So, I've been thinking about this lately. Why is it, when certain topics come up, people feel compelled to post in a given topic when they clearly aren't going to contribute based on the actual topic if the thread?
I'm not just talking here, per se. It happens here, but this is a general trend I've seen across the Interwebiverse. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Some topics just seem to cause some people to post automatically.
Topic: What Alignment Is X Character
All of the sudden, even though its clear in the first post that the poster likes alignment, wants to run his game using alignment as it stands in the rules, and just wants to discuss how to apply said rules to a given situation, and then BAM.
"Alignment is horrible. Its got no place in the game and its not realistic. If you didn't use it, you wouldn't have any problems."
Topic: What Should My Paladin Do Now That X has happened?
Again, first post, clear that the poster likes paladins, no problems with how paladins work, etc.
"Paladins are a horrible class that should never have been created. If you didn't use paladins, you wouldn't have this problem, and if you play a paladin, you are making the game less fun for everyone at the table."
Followed by . . .
"Paladins should be every alignment, and if paladins could be every alignment, this situation would never come up."
Topic: I Want To Do X In My Forgotten Realms Campaign, How Should I Do It?
Clearly, someone that likes the Realms and is voluntarily running a game in the setting.
"FR is a horrible setting. Its too confining. Its no wonder you can't figure out what to do next since X or Y could do it first and there isn't anything left undetailed."
I mean, I get it if someone asks an open ended question, like "Why Don't You Use Alignment?" or "What Changes Would You Make to the Paladin?" or "Why Don't You Like the Realms." But when the topic is kind of clearly assuming certain things, and asking certain things, just because the title has certain "keywords" in it, does that mean that you automatically have to start up the same old arguments again?
I guess I'm just kind of venting, because while a appreciate debate and discussion, some topics almost get to the point of not being able to be discussed because people that have a problem with the "keyword" are so quick to jump in and try to reframe the discussion.
And again, let me reiterate, this is kind of a general frustration over various message boards and chat rooms, not just Paizo.
Contributor
|
*resists urge to attack you for asking such a question* :)
Seriously, because our large and wonderful tribe contains many difficult and strong personalities. That said, I'm with you. It seems a certain self-centered lack of kindness from where I sit. Good of you to point the behavior out without singling anyone out.
Heh, thanks Lou.
And I don't even mean someone tangentially mentioning something once a topic has been around for a while and the discussion has kind of grown. I mean when, before the original topic has even been addressed, BAM, out come the standard responses.
Its good that to read that its not just my warped perception of this. I wouldn't single anyone out, in part because there are people whose opinion I value, across several boards, that I respect, that for some reason, on some topics, just can't resist the "Keyword Response" urge.
Heck, as with many things, I've probably fallen prey to it myself a time or two, and I hope, especially with some gentle prodding, that people would be kind enough to point out to me if I'm posting what I think is on topic and its not and its just an excuse to rant about something I've ranted about before.
|
Maybe nine times out of ten, that pretty much explains it all, doesn't it?
I chuckle every time I see the kind of behavior you're talking abut, KE, no matter where online it's happening (I see it on livejournal far more often than I do here) because I know in the "real world" the people who threadjack the way you've described would never dream of speaking out and interrupting someone else's conversation like that because of the threat of some sort of reprisal. But the safety of a keyboard allows them to transcend their cowardice and grants carte blanche to act in any manner they want. And for those cases that the GIFT doesn't explain I generally chalk that up to a kind of social retardation seen across fandom- "geek Asperger syndrome", if you will- in which the person simply doesn't understand that in polite society one does not act that way. It's something I've seen over and over again in the past two and a half decades (we all have, I'm sure; it can't just be me) at conventions, game stores, and comic shops, and one of the reasons I'm now reluctant to go around them. There's always some nutjob who can't wait to pounce upon a perfectly uninterested stranger and begin to jabber on, without warrant or invitation, about why Picard is a better captain than Kirk, why a true D&D player will only allow a female dwarf to have a maximum STR of 17, why he knows every DC comic released after 1986 is non-canonical, or why the dark elf ranger who fights with two scimitars that he's been playing since before a certain other character appeared in some novels is clearly yet inexplicably based on his personal creation.
Maybe nine times out of ten, that pretty much explains it all, doesn't it?
I chuckle every time I see the kind of behavior you're talking abut, KE, no matter where online it's happening (I see it on livejournal far more often than I do here) because I know in the "real world" the people who threadjack the way you've described would never dream of speaking out and interrupting someone else's conversation like that because of the threat of some sort of reprisal. But the safety of a keyboard allows them to transcend their cowardice and grants carte blanche to act in any manner they want. And for those cases that the GIFT doesn't explain I generally chalk that up to a kind of social retardation seen across fandom- "geek Asperger syndrome", if you will- in which the person simply doesn't understand that in polite society one does not act that way. It's something I've seen over and over again in the past two and a half decades (we all have, I'm sure; it can't just be me) at conventions, game stores, and comic shops, and one of the reasons I'm now reluctant to go around them. There's always some nutjob who can't wait to pounce upon a perfectly uninterested stranger and begin to jabber on, without warrant or invitation, about why Picard is a better captain than Kirk, why a true D&D player will only allow a female dwarf to have a maximum STR of 17, why he knows every DC comic released after 1986 is non-canonical, or why the dark elf ranger who fights with two scimitars that he's been playing since before a certain other character appeared in some novels is clearly yet inexplicably based on his personal creation.
