|
Most importantly, let's not lose sight of the fact that every single member of these boards is a real person. In no way, shape or form, should any attempt to improve the PFRPG be made at the expense of someone's dignity or rights.
Dignity one generates oneself; it's not given to you by anyone else and mean words on an internerd forum hardly remove it. No one's being stripped naked and harassed by dogs (well, I'm sure they are, but not here). As for 'rights': what? Who is having their 'rights' put under threat?
Because everyone on here is a real person, this sort of stuff really shouldn't be too upsetting. After all, navigating real life is a lot harder than ignoring a few mean words, particularly when those mean words are primarily about one's opinions relating to roleplaying and the personal stuff barely rises above being called an idiot and the like. I'm not partial to conducting discourse that way myself -- well, that's not entirely true, but I far prefer to do it face-to-face -- but yeah, improving the game is entirely more important to me than the feelings of internerd forum posters. It's not more important to me than their rights and I'm ambivalent on their 'dignity', but neither of those are seriously under thread.
but yeah, improving the game is entirely more important to me than the feelings of internerd forum posters.
Many people, myself included, continue to come here because we enjoy interacting with the other "paizoans" almost as much as we do playing the game. Intentionally ruining that comradery in the service of some theortical "perfect" game would, for me, be a lousy trade-off -- one that I'd rather not have to make. The thing is, we can easily have both. To that end, I'd happily swallow a bit of snarky pride and take a bit of "Miss Manners" to heart.
|
but yeah, improving the game is entirely more important to me than the feelings of internerd forum posters.Many people, myself included, continue to come here because we enjoy interacting with the other "paizoans" almost as much as we do playing the game. Intentionally ruining that comradery in the service of some theortical "perfect" game would, for me, be a lousy trade-off -- one that I'd rather not have to make. The thing is, we can easily have both. To that end, I'd happily swallow a bit of snarky pride and take a bit of "Miss Manners" to heart.
I've been coming to these boards for a couple years now. As long as I've been coming here, there has always been an undertone of "your message is not more important that your attitude." Treating other posters in a disresptectful manner (like refereing to them as idiots) doesn't produce a better game.
My question is: if you can promote your ideas as part of the discussion and treat other posters with respect, why not do both? What price does showing other posters a little courtesy cost that is so intolerable?
-Skeld
Contributor
|
Dignity one generates oneself; it's not given to you by anyone else and mean words on an internerd forum hardly remove it. No one's being stripped naked and harassed by dogs (well, I'm sure they are, but not here). As for 'rights': what? Who is having their 'rights' put under threat?
By "dignity," I meant basic human dignity...worthiness of respect as a human being. While no one can give it or take it away, it's very easy for someone to ignore it (particularly when interacting online).
As for rights...I agree that it's pretty tough to actually violate somone's rights on a messageboard. While harassment is definitely a violation of one's rights, and is technically possible in this format, I can't say that I've seen anything that rises anywhere close to that level. I suppose the use of "rights" was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I guess I got wrapped up in my own monologue.
Because everyone on here is a real person, this sort of stuff really shouldn't be too upsetting. After all, navigating real life is a lot harder than ignoring a few mean words, particularly when those mean words are primarily about one's opinions relating to roleplaying and the personal stuff barely rises above being called an idiot and the like. I'm not partial to conducting discourse that way myself -- well, that's not entirely true, but I far prefer to do it face-to-face -- but yeah, improving the game is entirely more important to me than the feelings of internerd forum posters. It's not more important to me than their rights and I'm ambivalent on their 'dignity', but neither of those are seriously under thread.
I have to disagree with you here...at least, partly disagree. I absolutely agree that none of this should be too upsetting. Fundamentally, what a person calls me or says to me doesn't, by itself, harm me in any way.
I understand that some people are very passionate about the game and want to do everything they can to make sure that it is the best it can be. I didn't say it as forcefully as I could in my earlier post, but I absolutely don't think we should censor ourselves and be afraid to disagree just because someone might misinterpret our words. But as Skeld pointed out, that can still be done while maintaining civility with one another.
