| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is 100% correct.
If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong.
And I would say "you're doing it wrong" is a confrontational response rather than a response trying to understand why the person is doing it that way.
You don't teach people better discussion skills by simple negation of what they are doing. You can help them learn better discussion skills by showing them a different way.
But a flat 'if you do this, you are wrong' doesn't help anyone learn anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games."
Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem."
Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."
This definitely happens and we could all learn to be nicer about how we word things. That said, it's tough to go very far with anecdotal evidence unless it's from a truly huge group of people for manifold reasons. You just can't verify personal accounts because memory is awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though it's certainly possible that the reason you can't explain your opponent's argument to their satisfaction is because they're explaining it badly. Or because they're arguing in bad faith.
Or perhaps you simply misunderstand, but do so in good faith.
I have on occasion attempted to restate someone else's argument as best I understood it and been accused of putting words in their mouth.
Of course.
But then you can just try again. If the other party is arguing in good faith, they will be open to this. If they're aren't, well then they just outed themselves, didn't they? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games."
Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem."
Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."
some days, I could kiss you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is 100% correct.
If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong.
And I would say "you're doing it wrong" is a confrontational response rather than a response trying to understand why the person is doing it that way.
You don't teach people better discussion skills by simple negation of what they are doing. You can help them learn better discussion skills by showing them a different way.
But a flat 'if you do this, you are wrong' doesn't help anyone learn anything.
Wow, that's too meta. Seriously, though, you have a point. If the goal is to change people's behavior, I should probably avoid that sort of language.
But here's the thing: The older I get, the less I engage with people. Because the older I get, the easier it is for me to tell when people want a conversation (rarely) and when they want a fight (almost always). The unfortunate truth is that many (most?) people simply aren't worth interacting with, and a refusal to even try to understand the other guy's position is a big red flag. More than once I've taken the time to understand someone's argument to their satisfaction, but when I've asked them to pay me the same courtesy, they reply with "why should I want to understand your argument? It's stupid." Never mind that they just admitted they didn't understand the thing they were rallying against, but they've demonstrated that real communication was never the goal.
To me, that really is simply doing it wrong.
TDLR; Lots of people just want to win, and anything that lets an old curmudgeon like me quickly identify (and subsequently avoid) those people -- like them arguing in bad faith -- is a win. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games."
Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem."
Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."
Mind if I quote this the next time I'm in a thread where "X" is the caster-martial disparity? That seems to be where I most often see what you're describing.
You don't teach people better discussion skills by simple negation of what they are doing. You can help them learn better discussion skills by showing them a different way.
But a flat 'if you do this, you are wrong' doesn't help anyone learn anything.
I agree with your general point, but you've misapplied it. He didn't say "If you do this, you are wrong"; he said "If you can't do this, you are wrong". That actually makes a huge difference in the context of your point about mere negation versus showing the person a different way.
When the thing being labeled as "wrong" is specifically to NOT do X, then the directive is quite clear: start doing X. The speaker in this case is absolutely "showing them a different way" (in this case, the "different way" he's showing the reader is "make sure you're able to summarize/describe the other person's point").
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons most people's arguments are ineffective is that they don't provide a path for those they talk to travel from their current opinion to the new one.
Some opinion can be foolish or insane, in either reality or in our own view. Noone likes the idea of seeming to provide grounds for a irrational person and many are truly unlikely to give us the same curtesy. Plato and his mentor Socrates were masters of enduring some pretty (to us) silly opinions and then leading people to thier own point of view. After all, if a person can't be lead to your oint of view, what is the point in responding to them in the first place?
As an example, assume you come across someone how believes something unreasonable - like that Mountain Dew is better for growing plants than normal water:
You start with stating their case in good faith. PepsiCo states that Mountain Dew is what plants crave. I can see that some liquids would be beneficial when used in addition to/or in place of water.This is so they will be able to start at their current position - if they feel you haven't listened to their opinion or have misunderstood it they will tune it out instead of considering your arguments.
You then provide them a path to consider towards your opinion. But isn't Mountain Dew acidic? Are plants evolved to absorb water? Since they are already started from their argument they are mentally forced to make the connection to your questions and consider them.
You can then make your case - answering your own questions and have the best chance of getting them to consider your point of view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your general point, but you've misapplied it. He didn't say "If you do this, you are wrong"; he said "If you can't do this, you are wrong". That actually makes a huge difference in the context of your point about mere negation versus showing the person a different way.