This.
Although IconoclasticScream put it politely.
I would have said that they're just being douchebags.
|
Honestly, alignment really should be dropped. It IS horrible and sucks! But it is a great way to deal with the concept in game so should be dropped! :D
lol
I think the reason people post like that is that they have strong feelings on a particular related part of the topic and just want to be heard and find support for their opinions.
As for threadjacks, I don't have a problem with them for the most part. In any real life in person conversation it is not unusual for someone to make a comment that takes the conversation into a different area than where it started. Conversations are organic, growing and changing.
As for paladins, they SUCK and should be dropped. They are so overpowered and difficult to play. They wouldn't be so bad if they just had some more power though... :D
I'm sure I've been guilty of doing this before, too.
I think the point is this: Despite what your teachers might have told you in school, some questions are dumb questions. And (in my opinion) if someone asks a dumb question, it's O.K. to politely point out why it's not a good question, or why the larger question is more important.
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on which questions are dumb. I don't think any of the sample questions you posed above are dumb, but I'm sure there are folks who would disagree.
Why is it, when certain topics come up, people feel compelled to post in a given topic when they clearly aren't going to contribute based on the actual topic if the thread?
I've only posted a very few times, but a couple of those times my responses were a bit of a tangent from the main topic.
Why is that? I've been lurking on the Paizo messageboards for years, and during that time, I've accumulated a ton of things I wanted to say. Now that I've finally come out of my shell, I'm bursting with years' worth of stories I want to tell, rants and raves I want to shout out, and questions I want to ask. So I'll take the opportunity at the slightest provocation, even if it means changing the subject somewhat.
Why, then, don't I just start a new topic? Because an existing topic has a guaranteed audience, and a new one doesn't.
And why do people post the same thing they've already posted in 100 other topics (e.g. "4E stinks")? Maybe they figure there are people who read that thread that haven't read the other 100. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to post the same message again. All I would have to do is copy and paste.
And I don't even mean someone tangentially mentioning something once a topic has been around for a while and the discussion has kind of grown. I mean when, before the original topic has even been addressed, BAM, out come the standard responses.
I'm not guilty of this yet, but I might be soon. And I'm not planning to repent anytime soon. Geek-Asperger syndrome? Maybe. But it's not limited to cyberspace. In the real world, it sometimes happens that people just come up to you and start babbling about how bad Obama's financial decisions have been, what they saw on TV the previous night, or what they ate for lunch that day, doesn't it?
Of course, nobody elected me as a spokesman for such people. Maybe I'm wrong in attributing MY motives to that of the topic-changers at large. But until someone else claims to speak for such people, my hunch is that people do it for similar reasons.
|
|
I don't think there is a general call for limiting people's opinions, just a request for people who don't like the topic to NOT post about it on a thread that is about how to make it work/better/more fun/more powerful/etc. I check the messageboards I want to read, because they are about something I am curious about. WHen that turns into a running argument about why anyone who allows this particular bit in their game is stupid or not a "real" roleplayer, it irritates me. If you dislike the very idea of something being in the game, don' read the thread discussion about it. If you feel compelled to read all the thread discussions (likely because of the aforementioned geek aspergers causing you to have no life outside the internet) then politely don't post comments that belittle and belabor the original point of the thread. ie if the thread is about how to use Forgotten Realms in your game, people who hate Forgotten Realms don't have any useful input and the people who may have some helpful suggestions can never get their posts read because the board has degenerated into a flame war between two people. Sorry, I usually don't write this much.
A very articulate post.
Considering how well thought out and well writting your post was, and particularly considering the topic at hand, it is unlikely you fall into the general category of posters and people under discussion. :)
As another aside, just keep in mind that while such strains of threadjakers (which, as KnightErrant has pointed out, should not to be confused with threadjakers at large, of which I am one) may be acting as douchebags, one act of douchebaggery does not a douchebag make. As many others have said, some of us may have been guilty of this in the past; sometimes it is just a momentary lapse of tact. Thus, I echo former suggestions that such strains of threadjackers be corrected gently and politely, lest they be a really great person on the other side of the monitor, just with strong emotions and having a bad day.
So, I've been thinking about this lately. Why is it, when certain topics come up, people feel compelled to post in a given topic when they clearly aren't going to contribute based on the actual topic if the thread?...
We have been having meetings on another site, for a few years, about how best to irk you. The method of 'drive by posting' was voted as having the highest probability of doing so. I forget what #2 was now, but I think it invovled us taking turns cutting you off in traffic (I think some us are following you around doing that anyways, just for fun.)
