Here is some pointers that I feel some people in this community needs to be reminded of. There are people on all sides who are engaging in questionable postings.
* Personal attacks (from Wikipedia):
"Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened."
Now some other examples to avoid:
* "Blahblah is for (morons, 4 year olds, grognards, people who fear change, mentally handicapped, lazy, etc.)"
-It implies that whom ever enjoys, plays or buys Blahblah is a (insert term here)
* Throwing someones words back in the their faces after adding your own twists.
-It's not clever & it does not get your point across. It's just rude and inflammatory.
* "You and your game/idea are stupid poopy heads."
-Just label it as a troll and move on.
* "My opinion/feeling is (insert opinion or feeling here)."
- If the person has refrained from other attacks then respond politely as they have the right to their opinion/feelings. No matter if those opinons or feelings are rational or not. (Doesn't mean you have to agree or like their opinion but you must be respectful.)
* "Blah is (better, funner, smilier, etc.)"
No, it's not. You should refrain from labelling something with an opinion or feeling statement without adding that it is your feeling or opinion. Other wise it comes across as an universal statement on Blah.
Example:
Lets say that I don't like pickles and I really like onions. Now if I say "Onions are tastier then pickles." or "Pickles suck but onions rock!" or even "Onions are so much better then pickles."
(Now I have specifically chosen items that will not have too much emotional attachment... I hope.)
But you can see that a simple "I feel", "I think" or "Its my opinion that" can easily take the statement away from an universal statement and back to a personal one.
"I think that onions are tastier then pickles."
"Its my opinion that pickles suck but onions rock!"
"I feel that onions are so much better then pickles."
This is just my 2 cents. I see some good and reasonable people of this community posting beneath their normal level of well thought out quality.
Thank you. Well said.
QFT. Well said and much needed as the vitriol climbs with the impending 4e release.
Nicely put.
I'm all for pickles and politeness.
Things must be bad when we need a "How to debate on the 'net 101" post. Oy.
Thanks though Lichy! (Archie?)
Cheers! :)
Edit: My wife likes eating peanut butter and pickle sandwiches which, I can say with 100% confidence, are totally revolting. :P
|
Whether something is an opinion or other preference should be obvious from context.
It should never be required to add such a disclaimer to be considered "polite".
Instead such forced modesty leads to people being even more impolite as they expect the disclaimer absolves them of any responsibility for the inflammatory content of their comments. (For an example, the "With all due respect" exchanges from Talladega Nights.)
It also leads to the absurdity that every opinion is of equal value, something often used by the most ignorant as justification to dismiss informed viewpoints because all comments must always be considered of equal worth or someone is being oppressed.
Neither of those is polite, and logic would suggest not encouraging them by any requirement for disclaimers.
Mmmmm....pickles.
Watch out -- we got us a pre-vert! :o
|
It should never be required to add such a disclaimer to be considered "polite".
Instead such forced modesty leads to people being even more impolite as they expect the disclaimer absolves them of any responsibility for the inflammatory content of their comments.
Well said!
The flipside of this, is that posters who are not at fault, get constantly picked up on the fact that they failed to use the magic phrase, and are therefore, by implication, trolling, when often, the trolling was being done by the previous poster who hides behind such phrases as a form of diplomatic immunity.
No offense intended to anyone on this thread so far, who have all been nothing but polite to me. The intent of this thread is noble, but can be achieved by asking for actual polite behaviour, rather than obligatory, often insincere, 'Get out of Jail Free'-phrases. Often added at the end of a flame-filled post, in an 'ironic' fashion.
"In my humble opinion" is a real bane of mine, since, by definition, anyone who was humble, would not dare poke their head over the ramparts, and risk disagreement. The idea that one's thoughts are so wise and important that they deserve to be blared out into the ether, for all to marvel at, is an act of supreme hubris (and, yes, before you ask, I do include myself in this...).
I suggest everyone obtain a copy of 'David Copperfield', by Charles Dickens, which contains a character by the name of Uriah Heep.
Ever so polite, is our Uriah,
Ever so 'elpful,
Ever so 'umble...
Whether something is an opinion or other preference should be obvious from context.
It should never be required to add such a disclaimer to be considered "polite".
Instead such forced modesty leads to people being even more impolite as they expect the disclaimer absolves them of any responsibility for the inflammatory content of their comments. (For an example, the "With all due respect" exchanges from Talladega Nights.)