Being openly snide and insulting just because one feels like it is rude and obnoxious and shouldn't have to be endured by those who honestly want to discuss options. How can someone so clearly demonstrate that they are personally invested in finding the "right" answer while at the same time argue that they are only attacking a person's opinion? The fact that people are passionate enough to resort to using insulting language when people disagree with them should be a major clue that there are others who could say that calling their ideas and opinions about the game idiotic is a direct personal attack on them, as well.
I do not agree that referring to anyone on the boards (or anywhere else, for that matter) as an idiot or anything similar should be considered acceptable or "no big deal." Whenever possible, we should find other ways to respond to someone's ideas or assertions...preferrably by explaining why something is incorrect rather than just saying, "that's stupid." Frivolous use of derogatory language decreases the value of the interaction, here, and creates an unfriendly environment in which the free exchange of ideas is restricted. It also lessens the impact of such speech when a particularly hateful ideology or concept must be denigrated.
Bagpuss, I respect your passion and your commitment to the game. I respect the desire of the posters in question to create a game that they can enjoy, too. What I don't respect is the attitude with which they present their points.
I just wish that all sides of the argument could agree to discuss things dispassionately and spend less time worrying about "winning" or "owning" a thread and spend more energy on laying out cogent arguments backed up by playtesting results that the Paizo staff can read and either accept and adopt or reject, depending on the merits of the argument.
I'm reminded of a real life situation where two, or three, maybe even four friends are at a bar trying to having a pleasant conversation about if it made sense that Han Solo shot first in the cantina. And then that one guy walks over. He disagrees with everyone in a loud voice, calls everyone there philistines and dilettantes for not knowing that one book where Han Solo did X and the Lucas did Y to the movie. And then he doesn't leave. He just stands there, and anyone that disagrees gets the same treatment until the group just walks away.
There's nothing wrong with Starcraft, there's nothing wrong with logic, there's nothing wrong with disagreements or arguing. But there is something rather socially dysfunctional about someone who doesn't understand when they've spoken their piece and it's time to move on. And, in fact, it's a debaters trick to accuse others of "taking things so seriously and to lighten up" when for the past 8 posts, the person has done nothing but belittle, ridicule, and shun people that disagree or that are deemed "unworthy". Clearly that person takes the subject serious enough to debate it with such fervor.
Also, he might be 'abrasive', but CoL is owning the thread with help from Squirreloid. CoL's responses are indeed varying between tough and insulting, but he's winning most every damn point and explaining himself really well. Squirreloid makes excellent arguments, too.
|
|
Bagpuss, I respect your passion and your commitment to the game. I respect the desire of the posters in question to create a game that they can enjoy, too. What I don't respect is the attitude with which they present their points.
I just wish that all sides of the argument could agree to discuss things dispassionately and spend less time worrying about "winning" or "owning" a thread and spend more energy on laying out cogent arguments backed up by playtesting results that the Paizo staff can read and either accept and adopt or reject, depending on the merits of the argument.
I see that a few people have replied to me and I don't want to clog up the thread (more than I have, at least) so I'll stick my thoughts in reply to this.
I agree that it would be nicer if everyone treated each other differently; I guess that I don't hope for it primarily because I don't think it's easy to achieve whilst still having a vigorous discourse and I also just don't get that bothered by it, myself (although you'll note I haven't called anyone an idiot or anything like that, it doesn't much bother me when people do it to me and, thus, it bothers me relatively little when people do it to each other). I would also say that most of the 'insults' are actually aimed at statements and opinions than at posters, although some are (as I recall) aimed at posters, too; I think that some of the people that feel insulted may have taken offence from an attack on their opinions rather than on themselves, but that won't be true across the board.
On the subject of my statement that improvement in the game is more important to me than people's feelings, I stand by it although I will note that, as I said in my second paragraph, things would be nicer if, yes, everyone did talk to each other in the more conventionally polite way. However, the the survivability of PFRPG depends on its wide appeal and to some significant extent that depends on really trying to bash the game into shape before the playtest ends. Those of us who post here are, I guess, a tiny minority of the market Paizo hopes to sell to -- we'd better hope so, or the project is stillborn and I don't think that it is -- and we are here voluntarily so that's why I'm not too worried about hurt feelings.
