OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Kahuna Burger]

On threadcrapping, constructive disagreement and rutabaga candles

A few random thought/responses to this thread.

Threadcrapping - personally, I define threadcrapping not in language or tone used, but as a post which attacks the existance of the thread rather than addressing the subject. For instance, when a person starts a thread saying "How can I create a good weaning party ambiance without using rutabaga candles?" a response like "You can't of course, though Cafeteria Vegetablists like yourself have been making yourselves look silly trying for years," is threadcrapping, but so is "I use rutabaga candles" "Huh - why would you want to have a weaning party without rutabaga candles?" or a detailed thesis on the socially manufactured nature of ambiance. Threadcrapping, to me, is denying the validity of a discussion instead of participating in the discussion.

Which then goes to the point of whether "threadcrapping" is always bad. I mean, if the OP starts out with "Since everyone knows rutabaga candles are gross and they cause cancer, what are some good alternatives to use when the proles at my weaning party want a similar ambiance?" I don't think rutabaga candle fans should feel required to ignore flaws in the premise of the thread.

On the subject of disagreeing while still being civil, my suggestion has always been speak for yourself. Literally. Stick to stating your own opinions and expereinces, without universalizing them or setting up strawmen of the opposite position. For instance, "In no reasonable point of view can eggplant candles be seen as a substitute for rutabaga ones" adds nothing but attitude to the statement that you don't consider eggplant candles a good substitute. "Well of course eggplant candles are just as good, tradition is completely meaningless, don'tcha know, in fact we shouldn't even expect a weaning party to have a weaned chihuahua, you can do whatever you feel like it and call it a weaning party to get the snausages," is just an insulting strawman.

Some folks dislike IMO and such, but taking the effort to say "in my game", "for my group", or just "to me" makes all the difference in my read of a thread as being a discussion vs an argument.

A final note on the joys of "thick skins". If being willing to say "this person's behavior is making my time on the site less enjoyable and I think I have the right to bring that to the mods' attention" is thin skinned, so be it. I don't consider putting up with bad treatment a virtue, and all the "tattletale" "thin skinned" "kindergardener" et al in the world isn't going to make me ashamed of doing my part to keep the site one I enjoy being at. If the mods make it clear by their action or inaction that their vision of the site is different than mine, that is a cue I will take in a heartbeat, but if there are guidelines I think make the site better, you bet I'm going to report their infractions.

 

[billd91]

Again, I was answering Alex's question, not making a suggestion.

To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions legitimizes them.

Or is it your contention that, for example, Fred Phelps should be invited to the next Presidential debate to critique the merits of his opinions?

EDIT: That's it exactly, Alex!

Unfortunately, responding to them with ridicule doesn't exactly discourage them either. They just increase the heat alongside. After all, if the intent is to gather attention, responding to them with anything but the 3-day banhammer is only going to encourage them.
Responding in a civil manner at least helps you figure out the difference between the person who is just way off base or a complete jackass without accidentally becoming one yourself.

 

[tomBitonti]

Another way to do it in a forum environment is to say, "That's the stupidest ing thing I have ever heard," if, in fact, a particular post is the stupidest ing thing you have ever heard.

But that's not appropriate here, and not what I am suggesting.

I was simply answering Alex's question about why permissiveness and acceptance can encourage anti-social behavior (read here as "the public airing of really stupid ing opinions.")

"The public floggings will continue until morale improves."

Thanks, guys, those had me laughing out loud.

If I may add, what I am seeing is a problem of sparsity of real information about 4E, and as a result folks are forced into speculation or into simple reactions. Put another way, the intensity is a measure of the tension caused by the gap between what we know, and what we would like to know. (As a grognard with a large investment in the game, and in knowing all about it, I can say that that tension is coloring at least *my* attitude, and it gives me a vehicle to redirect any number of real stresses towards 4E.)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I might suggest that what can be done HAS just been done. About all you can really do is TELL people to calm down and be civil and then continue to ban those who are not, while possibly chastising (banning?) those who are calling in the mods rather than simply growing a skin.

Nobody NEEDS to be rude, even in responding to stupidity and insult. Learn to PROPERLY identify what is rude and insulting and respond APPROPRIATELY. Failure to do so should get you admonished and then banned. Stating contrary opinions does not in itself constitute being insulting. Stating contrary opinions also should not be done by BEING insulting or via threadcrapping. And people WILL come into your "Wahoo! 4E!" thread and express negative opinions. Be mature and learn to live with it. People will come into your "Doom! 4E is the END!" thread and tell you you're wrong. Simply doing so is not an inherent attack upon your parentage.

I think Henry actually has it exactly right. Now that the request has been publicly made for a return of civility the beatings should simply continue until morale improves (and don't be afraid to jump on those who are being too thin-skinned and misusing/abusing the moderators.)

 

[MojoGM]

Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random. Just grab any somewhat uncivil person you see, temp band them, make it public you temp banned them, and don't give any justification for why they deserved it more than the other somewhat uncivil people.

This is kind of how China accomplishes the almost impossible goal of censoring the internet. Rather than come up with an official list of bad sites, they arbitrarily send people to jail. This causes all the ISPs to very diligently self-censor.