It also leads to the absurdity that every opinion is of equal value, something often used by the most ignorant as justification to dismiss informed viewpoints because all comments must always be considered of equal worth or someone is being oppressed.
Neither of those is polite, and logic would suggest not encouraging them by any requirement for disclaimers.
The politeness is more about refraining from razing and salting a thread just to get at a troll or two.
And you are certainly correct. Polite phrasing is not the same as being polite.
I wrote it not for those trolls that can insult no matter what form or style of communication but to help those of us concerned with proper respect for each other (not respecting your opinion neccesarily but you the person) to help seperate ourselves from becoming trolls in training.
It should never be required to add such a disclaimer to be considered "polite".
Instead such forced modesty leads to people being even more impolite as they expect the disclaimer absolves them of any responsibility for the inflammatory content of their comments.Well said!
The flipside of this, is that posters who are not at fault, get constantly picked up on the fact that they failed to use the magic phrase, and are therefore, by implication, trolling, when often, the trolling was being done by the previous poster who hides behind such phrases as a form of diplomatic immunity.
No offense intended to anyone on this thread so far, who have all been nothing but polite to me. The intent of this thread is noble, but can be achieved by asking for actual polite behaviour, rather than obligatory, often insincere, 'Get out of Jail Free'-phrases. Often added at the end of a flame-filled post, in an 'ironic' fashion.
"In my humble opinion" is a real bane of mine, since, by definition, anyone who was humble, would not dare poke their head over the ramparts, and risk disagreement. The idea that one's thoughts are so wise and important that they deserve to be blared out into the ether, for all to marvel at, is an act of supreme hubris (and, yes, before you ask, I do include myself in this...).
I suggest everyone obtain a copy of 'David Copperfield', by Charles Dickens, which contains a character by the name of Uriah Heep.
Ever so polite, is our Uriah,
Ever so 'elpful,
Ever so 'umble...** spoiler omitted **
I always thought IMHO stood for In My Honest Opinion. I don't think I would ever use "in my humble opinion" because I would believe that if I was being humble I wouldn't post it on the internet.
|
Good post, sir. I've been reading the 4E threads (as well as some Pathfinder RPG threads), and it's like watching a car-wreck in motion. Terrifying and horrible, but you can't look away. But there comes a time when enough is enough.
I haven't posted much on these topics because of all of the personal attacks being flung around. Plus, no matter my opinion on these topics, it'll just get discarded as being either pro-something or anti-something, and summarily be ignored by most of the posters, and, if I'm really lucky, I might even get flamed!
So yeah. Politeness. Even on the internet, where everything is serious business :), it is important.
Here is some pointers that I feel some people in this community needs to be reminded of. There are people on all sides who are engaging in questionable postings.
With that said, attacks against COMPANIES are not permitted either. As stated by Paizo in this note above the boards:
"Note: Talk about 4th Edition here. Politely. Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or OTHER COMPANIES IN THE INDUSTRY, will not be tolerated."
I've read a lot of anti-4th Edition people attack WotC directly. If you want to make a post like this, you should include this as well. WotC shouldn't be "flamed" for taking the game in a direction they think will improve D&D just because that may not be the way you (as in the general you) might have taken it.
Here is some pointers that I feel some people in this community needs to be reminded of. There are people on all sides who are engaging in questionable postings.With that said, attacks against COMPANIES are not permitted either. As stated by Paizo in this note above the boards:
"Note: Talk about 4th Edition here. Politely. Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or OTHER COMPANIES IN THE INDUSTRY, will not be tolerated."
I've read a lot of anti-4th Edition people attack WotC directly. If you want to make a post like this, you should include this as well. WotC shouldn't be "flamed" for taking the game in a direction they think will improve D&D just because that may not be the way you (as in the general you) might have taken it.
True.
Blatant attacks on X company, no. Problems people have had with X company, yes.
Sam and Snorter are right: you should not need to qualify every sentence you write with an "in my opinion" or "I believe"; just assume everything on the internet is an opinion and deal with it. I find it hard to credit that anyone would read a comment such as "WotC sucks" and walk away from it thinking "OMG, WotC does suck because Poster A stated it as a fact!"
What people in general need is a good lesson on the benefits of free speech and civics.
In my opinion. :P
Sam and Snorter are right: you should not need to qualify every sentence you write with an "in my opinion" or "I believe"; just assume everything on the internet is an opinion and deal with it. I find it hard to credit that anyone would read a comment such as "WotC sucks" and walk away from it thinking "OMG, WotC does suck because Poster A stated it as a fact!"