Now, yes, some valuable contributors (not me, but I fear I don't have much of worth to contribute) might actually not contribute at all because of fear of, or disgust with, invective and although my suspicion is that it's still a net gain for game improvement, that's a matter of personal opinion (that none of us can substantiate and which will depend also on one's personal opinion of the worth of the contributions made by the people in question). However, given that I don't think that the snarkers are ever going to not snark -- and to be honest, they make me smile quite often anyhow -- and given that I want the input to the game of anyone that does have worthwhile points to make, my favourite option is that people be thicker-skinned. That's just a logical and simple extension of my general opinion on forum behaviour, though (which is, in general, that people should take less offence), so I agree that it's not going to be universally shared.
|
but yeah, improving the game is entirely more important to me than the feelings of internerd forum posters.Many people, myself included, continue to come here because we enjoy interacting with the other "paizoans" almost as much as we do playing the game. Intentionally ruining that comradery in the service of some theortical "perfect" game would, for me, be a lousy trade-off -- one that I'd rather not have to make. The thing is, we can easily have both. To that end, I'd happily swallow a bit of snarky pride and take a bit of "Miss Manners" to heart.I've been coming to these boards for a couple years now. As long as I've been coming here, there has always been an undertone of "your message is not more important that your attitude." Treating other posters in a disresptectful manner (like refereing to them as idiots) doesn't produce a better game.
My question is: if you can promote your ideas as part of the discussion and treat other posters with respect, why not do both? What price does showing other posters a little courtesy cost that is so intolerable?
-Skeld
And to add to this point....
I like the points that CoL is bringing up and I think they would help out the game-making process but he is shouting over a lot of other worthwhile input to make his point and that input is being lost. I have decided not to go back to that thread because it feels like one person on an ego-trip shooting down all other opinions. I have some good experiences and opinions that aren't going to be thrown into that thread now. How does that effect the game-making process? How many others have decided to remove themselves from the discussion that had good ideas because of one over-zealous and rude poster who thinks his way is the only way?As I said, I see the value in his input but when it removes too many others' input from the equation because of abrasiveness, then I feel more strongly the lose of input from varied sources.
And to add to this point....
I like the points that CoL is bringing up and I think they would help out the game-making process but he is shouting over a lot of other worthwhile input to make his point and that input is being lost. ....
I wouldn't worry about that input being lost Fakey. I think Jason can filter the shouting and skim the good ideas.
More at issue for me are the people who might leave because they no longer feel welcome.
|
|
More at issue for me are the people who might leave because they no longer feel welcome.
That is a concern (I mentioned it in my last post, too). However, I also know for a fact that some people left here (and, in fact, stopped buying Paizo stuff altogether) because they felt that the boards were too anti-4e and posting here as a 4e supporter and player meant encountering too much hostility. I pretty much feel the same way about those people as I do about the people that might be put off by CoL, which is that they should probably just toughen up a bit because managing a board to avoid offence means spending money (as it takes time, so less other stuff gets done if no new man/womanhours appear) and also would make the forums a less cool place to be.
I also agree with you that Jason, etc, can read through the shouting, so the points aren't getting lost.
|
|
If there's not 100 other sites on the internet where people talk to eachother like total a**%#!~s, then there's 1,000. And you know what? NOTHING worthwhile is getting accomplished on any of them. It's just a big poofest.
So, essentially, let's leave Paizo alone. Leave Paizo out of the poofest.
There's gobs of places all over the net to go and crap on eachother.
Also, he might be 'abrasive', but CoL is owning the thread with help from Squirreloid. CoL's responses are indeed varying between tough and insulting, but he's winning most every damn point and explaining himself really well. Squirreloid makes excellent arguments, too.
I don't really think so. From what I've seen they may make excellent arguments some of the time, but they also make very bad arguments other times with the exact same fervor they do with their reasonable arguments. And they never seem to back down from any of their assertions whether or not those assertions were reasonable.
This has resulted in me thinking that there is no real point in trying to discuss in that type of environment because the reaction will be the same, "I'm wrong and they are right" whether or not that is the case. They have both been pretty insulting in some posts when making baseless claims and when they were pretty much wrong.
