It's also possible that some people are so fond of the GM brand that they regard any derision towards the brand as a personal attack. Similar scenarios exist for brands of video game consoles, sports teams, alma maters--you name it. There's a middle ground where the speaker has some onus to be considerate of people who are passionate about the subject, and the listener likewise has some onus to separate his identity from a subject that actually has no inherent connection to him.

However, feelings and opinions are integral to a person, and there's not much middle ground therein. To belittle them is to belittle the person possessing them.

 

[hong]

No, they are not similary distanced. I can be derisive towards General Motors without any inherent derision towards people who drive a GM. I could even belittle a specific model of car without any inherent disdain towards those who drive that model.

The fact that you are on a board where ppl can nerdrage about some pdfs being withdrawn should point you to the flaw in that analogy.

 

[Felon]

The fact that you are on a board where ppl can nerdrage about some pdfs being withdrawn should point you to the flaw in that analogy.

There might be a flaw if the paragraph you quoted was the only one issued, but the ones following it actually do address the distinction between a slight that's explicit and a slight that's the result of not being able to separate your personage from things that are peripheral to it.

 

[hong]

There might be a flaw if the paragraph you quoted was the only one issued, but the ones following it actually do address the distinction between a slight that's explicit and a slight that's the result of not being able to separate your personage from things that are peripheral to it.

There is no difference. You are not your opinion. Calling your opinion wrong, or your reasoning process invalid, does not constitute a personal attack. It might be undiplomatic or disrespectful, but there is no blanket ban on undiplomatic or disrespectful language, if only because defining this would be problematic.

 

[Felon]

There is no difference. You are not your opinion. Calling your opinion wrong, or your reasoning process invalid, does not constitute a personal attack. It might be undiplomatic or disrespectful, but there is no blanket ban on undiplomatic or disrespectful language, if only because defining this would be problematic.

"Wrong" and "invalid" are not slurs intended to inflame. "Nerdrage" is. I can definitely think of plenty of words that would get you banned in a heartbeat, and they don't have to be part of a formal blanket ban list.

 

[Umbran]

...but there is no blanket ban on undiplomatic or disrespectful language, if only because defining this would be problematic.

But, on the other hand, much of what we have to moderate is, in fact, people being disrespectful and/or undiplomatic.

The difference between something being derisive or not is a matter of degree and context. I would be hard pressed to imagine a use of "nerdrage" to describe the behavior of another poster such that it was not either derisive or dismissive and personal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But, on the other hand, much of what we have to moderate is, in fact, people being disrespectful and/or undiplomatic.

The difference between something being derisive or not is a matter of degree and context. I would be hard pressed to imagine a use of "nerdrage" to describe the behavior of another poster such that it was not either derisive or dismissive and personal.

Dumbed Down, Rollplaying or Nerdrage are all typically used or can be easily understood as insulting.

If someone feels insulted, and insulted enough to call on the mods, it needs to be dealt with.

No need to ban any words for it.

"I've tried to get into chess, but it's a little to complex for my tastes and parties seem to take too long. Is there some kind of "dumbed down" game I could play instead on the board?"
"Sure, you could try checkers."

"I played chess a lot, but I eventually found that checkers is way faster and more fun."
"Basically, Checkers is a dumbed down version of chess."

"I feel nerdrage building up in me about people restricting my vocubulary. I try to be constructive, but... Arrgh. Someone feels the same way? "

"I love roll-playing. Really, if I don't get to roll the dice, what's the point of having mechanics and a character sheet? "

 

[Mistwell]

Give me a way of concisely expressing my distaste for overly emotional exaggerated reactions to WOTC actions. I don't care if the term is nerd rage or something else. But I should be able to, along with others, use relatively polite but clear and firm written public peer pressure to try and persuade people to stop behaving like drama queens every time someone at WOTC does something different from what they did the day before.

 

[Mark]

drama queens

Yup. That helps things along. Well done.

 

[Mistwell]

Yup. That helps things along. Well done.

I am not dismissing any group of people as drama queens.

However, I am saying SOME individuals have reacted as drama queens, and I think it's disingenuous to deny that. And, I am saying there should be some relatively POLITE means of exerting peer pressure on those folks to try and tone it down, aside from the mods.

The phrase "Nerd Rage" was one means of doing that, but if folks think it was not polite enough sometimes, then fair enough. I'm just saying, leave some reasonable means of applying that peer pressure in an effective yet polite manner.

The community should not all have to sink to the lowest common denominator to completely accept and tolerate a couple of individuals who overreact to news in such an egregious manner that it distracts whole threads into a spiral of arguments. On some level, the community should be able to react in a relatively polite manner to try and discourage that sort of stuff, aside from moderators, through normal communal peer pressure.

A little playful and relatively polite teasing to demonstrate that perhaps someone is overreacting a bit can go a long way to helping with that sort of stuff. It can sometimes function better than a moderator intervening and leaving someone feeling even more isolated and likely to express a sense of unfairness towards the moderators.