What people in general need is a good lesson on the benefits of free speech and civics.
In my opinion. :P
Amen.
Sam and Snorter are right: you should not need to qualify every sentence you write with an "in my opinion" or "I believe"; just assume everything on the internet is an opinion and deal with it. I find it hard to credit that anyone would read a comment such as "WotC sucks" and walk away from it thinking "OMG, WotC does suck because Poster A stated it as a fact!"
What people in general need is a good lesson on the benefits of free speech and civics.
In my opinion. :P
I see where you guys are coming from.
It was not my intent to make people add a silly qualifier and go on as usual. But a qualifier when you do not intend to offend would be the least you could do. What would be preferable is that posters explain their reasoning so that people have something to discuss and look at instead of an argument.Though I would think that "WotC sucks" would be a troll as noted in my first post.
The section on opinions and feelings was meant to apply to things like "I feel X mechanic for X class is very (descriptive term here) and that really puts me off of wanting to play X." not "In my opinion this game tastes like monkey balls!"
If I have a personal outlook that is judging something that is entirely relative (like the level of 'fun') well...
The section on opinions and feelings was meant to apply to things like "I feel X mechanic for X class is very (descriptive term here) and that really puts me off of wanting to play X." not "In my opinion this game tastes like monkey balls!"
If I have a personal outlook that is judging something that is entirely relative (like the level of 'fun') well...
I agree completely with you ArchLich, and I think most of us understand the intent of your post. The problem arises when someone uses the "I feel X mechanic for X class is very [descriptive] and that really puts me off to play X" when in fact, this is entirely untrue.
For example, the idea that 4th Edition hampers roleplaying in any way. I've heard many anti-4 posters claim this. After reading the rules, having several full sessions of 4th Edition (I happened to get my books early...) under my belt, I see this in no way.
The problem comes when people are making uninformed comments about rules based purely on the fact that they go into 4th Edition looking to discredit it and dislike it - not with an open mind.
But, you are right. A little tactfulness can go a LONG way.
|
|
I agree completely with you ArchLich, and I think most of us understand the intent of your post. The problem arises when someone uses the "I feel X mechanic for X class is very [descriptive] and that really puts me off to play X" when in fact, this is entirely untrue.
The only way that could be entirely untrue is if the person is lying.
If that is how someone views a particular element, then that is how they view the element, and nobody should presume to tell them otherwise.If you want to express your opposing view, go for it! But do not expect to tell them they are lying about what they think and like in a game and believe that you are correcting them in a polite manner.
For example, the idea that 4th Edition hampers roleplaying in any way. I've heard many anti-4 posters claim this. After reading the rules, having several full sessions of 4th Edition (I happened to get my books early...) under my belt, I see this in no way.
Again, you see it in no way, others may see it that way.
Disagree, but not by insisting someone else must be lying when doing so.The problem comes when people are making uninformed comments about rules based purely on the fact that they go into 4th Edition looking to discredit it and dislike it - not with an open mind.
But, you are right. A little tactfulness can go a LONG way.
And this is where all of your tactfulness disappears.
Now in addition to saying people are lying about what they think of the game you are adding in accusation that they have not read or tried the books, or that they did so with a closed mind with no intention other than to gain ammunition to attack it.Despite how much you like 4E it is entirely possible for someone, with a completely open mind, with full control of their faculties, with a logical methodology, with reasonable standards, and with the same consideration as you have to express their opinions, to simply not like 4E and to say so.
The problem comes when people are making uninformed comments about rules based purely on the fact that they go into 4th Edition looking to discredit it and dislike it - not with an open mind.
Sorry, I don't agree. The problem comes from people discarding respect when they disagree.
Incorrect claims don't provoke rudeness. Narrow-mindedness doesn't provoke rudeness. Speaking your mind politely doesn't provoke rudeness.
Being abusive does. Treating the opinions of others with contempt (even if they're wrong) does. Repeating your point over and over and over waiting for someone to come around to your way of thinking does.
Our problem is not a lack of correctness. It's a lack of respect.
Regards :)
Despite how much you like 4E it is entirely possible for someone, with a completely open mind, with full control of their faculties, with a logical methodology, with reasonable standards, and with the same consideration as you have to express their opinions, to simply not like 4E and to say so.
Truer words were never spoken.
And, of course, you could insert 3.5 in place of 4 and still be right. But so many don't want to accept that :/
|
|
So... 4e bites the big pickle is out of the question then?