Given they arrogant tone I've been holding them to the worst insulting argument they have given in that thread and have not retracted. So for me, they have lost and until they unload the hubris and correct themselves, I will still consider their arguments not even worth reading.
|
|
Given they arrogant tone I've been holding them to the worst insulting argument they have given in that thread and have not retracted. So for me, they have lost and until they unload the hubris and correct themselves, I will still consider their arguments not even worth reading.
Well, I don't agree with on the merits of their arguments, but your proposed course of action sounds pretty sensible given your opinions. If I didn't agree with a fair amount of what they're saying, I probably wouldn't read them much, either (I pity, in that sense, the paizo people that actually have to read all stuff because it's sort of their job).
|
|
If there's not 100 other sites on the internet where people talk to eachother like total a*!%!&~s, then there's 1,000. And you know what? NOTHING worthwhile is getting accomplished on any of them. It's just a big poofest.
So, essentially, let's leave Paizo alone. Leave Paizo out of the poofest.
There's gobs of places all over the net to go and crap on eachother.
That's clearly not the only reason they're posting, or even a major reason they're posting.
With light moderation as these boards have (and thank God for that), there are going to be conversations and tones, etc, that some of us find disagreeable (as I said, personally I find some of the anti-4e stuff irritating and I really pretty much dislike 4e, myself).
As for nothing being achieved on some of those other forums, that's just not true. You can conduct meanginful discourse amidst swearing and insults and, whilst I can't imagine that Paizo would ever want that going on to any great extent on their own boards -- they have an image and a business to protect -- what goes on here is, as the unloveable Ron Atkinson used to say, merely Handbags at Dawn.
|
|
Dude, that's all good. But it starts with handbags, then somebody brings a briefcase full of bricks. Then before you know it, you have this forum with 10 new posts a day, 5 of which are on a thread devoted to links to trolling on other forums, and what a sack of slack-jawed troglodytes everybody elsewhere is. Wow. If that's progress, please, sign me up for the Omish barnraising. Luddite for the win.
If you happened to se Bill O'Reilly twist off on Barney Frank the other night, that's what I'm talking about. I personally believe that Barney Frank needs to quit wheedling about the issue. However, Bill O'Reilly screaming at him like a berserk drunk accomplishes nothing.
It's the same difference, as far as I'm concerned. Accomplished? ZERO.
When people get scared that they are going to get schooled by some habitual internet flamewarrior for speaking their mind, they clam up. It's the end of communication. It leads to a nonforum. It begets a barking ground.
|
|
Dude, that's all good. But it starts with handbags, then somebody brings a briefcase full of bricks. Then before you know it, you have this forum with 10 new posts a day, 5 of which are on a thread devoted to links to trolling on other forums, and what a sack of slack-jawed troglodytes everybody elsewhere is. Wow. If that's progress, please, sign me up for the Omish barnraising. Luddite for the win.
If it ever looks like that's even remotely likely to happen, that would be a good time for a response from the Powers That Be.
With regards to the light moderation, that cannot exist for long without self-moderation. If I don't do it, you won't do it, nobody will do it, and we have a big b@%~&slap fest. Accomplished? ZERO.
And yet Paizo's forums have continued with light moderation and are still going...
|
|
There's been more and more talk of moderation lately, dude. It started with the 4e wars, and the beta fish are keeping it going. I think in the last 3 months there have been more 1 week bans handed out than in the last three years.
I'm not a shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination. But when jousting trollboys in musth knock over every thread, it stinks up the place. It's tedious, having to deal with churlish brats who refuse to use their inside voices.
Don't think that this lack orf moderation exists in a vacuum. Don't take it for granted. Don't ever take it for granted.
Beta fish...heh. Good one, Heathy.
|
|
That is a concern (I mentioned it in my last post, too). However, I also know for a fact that some people left here (and, in fact, stopped buying Paizo stuff altogether) because they felt that the boards were too anti-4e and posting here as a 4e supporter and player meant encountering too much hostility. I pretty much feel the same way about those people as I do about the people that might be put off by CoL, which is that they should probably just toughen up a bit because managing a board to avoid offence means spending money (as it takes time, so less other stuff gets done if no new man/womanhours appear) and also would make the forums a less cool place to be.I also agree with you that Jason, etc, can read through the shouting, so the points aren't getting lost.
