log in or register to remove this ad

 

Why are D&D discussions so angry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

big dummy

First Post
Storm Raven said:
Which makes your statement basically navel gazing and pointless. Saying "reform" without saying what needs reform and why is a worthless statement. You need a direction to aim at, and without that,. you can yell all you want about how things need to change and you won't find anyone who agrees with you.

Lol. It is not pointless if that is what you are discussing, (which was the original point of the thread.) Perhaps you mean that it's "useless" because you can't think of any logical argument against it....

And? You talk about "reform" like it is some sort of goal in and of itself. Talking about things "in the abstract" is about as useful and productive an activity as wrestling with your own shadow. Reform is something that needs to be directed towards a goal.

No matter how many times you say it or how many belittling analogies you make, yes there is a point thats why this whole thread has gone on for so many posts.

And? Does it have to change?

Yes because WOTC has to sell books!

BD ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

prosfilaes

Adventurer
big dummy said:
3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)

4) People who are just playing around.

I respect the #1 and have heard enough of #2 to be encouraging and make it worth while to have started the thread. #4 is no problem. (and I don't mind being called 'dummy' in the least) As for #3, I can't say what I think about them because forum etiquette prevents me, but they are hardly unexpected.

It's funny; I don't think I've seen a reasonable poster who have a large problem with #3.
 

big dummy

First Post
prosfilaes said:
"!!!" seems a bit of an overreaction to me. I will join the others in pointing out that it's not an objective point of view at all; it's your point of view.

Frankly, it doesn't seem the least bit abnormal to me. Soccer fans will actually riot over their games, and two great physicists of the 20th century wrote thier greatest papers as a pair, and broke up over who should have their name first on the paper. People have got killed over what seem to me to be trivial differences in fundamentally the same religious beliefs. Goedel's first words upon meeting another mathematian was "I know of your work and consider it harmful", over an issue that would be incomprehensible to most people with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Concerns about things that others would consider trivial or incomprehensible seem part of the human condition.

Arguments on a message board getting heated seems relatively calm and subnormal.

Ok granted, in the overall history of human folly, this ranks fairly low. But it's still folly, does that make it a good thing?

BD
 

big dummy

First Post
prosfilaes said:
It's funny; I don't think I've seen a reasonable poster who have a large problem with #3.

I do. Raven Crowking strikes me as extremely reasonable and polite (and a lot less blunt than I am) and he seems to be harassed quite a bit, albiet perhaps less blatantly. He's just one of many I've noticed.

I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.


BD
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
big dummy said:
Ok granted, in the overall history of human folly, this ranks fairly low. But it's still folly, does that make it a good thing?

So you're asking everyone else to have the patience of Ghandi?

I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.

I think it's provable that humans respond first to the tone, and most strongly to the tone.
 

James Heard

Explorer
big dummy said:
I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.
Maybe it does, but the tone determines whether or not people think you're worth listening to. I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions - it's because I don't value what they have to say. If people think you're an aggressive confrontational person who doesn't listen to reasonable things when they're said back to them then they'll just ignore you and that pretty much ruins the purpose of an internet forum. As you said, with all respect due.
 

ThirdWizard

First Post
big dummy said:
I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.

Now, I don't want you to take this the wrong way (;)) but I'm curious, and it could be a help to the conversation and understanding your position. Might you have Asperger's syndrome? Feel free to ignore the question if you think its an irrelevant tangent or whatnot.

big dummy said:
Lol. It is not pointless if that is what you are discussing, (which was the original point of the thread.) Perhaps you mean that it's "useless" because you can't think of any logical argument against it....

Think of it like this. How far can a discussion go if the thread is simply about the merits of change in an ambiguous context of existance? If people don't have something concrete to talk about, or at least latch onto, then a discussion has very little merit in and of itself. A discussion about whether or not D&D should change with no qualifiers beyond "change" will either go one of two ways.

Firstly, it could simply be a pointless agreement with the eventual change of the game or agreement with the game never changing. Either way, there's no discussion, its just an endless "me too" posting until nobody feels like saying "me too" anymore.

Secondly, people could disagree. But, since they have nothing to latch onto, they end up not really saying anything at all. Discussion how you think D&D might change might be interesting, but if you can't talk about how, then what's left? What's to keep the conversation running?

big dummy said:
I do. Raven Crowking strikes me as extremely reasonable and polite (and a lot less blunt than I am) and he seems to be harassed quite a bit, albiet perhaps less blatantly. He's just one of many I've noticed.

As someone who has "harassed" Raven in the past, I have to say that I still like the guy. He often takes an opposing stance to things and sticks to his guns no matter how many people are against him in a debate. I don't think that constitutes harassment, though. People disagree, they debate/argue for pages upon pages of threads, and yeah sometimes things can get heated at times. But, I don't think that these discussions are personal, and I certainly don't remember any personal attacks (or at least egregious ones).