In my humble opinion, 4e appears to me, to subjectively look as though it has perhaps, from my point of view, bitten the big proverbial pickly thing.
Just having fun. I agree PAIZO boards should be above making personal attacks. I agree with the spirit of the OP, calling for politeness and logic.
The only way that could be entirely untrue is if the person is lying.
If that is how someone views a particular element, then that is how they view the element, and nobody should presume to tell them otherwise.
If you want to express your opposing view, go for it! But do not expect to tell them they are lying about what they think and like in a game and believe that you are correcting them in a polite manner.
Samual, I don't disagree with you. I never said anyone was lying... I am saying some people are misinformed or don't take the time to actually look at the rules with an open mind. There's a huge difference...
Again, you see it in no way, others may see it that way.
Disagree, but not by insisting someone else must be lying when doing so.
Umm. No. There is no "I see it this way" when we are talking about defined rules systems.
And this is where all of your tactfulness disappears.
Now in addition to saying people are lying about what they think of the game you are adding in accusation that they have not read or tried the books, or that they did so with a closed mind with no intention other than to gain ammunition to attack it.
I never said anyone was lying. And, I can clearly see people haven't read the books fully or played the game if they are saying things that aren't entirely true based on what I've read or played in 4th Edition. I'm not talking about opinions, like - "oh, i think 4th editions multiclass system sucks" - I am talking about people using rules references as examples when those rules references lack the substance of the actual 4E rules.
Despite how much you like 4E it is entirely possible for someone, with a completely open mind, with full control of their faculties, with a logical methodology, with reasonable standards, and with the same consideration as you have to express their opinions, to simply not like 4E and to say so.
I agree completely and never said otherwise... You have entirely and utterly misconstrued my post in order to vilify me. Thanks.
|
|
I'm with P1NBACK. And Sebastian. And Crosswiredmind. And I support any of their efforts to call someone for spreading misinformation.
People on these boards are making deliberate statements that they know full well to be untrue. Why do people make apologies and excuses for them?
We're not talking about subjective matters, like 'does it feel heroic, or super-heroic?', 'did the play flow smoother?', 'did you feel the same immersion?', etc. All of these are, quite rightly, in the eye of the beholder.
I am talking about statements such as 'They've thrown out all mention of roleplaying!', 'There is no grapple rule!', or any other iteration of 'Race/Class/Ability/Spell/Prayer X does not exist!'
These are not subjective; they are measurable, provable issues that, in most cases can be resolved by spending 5 seconds viewing the index or the table of contents, to reveal paragraphs, columns or even whole pages devoted to the subject in question. The fact that such agitators choose not to do so, or, choose to ignore what is right in front of their noses, makes me question the purity of their motives.
The telling of a deliberate untruth, is the very definition of a lie.
Telling lies, makes a person a liar.
Calling a liar, a liar, when they have been caught lying, is in no way a trollish action.
And, just to be clear, I wasn't planning on buying 4E. I speak out, as these sort of actions unnecessarily harm the credibility of the 3.0/3.5/PFRPG fans.
I'm with P1NBACK. And Sebastian. And Crosswiredmind. And I support any of their efforts to call someone for spreading misinformation.
People on these boards are making deliberate statements that they know full well to be untrue. Why do people make apologies and excuses for them?
We're not talking about subjective matters, like 'does it feel heroic, or super-heroic?', 'did the play flow smoother?', 'did you feel the same immersion?', etc. All of these are, quite rightly, in the eye of the beholder.
I am talking about statements such as 'They've thrown out all mention of roleplaying!', 'There is no grapple rule!', or any other iteration of 'Race/Class/Ability/Spell/Prayer X does not exist!'
These are not subjective; they are measurable, provable issues that, in most cases can be resolved by spending 5 seconds viewing the index or the table of contents, to reveal paragraphs, columns or even whole pages devoted to the subject in question. The fact that such agitators choose not to do so, or, choose to ignore what is right in front of their noses, makes me question the purity of their motives.
The telling of a deliberate untruth, is the very definition of a lie.
Telling lies, makes a person a liar.
Calling a liar, a liar, when they have been caught lying, is in no way a trollish action.And, just to be clear, I wasn't planning on buying 4E. I speak out, as these sort of actions unnecessarily harm the credibility of the 3.0/3.5/PFRPG fans.
Once again I think I did not make my point. I am not advocating for people to "make apologies and excuses" for people deliberately spreading miss truth or vitriol.