Ok. First attempt seems to have gotten eaten by the message board. :(
I expected this kind of reasoning to surface sooner or later in this thread. Sure, there are a lot of people who read this board for the shere fun of entertainment. It's like in everyone's life. Things should be entertaining. It's just that my personal limit of fun is reached when fun is done at the cost of others.
Recommending to these people that they should toughen up is hypocritical at best.
If such narcistic people take up more space in threads than they are entitled to by any means (it's supposed to be about rules, not about egos, isn't it?), I am in favour of kicking/ banning them. There are enough other threads and/ or boards for boosting one's ego or proclaiming one's "true" interpretation of the game.
The current status is
1. annoying for everyone interested in reading as many different points of views as possible (because some people like me just don't post there any more, too many bad experiences, and I am not willing to "toughen" up for a hobby which is supposed to be fun)
2. destructive for the beta testing phase, because valuable other opinions are suppressed/ driven away that way
3. discriminating against these posters and very unlike the tolerant atmosphere I am used to on these boards not so long back
4. making me doubt the intelligence of these posters (because who do they think they can impress? Paizo certainly draws their own conclusion from such threads...)
Just my two minute rant... but apparently I am not yet the only one feeling this way.
- Günther
Another vote for the banhammer here.
I still like to spend time in these forums. But it's to the point now where as soon as certain names pop up, I just stop visiting that thread any more.
|
and I am not willing to "toughen" up for a hobby which is supposed to be fun
That line of attack is pretty annoying as well. Anyone who doesn't like being called an idiot or retarded by this set is 'overly sensitive' or needs to 'toughen up.' So, apparently, if you don't like being abused, there must be something wrong with you.
|
|
Points
My opinion isn't just about this, it's about general participation in internet communities. It's also not a argument based on moral imperatives that I'm making, it's just a practical one; being easily offended in life and particularly on the internet seems highly illogical, to me. I am certainly not instructing people on what to do -- it's not as if I have any authority over them and even if I did, they can decide that for themselves how they want to interact -- but rather just commenting on how, in my experience, these things work best.
As for those that prefer the Paizo people to spend more time doing their main work, that is indeed the attraction of light moderation...
|
|
Additionally, remember that we are a small fraction of Paizo's total customer base, so if one agrees that the comments of CoL contain valuable information to the end of making the PFRPG game better, that's a benefit for all the customers (which is a benefit for us, too, because if the game's popular, it'll have longevity); when I say that I think that end is more important than the feelings of posters here, that's also what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the game being better is more important than the feelings of a minority of the minority of Paizo customers that post here.
Of course, if one thinks that CoL, etc, aren't making good points then one would only see them as a source of offence. Nevertheless, I personally haven't ever called for the banning of another forum member on any forum on which I've posted; ironically, it seems to me that doing that in public is arguably actually more aggressive and offensive (and appears somewhat spiteful, to boot) than the behaviour about which people are unhappy.
Just My Opinion, mind.
Maybe, then, instead of a CharOp forum, Paizo can make an "old-skool members-only" forum for people like Heathy and Fakey and Guennarr and myself -- people who've been coming here for years, for reasons that don't always have to do with gaming. The rest of this nebulous "consumer base" can rant and spew snot and demand obedience to their overwhelming pwn-ness, while the rest of us sit inside and have tea and crumpets -- or better yet, Shiner bock and cashews.
|
|
Maybe, then, instead of a CharOp forum, Paizo can make an "old-skool members-only" forum for people like Heathy and Fakey and Guennarr and myself -- people who've been coming here for years, for reasons that don't always have to do with gaming. The rest of this nebulous "consumer base" can rant and spew snot and demand obedience to their overwhelming pwn-ness, while the rest of us sit inside and have tea and crumpets -- or better yet, Shiner bock and cashews.
Actually, there's a lot to be said for some subforums that have different rules; even though it does require moderation, that moderation is then limited to that subforum (and if it's not really related to the commercial mission, it's easier to farm it out to a few trusted users, to boot, although that can come with its own hassles, of course).
and I am not willing to "toughen" up for a hobby which is supposed to be funThat line of attack is pretty annoying as well. Anyone who doesn't like being called an idiot or retarded by this set is 'overly sensitive' or needs to 'toughen up.' So, apparently, if you don't like being abused, there must be something wrong with you.
