When disagreeing…

[Umbran]

Problem with that is it’s so well known now that everybody knows you’re doing it, which makes it worse instead of better.

Well, when amateurs do it, sure. When the technique is used superficially, to fob people off with plausible deniability of being a complete jerk about it, it can make things worse.

When you are actively listening, actually respectful and thoughtful, and care about the fact that you are speaking with a fellow human being whose feelings matter, it can be a useful technique. If you are doing it because you actually want to turn a potentially negative interaction into something constructive, it can do the job.

Basically, the positive portions of the statement have to be sincere.

 

[Umbran]

What do they call the employee discipline technique; the Oreo, sandwich? You give a compliment between the negatives.

I know the technique as the "cr@p sandwich". And it is sandwiching the cr@p between two positive things. When the cr@p outnumbers the good things... it's just a pile of cr@p.

 

[rredmond]

Modding at other boards I always try to recommend not using “you” or even “I” if you can help it. Just disagree without getting personal.

 

[Belen]

I just start off saying “I disagree.”

 

[Theory of Games]

How 'bout, "You seem smart but your ideas are awful"? Seems low-impact enough.

I disagree with people who jump-start threads from ten years ago.

 

[sevenbastard]

I just keep harassing the DM until he let's me use my strength modifier on my persuasion roll even though it's an internet post.

 

[Lanefan]

I just keep harassing the DM until he let's me use my strength modifier on my persuasion roll even though it's an internet post.

Fair enough, though it'll get expensive having to replace the monitors you keep punching holes in.

 

[cranberry]

It really isn't hard to politely disagree.

But the anonymity of the internet allows people to be jerks.

On this site, it seems to mostly take the form of arrogance and condescension directed at the person who is "wrong".

 

[SlyFlourish]

For me, a real game changer is recognizing the difference between a fact and a preference.

Game X sucks is very different than Game X isn’t for me.

“not for me” is a powerful way to recognize that others can still like something even though we don’t. And, of course, instead of having to put “not for me” on everything we don’t like, we can simply keep our mouths shut and let people enjoy what they enjoy.

That doesn’t work for everything, of course. Sometimes a topic isn’t about preference but about some larger truth. In some of these cases, when we run across someone who disagrees with our assessment of the truth, we can ask whether it matters at all if we do or don’t convince them. What’s our real point and impact? Sometimes it’s to help inform others even if we don’t convince the one we’re talking to and that’s valuable. But debate is often just debate. We’re very unlikely to change someone’s mind and if we do, so what?

 

[CellarHeroes]

I have always tried to interact with people online the same way I would if they were sitting across from me at a bar.

Another rule I've given myself is to walk away for 24 hours when I post a disagreement with an idea. It allows me to compile the replies, figure out which replies aren't even worth replying to, and maybe even alter my stance based on new information (I may be old, but I'm not hard-nosed). This helps with just releasing a tirade of knee-jerk reactions.