<snip>
When the thing being labeled as "wrong" is specifically to NOT do X, then the directive is quite clear: start doing X.
I don't think you can use "If you can't do (skill), then you are (negative label)" to teach someone a better way to do something.
Either phrasing ("If you do (skill) you are (negative label)") or ("If you can't do (skill) you are (negative label)") puts the other person on the defensive.
If you believe something is a skill that can be learned you provide guidance, using suggestions and examples. Harkevich's post explains this: they don't provide a path for those they talk to travel from their current opinion to the new one.
Simply telling them they are wrong doesn't provide that guidance.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your general point, but you've misapplied it. He didn't say "If you do this, you are wrong"; he said "If you can't do this, you are wrong". That actually makes a huge difference in the context of your point about mere negation versus showing the person a different way.
<snip>
When the thing being labeled as "wrong" is specifically to NOT do X, then the directive is quite clear: start doing X.I don't think you can use "If you can't do (skill), then you are (negative label)" to teach someone a better way to do something.
Either phrasing ("If you do (skill) you are (negative label)") or ("If you can't do (skill) you are (negative label)") puts the other person on the defensive.
If you believe something is a skill that can be learned you provide guidance, using suggestions and examples. Harkevich's post explains this: they don't provide a path for those they talk to travel from their current opinion to the new one.
Simply telling them they are wrong doesn't provide that guidance.
"You are wrong" was your phrase, not his. (I should've made that distinction in my previous reply, but missed it. My bad.) He said "you're doing it wrong", which is criticism against the correctness of a course of action. That's very different from a negative label being applied to a person.
So in summary, you were confronted with "If X isn't part of your process, then your process is flawed" and you equated it to (and judged it as) "If you do X, then you are [negative label]".
Those are two VERY different things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though it's certainly possible that the reason you can't explain your opponent's argument to their satisfaction is because they're explaining it badly. Or because they're arguing in bad faith.The OP is 100% correct.
If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong. If it would never even occur to you to try...
Or just because their argument has no logical consistency.
One of my favorite examples went something like, 'Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Therefor it cannot possibly have any significant impact on the planet. Also, without it there would be no plants!'
Basically, it is simply impossible to present a plainly wrong / incoherent / self-contradictory position in a favorable light. They may very well be 'arguing in good faith'... in that they believe the nonsense they are spouting (usually parroted from some other source) is valid because they haven't ever thought it through. However, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though it's certainly possible that the reason you can't explain your opponent's argument to their satisfaction is because they're explaining it badly. Or because they're arguing in bad faith.The OP is 100% correct.
If you can't explain your opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong. If it would never even occur to you to try...
Or just because their argument has no logical consistency.
One of my favorite examples went something like, 'Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Therefor it cannot possibly have any significant impact on the planet. Also, without it there would be no plants!'
Basically, it is simply impossible to present a plainly wrong / incoherent / self-contradictory position in a favorable light. They may very well be 'arguing in good faith'... in that they believe the nonsense they are spouting (usually parroted from some other source) is valid because they haven't ever thought it through. However, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
I suspect that in such a case, "arguing in good faith" would be something like asking them to break down how they connect the dots in their own argument, pointing out where you're not seeing a connection between A and B and asking them to fill in the gap, and so forth; as opposed to "arguing in bad faith", which I'm thinking might mean things like accusing them of trolling, assigning motives, or declaring that they're obviously just a hopeless stupid republican optimizer or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are two VERY different things.
Yes, I misinterpreted "you're doing it wrong" as the negative internet slang for 'you're wrong'.
When you interpreted it literally as a comment on a process, it means something different.
Nonetheless, negative feedback that does not also include suggestions on how to change the process is less useful for someone who wants to change than feedback that includes suggestions and guidance.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are two VERY different things.Yes, I misinterpreted "you're doing it wrong" as the negative internet slang for 'you're wrong'.
When you interpreted it literally as a comment on a process, it means something different.
Uh, I think the internet slang is itself also a comment on a process, rather than a label on a person. Last I was aware, the "ur doin it wrong" meme was a response to someone performing some sort of activity incorrectly. For example, I recall an image of a man with his face pressed painfully into the trunk of a palm tree with the caption "Facepalm: You're doing it wrong." Even as a joke, it's a comment on the incorrect performance of an activity (facepalming) rather than a label for the person.