I totally agree. I've been thing of the following analogy:
Novice Airplane Modeler: "Hey guys, check out the plane I just finished!"
That One Guy: "Plane? You call that a plane? That's an A-10 Warthog and you painted it the wrong color! It says clearly on the package: C320 - Army Green, not that stupid, ugly C129 - Forest Green. Why do you even try? You obviously made your airplane wrong!"
Novice Airplane Modeler: "But it's just a model, and I like the color..."
That One Guy: "NO!! The only acceptable way to model a plane is by following the instructions EXACTLY! Don't you know how to read you ignorant, illogical, pansy?!"
... As it turns out, it's a hobby.
|
Contributor
|
Bagpuss,
I've pretty much bowed out of this discussion (and haven't gotten involved in many others) because I don't feel I have anything to add, at the moment.
However, I wanted to say that, although I (mostly) disagree with your point of view, I am very impressed by your ability to convey your thoughts calmly, clearly, without resorting to invectives and without appearing to talk down to other posters.
The very fact that we disagree and can still have a civil discussion here is a prime example of why I believe firmly that it can (and should be done) in every other thread. It's pretty clear that I'm more optimistic ("hopeful" is probably more accurate) than you are that others can learn from example and be encouraged by the community as a whole to live up to a certain standard.
We've done a pretty good job of policing our own in the past. It's a shame that a few newcomers can't take a moment to look around and see how things have been done here in the past before establishing a mode of behavior that doesn't fit the environment. I realize that what I'm asking for sounds a lot like conformism, but I think that certain social norms are acceptable--in fact, desireable.
Anyway...thanks for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Paris
PS - I must say that it feels strange complimenting someone while referring to them as "bagpuss." The internet is so weird, sometimes. ;)
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'd just like everyone to know that warnings have been given out.
I'd also like to reassert that we feel strongly that *how* you say what you say is indeed as important as what you say in this community; being a genius is no excuse for being rude. (Not that I'm calling anybody in particular either one of those things...)
|
|
I'm pretty new to the boards, and I find the abrasive attitude and insults quite offensive. I've got better ways to spend my time than listen to some people whose social skills are nil. As soon as I see that "well, duh" attitude and condescending pose, I'm ready to check out.
But there you go with your own (mild!) insult about people's social skills. I genuinely think that there's a certain level of snark that's inevitable when enough people discuss stuff on the internet and your comment is on the low end but then so is pretty much everything CoL's said. But, as you imply, you can always ignore the guy(s).
|
|
I'm pretty new to the boards, and I find the abrasive attitude and insults quite offensive. I've got better ways to spend my time than listen to some people whose social skills are nil. As soon as I see that "well, duh" attitude and condescending pose, I'm ready to check out.But there you go with your own (mild!) insult about people's social skills. I genuinely think that there's a certain level of snark that's inevitable when enough people discuss stuff on the internet and your comment is on the low end but then so is pretty much everything CoL's said. But, as you imply, you can always ignore the guy(s).
Hhmm... I read some of the remarks above. A german expression came to my mind: "twisting someone's words in their mouth." ("Jemandem das Wort im Munde umdrehen")
Are all of us already too deeply emotionally attached to our point of view to have a closer look at the postings of those who have a different opinion? Is the length of a thread and (low) number of participants always an indication for the "quibbling factor" of that thread? (purposefully exaggerating... a little bit ;-) )
Regarding the above mentioned postings:
I differentiate between cause and effect.
Cause: I and others here are treated uncivilly.
Effect: I appeal nicely, I appeal again nicely. Finally I react in kind respectively ask for action by Paizo (= a polite reminder or in worst case a ban)
As you can read in Vic's posting above and in other postings by other Paizo staff members, I seem to be about in line with Paizo's view, when I expect civility not only in words but also in behaviour (meaning especially tolerance towards differing opinions).
You might disagree with traffic rules, but they are sill valid and in severe cases you risk losing your driving licence.
You might disagree with Paizo's view, but these are still their boards and their "traffic rules".