If you think harassment is taking place, perhaps you need to take a step back for a bit. Debate is rife with conflict, and debate is going to be a big part of the forums and especially the long posts on the forums. It doesn't mean the posters don't like each other. It's just the nature of the beast.
 

big dummy

First Post
James Heard said:
I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions -

ROFL!!!!!! Woah!!!! Ok you got me there. Thats funny as ... thats funnier than i can fairly describe here. Damn. Good one. I'm serious. I love that. New Sig.

You got me, I give up. I'm going to try not to come across like a crack addict.

BD
 

big dummy

First Post
ThirdWizard said:
Might you have Asperger's syndrome? Feel free to ignore the question if you think its an irrelevant tangent or whatnot.

You got me, i don't know what that is.

Think of it like this. How far can a discussion go if the thread is simply about the merits of change

Man, I'm trying hard not to be sarcastic.... must...not....be...sarcastic.

Whew!! That was close.

Man you have no idea how close.

LOL!

Ok, calm down big dummy. Don't want to come across like a crack head.



This thread is pretty much about change in the abstract sense, specifically whether or not it can be discussed here and on other D&D forums, regardless of the specific type of change. Whatever else you want to say about it, this has been a fairly rich discussion. I know I learned a lot. Among other things I learned that several people including the guy i was arguing with in the post you are responding to ARE against change in the abstract. That is rather amazing. More specifically I've learned that a lot of people are against the very existence of a 4th edition of D&D, which is also somewhat incredible to me.

I'm essentially an engineer in my job. As an engineer, you learn to keep simplifying a given system until you can find the nature of the problem. I think I'm getting close, finally to understanding this one.

BD
 

Piratecat

Writing Fantasy Gumshoe!
big dummy said:
Piratecat said:
To everyone: If you're a poster who finds that most threads you participate in break down into fights, it's quite possible that you're feeding that pattern. Breaking away from your pugnacious tendencies and being deliberately non-aggressive can really help in those cases. If you aren't trying to prove something, arguments usually don't occur.
So you are supposed to have the patience of Ghandi i guess. It's asking for a lot piratecat.
No, it's not. This is one of the basic rules of human interaction, as useful at home and work as it is on the internet. 95% of people on this site do it automatically, as do I, and I'm hardly Ghandi.

More importantly, this isn't optional. It's mandatory. As moderators, we periodically cut people loose when they've consistently proven that they can't keep their temper or be polite. That's just about as true for subtle sniping as it is more outright profanity and insolence. If a person is going to pick fights, this isn't the right place for them.

I sometimes remind myself that no one has a God-given right to hang out at EN World; we're all here at Morrus' forebearance, really, and its the job of the moderators to ease out the people who just can't consistently play well with others. Jabs like the "with all due respect" are a good example of behavior I detest. I don't care if you stare at the computer screen and call the other person names, but being a jerk to them on the boards just isn't okay.

I've addressed this .... seemingly off topic.... seeemingly intentionally off topic thing about the bloody baby, and the (whether intentionally or not) switcharoo between the idea of reform in general vs. my alleged specific ideas several times, and people keep throwing it in my face. And I'm the one who is wrong for getting just the slightest bit sarcastic?
Yes. Each of us is responsible for our own posts. No one else. You can not lay blame for your own inflammatory posts at someone else's feet. Is someone trying to derail your thread? Ignore them. If you respond to them at all, you give their derailment credibility. If you rise to the bait and are rude to them, doubly so.

Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators? Isn't there at least supposed to be some kind of effort to keep things on topic?
That effort is generated by the people posting in the thread. Want it to stay on topic? Only respond with on topic posts. Threads are living, breathing conversations -- and they're "about" whatever is talked about the most in them. If you talk about a hijacking, you're actually contributing to it.
 
Last edited:

big dummy

First Post
ThirdWizard said:
If you think harassment is taking place, perhaps you need to take a step back for a bit. Debate is rife with conflict, and debate is going to be a big part of the forums and especially the long posts on the forums. It doesn't mean the posters don't like each other. It's just the nature of the beast.

I can take harassment of me. I'm a BIG boy. I have seen reasonable debate of positions. I also have seen certian people (not you) picking on other people like Raven who are very polite, and even shutting down his threads by constant derailments and segues. I will report these incidents more often in the future.

BD
 

ThirdWizard

First Post
big dummy said:
You got me, i don't know what that is.