I can't actually think of any examples I've seen of the "doing it wrong" internet slang being applied to a person rather than the execution of an activity. Can you? It'd be news to me if that meme had changed direction so drastically.
Nonetheless, negative feedback that does not also include suggestions on how to change the process is less useful for someone who wants to change than feedback that includes suggestions and guidance.
I agree with this general statement. :)
And if you start dismissing them after seeing a few of these passes, it looks to anyone not paying close attention that you're the one arguing in bad faith.
That might be a good time to stop "dismissing" them and start ignoring them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]Sometimes works. Sometimes worth dismantling their lines for the sake of others in the discussion.
Always good to have a Paladin in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble with this whole discussion is that arguing in good faith, as the OP defined it, is a really great way to work when everyone's doing it. When one party isn't interested in good faith, it's a losing game. Arguing in good faith is how evolutionists get destroyed in debates with creationists, for example. On the internet we call it "feeding the trolls". The key is recognizing when the other party isn't interested in a real discussion.
I agree with you when the goal is winning a fight (such as in refuting creationists).
I would argue that in an RPG rules discussion there often isn't such a goal - it's more discussing a controversial area of the rules (inevitable, given the looseness and incompleteness of any RPG ruleset and the various different ways in which we utilise those rules). In fact, I think that one reasonable motivation for casting the opposing viewpoint in as charitable light as you can is not to win the argument, but to give yourself the greatest chance of losing.
It's easy, once you've been playing for a long time with a certain viewpoint, to ignore weaknesses in one's own approach and to dismiss strength's in an alternate position. I think that if you put effort into truly understanding the most favorable, strongest formulation of the other guy's point of view you are much more likely to see the positives and to expose the weaknesses of your own position. That helps you to amend or evolve your understanding of the game more than reflexively dismissing something as "that's not how I like to play" (or similar).
I think the distinguishing factor between refuting creationists and refuting people who play the game differently from you (or who interpret the rules differently from you) is that the former actually matters in the big picture. There are concrete, adverse consequences to conceding the argument.
If your goal is not to win but rather to ultimately critique and refine your own position, I think you're far better off 'losing' the rhetorical arguments as I think you'll be better placed to revise how you understand things.
Having given a lot of ground when first encountering a dispute, I'm still happy to later on reject an opposing point of view - I think the principle of charity is useful when first confronted by a new or different idea - treat them as 'points of view I don't understand yet' rather than 'stances I disagree with'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To provide an example of why I think a confrontational approach is unhelpful:
I often make the comment that I prefer a rule system where the DM makes rulings on the fly and there are only broad guidelines set out in an objective 'how to resolve this' way. People (generally who don't enjoy this kind of game) often leap to the assumption that I'm speaking as a DM - that I'm trying to tell a story with my players as a captive audience (or that I'm a control freak or whatever slant they tend to put on it). Having formed that view, they quickly dismiss it based on my imagined motivations/viewpoint.
In fact, I'm speaking as a player, not a DM (as a DM I believe in running whatever game the players prefer) and a lot of the 'refutations' or 'disagreements' with my view are way off base - they are, in fact, disagreeing with a point of view that I don't hold. This happens precisely because people have leapt to a conclusion without truly understanding what I mean. That means they havent even really considered what I was saying but rather what they think I was saying (and often a parodied, easy-to-refute hyperbolic formulation at that).
Of course, I don't think they are under any compulsion to accept my opinion once they understand it. But it might be useful to them to see that there's a broader perspective than the one they'd immediately imagined and then dismissed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As another example (with the boot on the other foot this time):
I came to the rules forum (several years back) with a very firm opinion that people who complained about a Martial-Caster Disparity were playing the game in a way I really had no interest in. I thought they were missing the point - that they were focussing on DPR, that they'd forgotten it was a team game, that the only reason it existed was because they didnt enforce all the rules properly....all the usual preconceptions. It took a number of patient, articulate posters to explain to me exactly what the problem was and to show me that it was actually a real, objective thing.
Having got past my immediate dismissal of the opposing position, I was more fully able to understand my own preferences/approach and to realise that such a disparity is actually what I want in an RPG (which helps me analyse which games I am enjoying and which I don't). I think I would never have come to see that if I had not made the effort to try and understand the strongest formulation of the pro-Disparity crowd and had instead debated the rhetorically weaker proponents of it.
Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games."
Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem."
Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."
Sometimes its more than that. People thinking the rogue is overpowered or that 1d8+16 damage at level 12 is overpowered. They're passed "we have different experiences" and are into "Something really weird is going on".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus there are times when people post things that they think are funny, but in turn simply distract from the topic at hand.Yeah, I've been trying to be better about that.
nonsense. Humor cools blood, wrath spills it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think one can be combative and argue in good faith simultaneously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing in good faith simply refers to being charitable with your reading of a position you don't hold. If someone is being a jerk, then you don't need to take it because of this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think one can be combative and argue in good faith simultaneously.
Sure one can. One can represent an opponent's position fairly AND believe that the position is deeply harmful, and word opposition to it strongly.
The whole "if you're angry about this you're not arguing in good faith" is pretty much the definition of tone-policing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think one can be combative and argue in good faith simultaneously.Sure one can. One can represent an opponent's position fairly AND believe that the position is deeply harmful, and word opposition to it strongly.
The whole "if you're angry about this you're not arguing in good faith" is pretty much the definition of tone-policing.
To me it was more about people's ability to argue in good faith when your dander is up. /shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me it was more about people's ability to argue in good faith when your dander is up. /shrugDon't think one can be combative and argue in good faith simultaneously.Sure one can. One can represent an opponent's position fairly AND believe that the position is deeply harmful, and word opposition to it strongly.
The whole "if you're angry about this you're not arguing in good faith" is pretty much the definition of tone-policing.
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus there are times when people post things that they think are funny, but in turn simply distract from the topic at hand.Yeah, I've been trying to be better about that.
If by "better about it" you mean "do it more often," then so have I!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that if you ask someone what they think you meant, they either tend to give a more straight forward answer. Some of these people will try to tell you what you meant or they will try to argue their misunderstanding of what you said, even if they know it is not your stance.
Sometimes all you can do is try, and if they refuse to argue the point it may be better to just call them out on it, nicely, and/or ignore them from that point on.
You can also break your post down for them, no matter if you think they were being genuine or not, but if you fire back with snark it just turns into an argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can also break your post down for them, no matter if you think they were being genuine or not, but if you fire back with snark it just turns into an argument.
This is also useful for other posters who aren't participating but are reading along. I do that a fair bit in the rules forum and still get something out of it even when someone is being disingenuous or outright hostile, provided the other person remains calm and clear.
In my experience, it's only when both sides begin arguing against parodies of actual positions (or both start accusing one another of trolling, bringing up past debates and so forth) that it becomes a waste of time to read along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of starting a major tangent, I think that an equal problem, that I think goes hand in hand with this, is people reacting with hostility or with some sort of trying to win mentality. When combined, we really get a lot of Gotcha posts.I can sort of see that. I kind of feel like some think winning is something that applies to everything, which is odd. I imagine its got something to do with capital based ideology.
Isn't imagining why someone believes something you think is wrong the very root of arguing in bad faith?
Isn't imagining why someone believes something you think is wrong the very root of arguing in bad faith?At the risk of starting a major tangent, I think that an equal problem, that I think goes hand in hand with this, is people reacting with hostility or with some sort of trying to win mentality. When combined, we really get a lot of Gotcha posts.I can sort of see that. I kind of feel like some think winning is something that applies to everything, which is odd. I imagine its got something to do with capital based ideology.
I didn't say anything was wrong, just odd. I also didn't mention who I was talking about because no one group is guilty of the winning argument. I just noticed recently that a number of people I've talked to recently try to rearrange my arguments into winning/losing paradigms. The capital ideology correlation is really just a hypothesis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humor can be very effective. However, it can go wrong if you misgudge your audience. More importantly, the is the danger of people not realizing that it is humor. It often seems that when typing on the internet, you have to telegraph that you are joking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble with this whole discussion is that arguing in good faith, as the OP defined it, is a really great way to work when everyone's doing it. When one party isn't interested in good faith, it's a losing game. Arguing in good faith is how evolutionists get destroyed in debates with creationists, for example. On the internet we call it "feeding the trolls". The key is recognizing when the other party isn't interested in a real discussion.I agree with you when the goal is winning a fight (such as in refuting creationists).