Vic stated Paizo's opinion clearly enough and the length of my posting shows clearly enough that I am by now somewhat emotional about this topic, too. ;-)
The question is: Do rules of civlity mean that you have to bear every kind of uncivil behaviour and is it rude to call rudeness by its name?
I dissent.
Kr,
Günther
P.S.
I am not talking about any specific poster (CoL or whoever was mentioned in this thread) here, I am addressing a behaviour pattern unfortunately more and more common on these boards.
|
|
post
Sure, I'm not telling Paizo or anyone else how to be -- as I said earlier, not only do I not have any authority over anyone here, if I did I still wouldn't tell them how to be -- I'm just expressing my own opinion. Which doesn't seem any more or less valid to me because Vic, or anyone, disagrees or agrees with me. I am, after all and throughout this thread, aware that I'm in a minority regarding this opinion, at least of those people that have posted in this thread (and, I suspect, across the board and the internet in general).
|
|
But there you go with your own (mild!) insult about people's social skills.Well, I'd say that's more of an observation. It might not paint those people in the best light, but to me it's pretty evident that there are some posters who either lack the social skills entirely (which, OK, I don't really think is true) or don't think it's worth their time to exercise them. Either way, it makes for a harsh experience, and that's just not fun.
I tend to view that more as a chastisement than an insult. It doesn't take much effort to be polite, even in a heated disagreement.
I also find that it doesn't take much effort to be polite, although I tend not to have 'heated' disagreements in text (or, indeed, face to face, at least outside of traffic). However, saying that someone has no social skills is, again, something that sensitive people will find insulting, because it's an attack on something that society clearly does value (and it's repeatedly used as an insult, rightly or wrongly, to gamers, for a start). It's also not an attack on an opinion, or idea, it's aimed more at the person themselves (as we tend to be more attached to our perception of things like our social skills, even aside from that fact that it's a common insult aimed at gamers).
Of course, from my perspective, I'm fine with it. It's so mild an insult that it doesn't cross any lines that I care about. I was just amused that you'd say it whilst commenting on someone else's insulting/abrasive behaviour.
I also find that it doesn't take much effort to be polite, although I tend not to have 'heated' disagreements in text (or, indeed, face to face, at least outside of traffic). However, saying that someone has no social skills is, again, something that sensitive people will find insulting, because it's an attack on something that society clearly does value (and it's repeatedly used as an insult, rightly or wrongly, to gamers, for a start). It's also not an attack on an opinion, or idea, it's aimed more at the person themselves (as we tend to be more attached to our perception of things like our social skills, even aside from that fact that it's a common insult aimed at gamers).
Of course, from my perspective, I'm fine with it. It's so mild an insult that it doesn't cross any lines that I care about. I was just amused that you'd say it whilst commenting on someone else's insulting/abrasive behaviour.
Right. It would be better to say, someone that does not demonstrate any social skills.
I've started threads in the past on my opinion that Paizoans tend to be conflict-avoidant in ways that are not productive. (See my past thread on my irritation at "comic" thread graffiti.) So that should color how you read what's to follow.
While I don't particularly find Crusader to be nice people, I am glad that someone cares enough to advocate for that viewpoint, especially since I agree that something more needs to be done to help melee classes avoid being shafted after 9th level or so. That's my experience. I'm glad that someone's out there advocating forcefully for the viewpoint that claiming that it's essentially fraudulent to tell new players all classes are created equal at all levels. The costs of spending years with a character only to see them become more useless the higher level they get is high enough for me to tolerate some pretty bad behavior from those two.
People: Open play tests are not about being nice. They're about competitive people competing to find the holes in a system. The only reason they provide this extremely valuable FREE LABOR is because they want to be full of win. Deriding someone for acting in this manner is counter-productive.
You don't get a good play-test by asking for lawyers to come break your system and then insist on them acting like social workers.
If you don't like it, I'd love the company down in the adventure path threads. They've gotten lonely recently. Heck, the threads on the single modules have dried up and gone away.
|
|
I've started threads in the past on my opinion that Paizoans tend to be conflict-avoidant in ways that are not productive. (See my past thread on my irritation at "comic" thread graffiti.) So that should color how you read what's to follow.