It's where someone has trouble reading others in social situations and thus generally ignores most social markers. Those with aspergers generally tend not to care for social niceties and are very literal in their approach to others. They tend to ignore subtle social cues that others take for granted and come at conversations and interactions in a very matter-of-fact mannar.

big dummy said:
This thread is pretty much about change in the abstract sense, specifically whether or not it can be discussed here and on other D&D forums, regardless of the specific type of change.

Ahhh, no that's not what I consider this thread to be about. This thread is about the feelings of ENWorlders toward certain topics and whether or not they can be discussed civily in this forum. It isn't about change in an abstract way, it is about discussion itself. So, when you brought up "change" as a topic of discussion, I had no idea you were actually talking about this thread.

Among other things I learned that several people including the guy i was arguing with in the post you are responding to ARE against change in the abstract.

I can almost gurantee you that noone posting in this thread is against change in the abstract. Noone.
 



big dummy

First Post
Ok, well, I've learned what I wanted to learn. One thing I've noticed is that the most constructive, insightful posters (in my opinion, of course) usually make their remarks and then back out. Most of them in this thread already did so a page or two back. I think the constructive discussion in this thread has already taken place. So i'm outty.

BD
 

James Heard

Explorer
big dummy said:
what tends to really push my buttons is when people stubbornly keep pushing a thread off topic, usually by making what seem to be extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what I've said repeatedly and then sticking to it like tar, while trying to pick one of these fights over semantics.
One, "extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what you say" isn't the fault of other people in general - it's your fault for not stating what you say in such a way that there can be no disagreement over what you actually say.

Two, people "stick to mistakes like tar" because they're really trying to establish a compromise in their communication with you despite your incorrect communications that allows some middle ground of trust - very few people are arguing just because they don't like your screen name and you've really not been posting here long enough to established long term disagreements. You're mistaking people seeking to prompt you to state something in a way that doesn't stop communication with some sort of hostile intent. That's a little paranoid to be comfortable with talking with strangers I think.

Third, semantic arguments are the nature of written communication where precision is established by semantics and not by body language. Debate over meaning is entirely appropriate, when meaning is the issue at hand even by your own admission. If you don't want to argue semantics then everything you say should be absolutely clear in context, intent, and content. That you believe those things to be true of your communication is irrelevant, because the communicator is only half of any message. The message must be recieved properly or else simply transmitting information is absolutely meaningless.

To restate this: If you think you're being clear and people say that you're saying something you think you aren't, then the problem isn't with them - you're the one trying to communicate. The listener is passive. That's why tailoring messages to your audience is so crucial. Getting into a hissy about not communicating well and then communicating worse is awful form though.

Anyways, semantics should be perfectable acceptable unless someone's just being a jerk about it - which for the most part only includes typo grammarians, grammar nazis, and deliberate trolls. None of which I'm seeing here, except perhaps in the fact with dozens of examples of people showing you post after post that they're willing to listen to what you have to say the continued repetition and repudiation of those examples in an almost deliberate misinterpretation and rejection of what should be a pretty clear message by now.
big dummy said:
Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators?
For what? Unless they're rude, harrassing, or spam it's really not against the rules. I know it has something to do with your perception that ENWorld is a hostile and mean place, but I know that's not true because I've not seen it myself and for the most part I hear most people saying the exact opposite. Instead, you're the one coming across as hostile. Are other posters being argumentative? Sure. But there's a difference between being argumentative and being hostile. Are some of the posters talking about other things than in the thread title? That's the great thing about internet forums - it lacks a focused message because people aren't obliged to sit passively and listen but are compelled to participate.
big dummy said:
. You are apparently never allowed to have any kind of discussion of general reform of D&D. You can of course address highly specific problems such as with this or that spell or this or that feat, especially if they are deemed to be balance problems. If you are discussing something a bit more broad, you will be shouted down and / or your thread will be attacked by kamikaze flamers / baiters.
Make no mistake about it, with your unqualified "never" you just personified anyone who replies in the negative to you with an assumption of a broad spectrum of behavior. That's aggressive and impolite, it's a troll and it's rude.
Primitive Screwhead said:
However, stating opinions as definitive fact does need to be avoided as this leads to arguments... and even then you have to take the context of the statement.
big dummy said:
If I've done that, please show me where.
Ok, just remember that I'm repeating your words and that you asked.
big dummy said:
Why is it that any time any discussion about D&D comes up which could even remotely somehow be construed as some kind of criticism of D&D as-is, a select few of the forum regulars swoop down with such venomous, vicious spiteful attacks to shut it down?"
Statement of opinion as fact. Very many people have stated over an over again that this is a perception and assumption on your part, therefore opinion and a gross mischaracterization of your fellow community members.
big dummy said:
Anyone who knows these forums knows that unless you are ready for a big fight, to avoid a WIDE swath of subjects, or else face the near certainty that your thread will be hijacked (as mine recently was) into a completely off-topic diatribe of insults and vicious demands to "love it or leave it" until the temperature of the "debate" inevitably gets hot enough that the moderators shut the thread down, which is exactly what the attackers want from the start.
Statement of opinion in context as fact. While it's true that threads about many different subjects are closed out of hand, those subjects are clearly defined in the forum rules. Religion and politics are indeed wide swaths of subjects, but it's obvious from context you are attempting to place other subjects under this umbrella and that's an opinion. Furthermore I challenge the idea that "anyone who knows these forums" knows what you proclaim to know. Some people might know this, but not everyone, else everyone would likely be a critical and dissatisfied as yourself.
big dummy said:
The net result is a de-facto censorship. This is in many ways a great forum, but there cannot be any rational discussion about anything real about D&D in here in terms of improving it in any way or addressing anything but techincal or balance problems. Anything else will instantly turn into an all-or-nothing debate about D&D.
Statement of opinion as fact. People challenge this and it's subjective, therefore it's opinion. People discuss all sorts of things in here regarding D&D in terms of things other than technical or balance issues. People discuss things besides D&D here. People discuss their children and divorces here, and their illnesses and deaths in the family. If there is some great conspiracy on topics resulting in censorship it's only in that Eric made it right from the start so that we'd only have a few things to argue about and that everyone should refrain from swearing like sailors.
big dummy said:
Why does a role playing game bring out such intense feelings of hostility? What is it about D&D that makes people to devote hours to willing to insult and ridicule complete strangers? What is the ultimate effect of this self-censorship and passive aggression on the game itself?
The questions themselves hinge upon opinions and assumptions that may or may not be true. Therefore their bald nature makes statements. It's like asking someone "How long have you been cheating on your wife, and how come you're always lying to me and being a jerk?" There are explicit statements backing up those sorts of questions, and those statements in this case are subjective and therefore opinion.