I would argue that in an RPG rules discussion there often isn't such a goal - it's more discussing a controversial area of the rules (inevitable, given the looseness and incompleteness of any RPG ruleset and the various different ways in which we utilise those rules). In fact, I think that one reasonable motivation for casting the opposing viewpoint in as charitable light as you can is not to win the argument, but to give yourself the greatest chance of losing.
I think many people, at least as far as common rules/Pathfinder main discussion threads go, do really feel that these arguments are important. That unless some specific rule problem/issue/point of contention is not brought up and fiercely argued, than it will never be fixed in the game.
Certainly I have seen this brought up in Caster-Martial disparity threads, and you can kind of argue it maybe has an impact (recent player companions and to a lesser extent the hardcover line, have introduced options to "boost" the power level of martials up in some way or another).
I have no doubt that for many people, getting more options for martials or clarifying some rule minutia is far far more important to them than keeping creationism in/out of schools
for all the hate the rogue hate gets, it did get us the unchained rogue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to depend on the thread imo. A good example are the threads where the flaws of a Fighter are discussed versus wizards. Too often you have those who claim their nothing wrong with wizards. Then list a bunch of advantages that Wizard and magic have. Then claim as long as you don't actually play the Wizard properly nothing wrong. Telling me as a player that I should hold back when I play a Wizard to make the player who runs a Fighter feel good. Is not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Fighter.
At one point their was a bunch of gamers starting "This happened last game and I had to rule on it as a DM was I right". Pretending to want to hear both sides when in reality all they real want is "atta boy you did right". While getting very angry when they get told that they were in error.
Or they go into a discussion feeling very passionate about a topic. Unwilling to see both sides. Their character will act a certain way at all times no matter the situation. So if they don't believe in healing during combat. Don't expect them to do it in combat even if another character dies. You try and do the same to them and they then claim that your taking revenge. How is that fair really.
I'm not saying I'm a saint but more often than not too many posts are not argued from a position of good faith imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to remember that every table is it's own little world. Even if we're all playing the same game, when you add in varied players, DM rulings, houserules, etc., what is a "fact" at one table isn't necessarily a fact at another.
It's been mentioned before, but the problems that the forumgoers identify don't always occur at each individual table. Especially when you have a lot of casual players that don't spend a lot of time away from the game researching character options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its pretty clear that if you play fast and loose with the rule set, then the rule set becomes less relevant as to whether the table is fair and enjoyable. Im not sure that its a ringing endorsement for the viability of the rules though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble with this whole discussion is that arguing in good faith, as the OP defined it, is a really great way to work when everyone's doing it. When one party isn't interested in good faith, it's a losing game. Arguing in good faith is how evolutionists get destroyed in debates with creationists, for example. On the internet we call it "feeding the trolls". The key is recognizing when the other party isn't interested in a real discussion.I agree with you when the goal is winning a fight (such as in refuting creationists).
I would argue that in an RPG rules discussion there often isn't such a goal - it's more discussing a controversial area of the rules (inevitable, given the looseness and incompleteness of any RPG ruleset and the various different ways in which we utilise those rules). In fact, I think that one reasonable motivation for casting the opposing viewpoint in as charitable light as you can is not to win the argument, but to give yourself the greatest chance of losing.
I think many people, at least as far as common rules/Pathfinder main discussion threads go, do really feel that these arguments are important. That unless some specific rule problem/issue/point of contention is not brought up and fiercely argued, than it will never be fixed in the game.
Certainly I have seen this brought up in Caster-Martial disparity threads, and you can kind of argue it maybe has an impact (recent player companions and to a lesser extent the hardcover line, have introduced options to "boost" the power level of martials up in some way or another).
I have no doubt that for many people, getting more options for martials or clarifying some rule minutia is far far more important to them than keeping creationism in/out of schools
I agree with you, I just don't agree with them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(RIA versus RAW, which in my opinion is the most counterintuitive argument there can be, for the Rules as Written cannot be understood without the application of at least one human mind, which automatically adds the act of interpretation - collectively agreeing upon an interpretation does not prove a rule is what it is written to be - or to put it another way, the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon).
Are you under the impression that "RAI" stands for "rules as interpreted"? That's what your reaction sounds like.