While I don't particularly find Crusader to be nice people, I am glad that someone cares enough to advocate for that viewpoint, especially since I agree that something more needs to be done to help melee classes avoid being shafted after 9th level or so. That's my experience. I'm glad that someone's out there advocating forcefully for the viewpoint that claiming that it's essentially fraudulent to tell new players all classes are created equal at all levels. The costs of spending years with a character only to see them become more useless the higher level they get is high enough for me to tolerate some pretty bad behavior from those two.
People: Open play tests are not about being nice. They're about competitive people competing to find the holes in a system. The only reason they provide this extremely valuable FREE LABOR is because they want to be full of win. Deriding someone for acting in this manner is counter-productive.
You don't get a good play-test by asking for lawyers to come break your system and then insist on them acting like social workers.
If you don't like it, I'd love the company down in the adventure path threads. They've gotten lonely recently. Heck, the threads on the single modules have dried up and gone away.
Problem is they are not even playtesting they are throwing out mathamatical formula and percentages which the Paizo staff have already said they dont want and as far as im concernd if you cant talk to someone on a forum the way you talk to them in real life dont bother posting.
|
|
People: Open play tests are not about being nice. They're about competitive people competing to find the holes in a system. The only reason they provide this extremely valuable FREE LABOR is because they want to be full of win. Deriding someone for acting in this manner is counter-productive.
You don't get a good play-test by asking for lawyers to come break your system and then insist on them acting like social workers.
If you don't like it, I'd love the company down in the adventure path threads. They've gotten lonely recently. Heck, the threads on the single modules have dried up and gone away.
The problem is..Paizo has Stated if you are not being Nice..you will be ignored... So being rude or Mean in other ways in unproductive.
|
|
rougerogue: I think "nonproductive conflict avoidance" would be to sit back and let the gnarly run roughshod all over the place.
Frankly, I think it's exactly what you're suggesting. I don't think "let's cede the beta playtest forum to the roughboys and go talk about Pathfinder modules" is an apt example when you just said what amounts to everybody on Paizo displays unproductive levels of conflict avoidance.
|
rougerogue: I think "nonproductive conflict avoidance" would be to sit back and let the gnarly run roughshod all over the place.
Frankly, I think it's exactly what you're suggesting. I don't think "let's cede the beta playtest forum to the roughboys and go talk about Pathfinder modules" is an apt example when you just said what amounts to everybody on Paizo displays unproductive levels of conflict avoidance.
In fact, Heathy, if you don't mind me tacking another idea on to your own, I would go one step further and suggest that during the period with this atmosphere of "conflict avoidance" (or whatever you want to call it) the boards actually generated more meaningful discussion, as people were open to sharing ideas without fear of criticism.
Oh, and smurf.
|
|
Problem is they are not even playtesting they are throwing out mathamatical formula and percentages which the Paizo staff have already said they dont want and as far as im concernd if you cant talk to someone on a forum the way you talk to them in real life dont bother posting.
As I recall, the idea that the mathematical approach wasn't wanted was actually modified (as it ought to be, in my opinion, because breaking things down is also far better done as a group effort). It seems pretty obvious that it has a place, too.
The problem is..Paizo has Stated if you are not being Nice..you will be ignored... So being rude or Mean in other ways in unproductive.
And yet straight after your post, Vic says that you don't have to be nice. I doubt they're ignoring what people say if they say it in an abrasive fashion; sure, they may weight it less (that's human nature, perhaps) and they have apparently sent some emails requesting less snark, but I trust them to see when logical points are made.
People: Open play tests are not about being nice.We're not saying you have to be nice, but anyone who thinks that means they can be nasty is mistaken, whether that's in the playtest forum or any other.
Hey, it's not my call and it's not even my fight. I'm not being nasty. And since the site administrators haven't labeled these posters—on either side—as being nasty, I'm not advocating for people being nasty either. I've not crossed any such line.
When you label them nasty, that's a different story.
Until the administrators like yourself say that they cross the line, I'm going to assume that it's all right for them to make mistakes in the exercise of their speech rights in a forum devoted to the exchange of ideas. And I'm going to assume that being one of two or three voices on this thread presenting the minority viewpoint that people should have the right to make mistakes in making dearly held arguments is okay.
Absent adjudication, I'm arguing that silencing unpopular viewpoints should be protected.