If a person is deliberately spreading misinformation then they are a liar. But as I have been reminded by many people in my life:
"A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive"
If they do not know any better then they are not lying.
Also: "To lie is to state something one believes is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else."
All above quotes on lies are stolen from Wikipedia.
I speak out, as these sort of actions unnecessarily harm the credibility of the 3.0/3.5/PFRPG fans.
I agree 100%.
If they do not know any better then they are not lying.
Indeed. And I'd say the majority of posters who don't know the whole of it usually ASK about such things. These are people who are interested in LEARNING about 4th Edition, whether they plan to buy it or not. Hell, there's nothing to say a person who never plans to play 4th Edition may be inspired by a rule in 4E and use it for his 3.5/Pathfinder game...
The point is:
"Does 4th Edition have rules for allowing story and plot development as well as roleplaying?"
Is a lot different than,
"4E takes away or doesn't allow rpging!"
|
I have tried to talk positively about what I enjoy about both systems, and also discuss what I find repugnant about the business and marketing strategy that underpins 4.0.
My experience so far has been that I am not gung ho enough to satisfy the partisans on either side. Likewise, when I discuss what I see as problematic in how the customer base has been valued in the process, this sets off hisses, howls and catcalls.
It is disenheartening to see and frustrating to watch.
How ironic that this thread deteriorates so quickly.
Do people just not give a damn, or does believing we're right and another is wrong somehow excuse us from civility?
How ironic that this thread deteriorates so quickly.
Do people just not give a damn, or does believing we're right and another is wrong somehow excuse us from civility?
I think everyone has been very cordial in this thread. I have no idea what you are talking about.
How ironic that this thread deteriorates so quickly.
Do people just not give a damn, or does believing we're right and another is wrong somehow excuse us from civility?
I'm doing my best :P
|
|
Samual, I don't disagree with you. I never said anyone was lying... I am saying some people are misinformed or don't take the time to actually look at the rules with an open mind. There's a huge difference...
Again, there are those presumptions that someone can only dislike 4E if they are misinformed or are closed minded.
There is no difference there, you are still being rude.Umm. No. There is no "I see it this way" when we are talking about defined rules systems.
Um. Yes. There is very much "I see it this way" when we are talking about defined rules systems.
About a specific rule, generally not.But liking or disling the entire system, very much so.
I never said anyone was lying. And, I can clearly see people haven't read the books fully or played the game if they are saying things that aren't entirely true based on what I've read or played in 4th Edition. I'm not talking about opinions, like - "oh, i think 4th editions multiclass system sucks" - I am talking about people using rules references as examples when those rules references lack the substance of the actual 4E rules.
You can clearly see?
You are sitting in my apartment, watching me read or not read something?Oh, you want to now limit that to only certain comments and interpretations of the rules you do not like. Perhaps you should have said that in the first place.
I agree completely and never said otherwise... You have entirely and utterly misconstrued my post in order to vilify me. Thanks.
Your own words villified you.
You are welcome though.
|
|
I got that exact message in a fortune cookie once. A real life-changer.That's a good rule to keep in mind for life in general. If more people lived by that rule Erik, the world would be a far, far better place.The main rule here is (or ought to be): DON'T BE A DICK.
I think that was a message from the chef, after you got drunk and kept hitting on that waitress...
Director of Narrative
|
I think that was a message from the chef, after you got drunk and kept hitting on that waitress...I got that exact message in a fortune cookie once. A real life-changer.That's a good rule to keep in mind for life in general. If more people lived by that rule Erik, the world would be a far, far better place.The main rule here is (or ought to be): DON'T BE A DICK.
Dude! Why didn't you stop me?
DON'T BE A DICK.
Didn't you get that from Socrates, or was it Aristotle?
Ah, it was Confucius. All simple, easy-to-apply wisdom comes from the East.
The main rule here is (or ought to be): DON'T BE A DICK.
It's a good rule. :D
Man ... from a plea for civility to a flame-ridden argument as to what civility actually entails. LOL gotta love it.
|
|
Man ... from a plea for civility to a flame-ridden argument as to what civility actually entails. LOL gotta love it.
I haven't noticed any flames, either way.
If anyone has been offended by anything I wrote, then I apologise.To Archlich; I do appreciate your original point. My comments are additional to yours, not a dismissal. Using the 'magic words' before or after flaming someone is no more excusable than crossing one's fingers behind one's back when making a promise.
SIGH...