And, since you did all of that in the FIRST POST it's going to color the whole thread because it establishes the tone of how people will respond to you. Even if you vetted out your entire opinion with qualifiers people would likely disagree with you, but stating your opinion as facts right from the get go establishes a confrontational tone and how people are going to respond to you. Note: I'm not saying that this somehow "forces" people to react to you in a certain way, but in my younger days I've been known to punch people without thinking about it just for their tone. That is to say, it's instinctual. Language is about tone, probably because we developed body language and tone long before we developed language.

Again, if you show your teeth and assume everyone's out to bite you then generally you get bit, or else on the lovely internet everyone eventually just bans you or sets you to ignore - the ultimate social castration.
 


I am actually impressed that this thread, which has tottered dangerously close to thread closing verbal repartee, is still going and relativley usefull..

Just wondering tho..what empirical evidence led to this?
big dummy said:
More specifically I've learned that a lot of people are against the very existence of a 4th edition of D&D...
I have not seen anything in this thread that even hints at this.


Opinions as definitive fact, from the first post
big dummy said:
Anyone who knows these forums knows that unless you are ready for a big fight, to avoid a WIDE swath of subjects, or else face the near certainty that your thread will be hijacked (as mine recently was) into a completely off-topic diatribe of insults and vicious demands to "love it or leave it" until the temperature of the "debate" inevitably gets hot enough that the moderators shut the thread down, which is exactly what the attackers want from the start.

The net result is a de-facto censorship.

Of your 4 consistant reactions:
1) People who are polite but frame their answers in terms of general forum etiquette rules and do not recognize any particular problem with ENworld or with D&D forums."
Assuming of course, that there is a particular problem instead of one systemic of messageboards in general... {and yes, there are some interesting folks to debate with here..}

2) People who agree with me and have some very insightful if depressing answers as to why things are getting the way they are.
Some of the posters who agreed with you also stood out, in my mind, to be the very kind of posters you are decrying...

3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)
I kinda fall into this, altho I would say instead I disagree with you and want you to beleive that posting habits similar to what you have presented in this thread are a problem.

4) People who are just playing around.
These are the fun guys!

I have debated, rather heatedly, with Raven Crowking, ThirdWizard, and many others on this thread. Actually its in these threads that I gained respect for them.

YMMV
 

Felix

Explorer
Primitive Screwhead said:
I have not seen anything in this thread that even hints at this.
Possibly he refers to some of the Poll threads plumbing the interest or desire for a 4th edition, in which some folks do indeed say they would not be interested in a 4th edition in any way.

But no, that has not been the case in this thread. I think he refers to other threads.

Nightfall said:
I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!
"Are these Nazis, Walter?"
"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."
 
Last edited:


Status
Not open for further replies.

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top