The point is if there are clear lines you can always go right up to them and play around. If there aren't, and you know you could be punished unfairly, you'll stay as far away as you can.

I would think that would just drive people away.

People can't necessarily leave the country, the CAN go to another messageboard.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Some folks dislike IMO and such, but taking the effort to say "in my game", "for my group", or just "to me" makes all the difference in my read of a thread as being a discussion vs an argument.

I think I'm having a deja vu trip to a previous thread, but to me this should be implied. Unless a poster writes something that specifically targets me and my game, I assume they are talking about their own opinion or about their own experiences.

A final note on the joys of "thick skins". If being willing to say "this person's behavior is making my time on the site less enjoyable and I think I have the right to bring that to the mods' attention" is thin skinned, so be it. I don't consider putting up with bad treatment a virtue, and all the "tattletale" "thin skinned" "kindergardener" et al in the world isn't going to make me ashamed of doing my part to keep the site one I enjoy being at. If the mods make it clear by their action or inaction that their vision of the site is different than mine, that is a cue I will take in a heartbeat, but if there are guidelines I think make the site better, you bet I'm going to report their infractions.

But is a person's behavior against the rules, or are they just being annoying? The impression I'm getting is that there is a lot of post reporting going on for people being annoyed by somebody else's post because they have a strongly held, different opinion. That is overwhelming the Mods and making it more difficult for them to track down the posts that really are breaking the rules. It is the kids constantly calling for Mom and Dad to resolve what are even minor disputes - it gets really tiring and sometimes you end up ignoring a dispute until it blows up.

As for enjoyment of the site, I don't think that is a specific part of the rules. EN World is not here to provide anyone with a certain level of enjoyment. If someone is attacking you, or saying things that are generally regarded as offensive, that is one thing. If someone is just being annoying through snarky responses, or just not contributing to a thread, ignoring them is very effective, especially on a messageboard where you don't have to actually speak over them.

 

[MojoGM]

I might suggest that what can be done HAS just been done. About all you can really do is TELL people to calm down and be civil and then continue to ban those who are not, while possibly chastising (banning?) those who are calling in the mods rather than simply growing a skin.

Nobody NEEDS to be rude, even in responding to stupidity and insult. Learn to PROPERLY identify what is rude and insulting and respond APPROPRIATELY. Failure to do so should get you admonished and then banned. Stating contrary opinions does not in itself constitute being insulting. Stating contrary opinions also should not be done by BEING insulting or via threadcrapping. And people WILL come into your "Wahoo! 4E!" thread and express negative opinions. Be mature and learn to live with it. People will come into your "Doom! 4E is the END!" thread and tell you you're wrong. Simply doing so is not an inherent attack upon your parentage.

I agree 100%. As my low post count shows, I don't post too often. But I read the boards all day, so I see a lot of this. People should ignore the threadcrapper or rude post, and count on the mods to come along an delete it or ban the poster.

And if you DO choose to respond, do so in a civil manner, even if the original post was not.

Eventually the trolls will see that they don't get any traction and either stop being an ass or go elsewhere.

edit: just noticed my post count is 273 (274?) which may not be considered low, but I have been here since 2003, so averaged out that's not so many...

 

[Umbran]

To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions legitimizes them.

I am not convinced that this is true. However, unless you are personally perfect, and an objective authority on all things, uncivil response carries the great risk of itself being one of those truly obnoxious opinions. That, in fact, is the usual problem here. It is called escalation, and it does not make the place better.

Seems to me, Wulf, that you're basically talking about intimidating people into behaving. Around here, being rude back does not put people in their place so they shut up. That only works where you can exert your force of personality - and text-only media with high levels of distance and anonymity aren't good at that.

I note that folks are forgetting one possibility - we are discussing civil response and uncivil response. There's a third option: keeping your trap shut. When someone's truly obnoxious (or, in your opinion, stupid) you have the option of moving on and leaving it alone.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I note that folks are forgetting one possibility - we are discussing civil response and uncivil response. There's a third option: keeping your trap shut. When someone's truly obnoxious (or, in your opinion, stupid) you have the option of moving on and leaving it alone.

I agree, though I think that sometimes, this can be hard. Sometimes you really get ticked off, or sometimes you have a witty response you want to write. It's probably best to still let it be, even if it's hard.

If in doubt, it might be best to err on the side of caution and not post a response. Wait until you get a better feeling for the situation, and then act accordingly.

Oh, and if someone feels annoyed or tired by an discussion, it is probably best to stop posting. Maybe (if you can do so in a civil manner) write that you want to stop discussing. You might aim for a "agree to disagree" resolution here, but sometimes you just have to "decide to disagree".

On a side note:
While some discussions in the 4E forum became difficult, tiresome or heated, I also noted that a few of them sparked a lot of creativity and thinking in me (more so then before), and I think that this alone might be worthy the negative things we encountered.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Seems to me, Wulf, that you're basically talking about intimidating people into behaving.

That's correct. It also happens to be the basis of all civilization, so I have that going for me.

Around here, being rude back does not put people in their place so they shut up.

It's fortunate, then, that I wasn't making any suggestion at all about how to behave around here. I was explaining to Alex how permissiveness and acceptance can encourage anti-social behavior. Third time's the charm, I hope.