To clarify, "RAI" actually stands for "rules as intended". Thus, when people point to RAI, they are making an appeal to the author's intent. (This gets weird in cases where the only clue as to what the author intended is what the author wrote, and what the author wrote flatly contradicts what someone is claiming the author intended; those tend to be the loudest of the "RAW vs RAI" clashes.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All you can talk about, as far as I understand, when talking about RAW, is simply stating what the RAW is, and then you can have a discussion about what it means, which means, to me, all rules discussions are RAI, ultimately, because ultimately you and the people you play with must agree on what the RAW means (does that make sense?). I guess what I am trying to say is I do not understand how anyone can play by the RAW?
Yes, that's basically it. There are a lot of RAW that aren't contested - everyone basically has a clear understanding of what they mean. Like fighters get 1d10 hp/level.
There are a lot of other rules that, while RAW, require application of common sense. This is when people start arguing as to what is RAW and what isn't RAW. I'm thinking specifically of WBL, magic item availability in towns of a certain size, etc.
While the book may say a 2nd level character should have 1000gp, if it turns out they have 5000gp, are you no longer playing by the RAW? Depends on who you ask.
The concept of always wanting to stick to the RAW seems to derive from the thought that playing by the RAW gives a game a higher amount of legitimacy than games that don't.
Personally, that's never mattered to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking something towards someone else and applying it to myself, because it helps clarify my own feelings to me.
And do you truly feel like you in fact always represent your opponent's position in the best possible light?
No. No I do not. And I hate that.
A lot of it is a combination of emotional responses or simply not understanding what the opponent means and thus taking that to be something else.
Some of it is frustration. When I get irritated or annoyed (most often at dismissive or taunting behavior or language) I begin to lose objectivity and become short-tempered.
Some of it is my own arrogance or dismissive attitudes. This is where I am at my worst, as a person. When I act in a manner that directly indicates my own superiority, I've lost humility and forgotten the importance of treating others right.
Some of it is simple misunderstanding. Sometimes this is on my own part. Sometimes its on the part of those that I speak with. In some cases this is because I've communicated poorly, and in some cases it's because the other person has taken things from my words that make sense to them but are unintended. In this case, I'm not genuinely arguing in bad faith... but to some it appears like I am, and sometimes I'm simply doing it wrong. It's a combination of things, here.
Some of it comes from a mindset. If I allow myself to think of the person or people I'm talking with as "opponents" to be "beaten" rather than "people" to be "reasoned with" I am no longer attempting to give their concept a fair shake. That doesn't mean I need agree with it, and, in fact, can cleave strongly to my own view while allowing someone else theirs; but it does mean that I should understand that they are not necessarily there to be "beaten" or otherwise placed as any way lesser to myself.
A quick review of your posts could lead some to believe that you, on occasion, post a reply using a snarky tone and appear to be very dismissive of the poster that you're replying to when you disagree with them.
It's true - and it's something that I try to point out on my own. In doing so, I hope to admit to my failure and assist both myself and others in moving past them, rather than making that the focal point of the argument.
---
In any event, I strive to avoid all of these, and these are fundamentally errors of discussion. But they all happen, and it's unfortunate. That said, it's important to acknowledge your own flaws, and point them out. If you don't see them, accept rebuke and seek to understand where someone else found flaw - explain yourself if you didn't intend it, and apologize either way and go on.
In this way, I think, we can move forward together.
The OP has presented something which is important, and even fundamental, to all discussions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One final thought: sometimes it's worth engaging a person, even when they argue in bad faith and there is no method by which reasonable communication can be achieved, if only because their arguments can seem reasonable and lead others to either emulate those (causing more problems than it solves) or simply to the wrong conclusion.
In that case, it becomes not about the person who is incorrect, and it's certainly not about having the last word, but rather it's about clarifying the concepts for the sake of others - clarifying the path so that others can follow, as another poster put it succinctly, above.
While game-rule arguments are not all that important, compared to life, the method by which we engage with them is, and, even in unimportant discussions, it's important to comport ourselves with dignity and honor... because we train ourselves to do that in general when we do it here.
We also train others and are, ourselves, trained by immersing ourselves in communities and in engaging in topics. So we, too, need to be cautious when engaging - we need to choose when to do so, and when to avoid doing so, and for what purposes we choose to do so or not.
Of course, self-examination seems to be a weakness of many... even when they're good at it... so, sussing out our own motives can be a really tricky thing, too. But that's what we've got friends (and forums) for! Learning about each other and ourselves, and sharing things in a manner to grow and interact!
(Have I mentioned people are awesome? Because they are.)