It worked. Damn, now I have to pay some others $10, because I lost the bet.
And why do people post the same thing they've already posted in 100 other topics (e.g. "4E stinks")? Maybe they figure there are people who read that thread that haven't read the other 100. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to post the same message again. All I would have to do is copy and paste.
And now, weeks later, I finally did it. I posted in this thread, and today I copied and pasted my post into this thread.
And why do people post the same thing they've already posted in 100 other topics (e.g. "4E stinks")? Maybe they figure there are people who read that thread that haven't read the other 100. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to post the same message again. All I would have to do is copy and paste.And now, weeks later, I finally did it. I posted in this thread, and today I copied and pasted my post into this thread.
Well you are holding up two fingers. I say, good work keep it up.
And it worked! I got an answer from James Sutter - the first time I ever got a direct response from a Paizo staff member. So that's the secret of getting attention: Repetition unto success.
...one act of douchebaggery does not a douchebag make...
Good point, Saern. It's a good policy to take a positive approach to douchebaggery. Separate the douche from the bag, so to speak. I'm tempted to ask about your position on asshattery...
How is someone's opinion less valid simply because they disagree? You could turn this around and complain about people who refuse to do a search first and post something that has already been discussed to death.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
How is someone's opinion less valid simply because they disagree? You could turn this around and complain about people who refuse to do a search first and post something that has already been discussed to death.
I don't think the issue is with stating a conflicting opinion, I think the issue is with those who state a tangential opinion. For example, in the OP's post, he talks about situations where the poster is not answering or commenting upon a topic, such as what a given a paladin should do in a given situation, but rather on the topic of whether paladins should exist at all. The opinion posted that paladins should not exist warrants its own thread, to allow a discussion upon that point, rather than being rudely shoved into a different conversation.
It's rather like a group of people talking about the quality of local restaurants when one of them suddenly states: "Food is totally unnecessary for existence." Clearly this is a related topic, but tangential to the current conversational topic of the relative qualities of local restaurants.
Not to be too broadly stereotypical, but gamers and those with obsessive interests in geek topics tend not to be overly aware of social conventions. Perhaps they're unaware of the social convention of internet discussions which states that the Original Poster gets to define the initial point of conversation. All subsequent posts should serve to advance the conversation along these lines and any tangential observations should be posted in a new conversation, so as to avoid rudely hijacking the conversation.
Perhaps we need to publish a series of social rules for online conversations?
How is someone's opinion less valid simply because they disagree? You could turn this around and complain about people who refuse to do a search first and post something that has already been discussed to death.
Wait a minute...who's being disagreed with again?
I don't think the issue is with stating a conflicting opinion, I think the issue is with those who state a tangential opinion.
On the other hand, the point could be very tangential. Instead of addressing the symptom, the poster could be going for the true root of the problem.
I concede the majority of the time, people just have an axe to grind. Still, I see axe grinding as just as valid as seeking an answer to a question. Is it rude and disruptive? Sure. But, really, what is the harm?
Signal to noise? Please. There would be a lot less noise if people just ignore the offending posts. Trolls bore easily. When you refuse to feed them, they wander off.
I have been guilty of posts the original poster is talking about. I am sure I will be in the future as well. Should I be silenced? I have found, when people engage me, I often can offer a different perspective. That new perspective can be helpful.
I think dismissing these posts is just as narrow minded as the posts themselves.
Just out of curiosity, if I am walking on campus and overhear the conversation of a public forum in which people are civilly discussing a president's policies, and I jump in out of nowhere and belligerently yell "Everything the president does is wrong! He never should have been elected! He should be impeached!", is that okay?
Should I be silenced?
Wait...this is the question?!?
...is that okay?
You win. Surround yourself with 'yes men'.
I DID dismiss them as rude.
My mistake. I can't argue that.
|
A think a distinction can be made between offering an "outside the box" suggestion and threadcrapping, and hopefully people around these boards can tell the difference. It comes down to the usefulness of the tangent and the constructiveness of the post.
Example 1: "My player keeps doing X. Do you think that should be shifting his alignment to evil?"
"This is why I hate alignment" = not especially helpful.
"If your players are having difficulty with alignment, or if you feel like it's a headache at your game table, I've been playing without it, and it's been working pretty well. Let me tell you about it..." = constructive.
Example 2: "Whenever the players in my 4e game get into a skill challenge, they keep falling back on the same skills over and over. How do I change things up?"
"Skill challenges have ruined the game. I will never buy anything WotC puts out" = threadcrap.
"I'm not a big 4e fan; I tend to prefer the 3.X skill system. If you're unhappy with skill challenges, have you considered importing that skill system into your 4e game?" = reasonable suggestion.
There's room for tangents and suggestions like these, but I think it's a good idea to be mindful of one's approach.
CH pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Sometimes people start with alternate assumptions that might work differently, or even better for some people.
Of course, I say that because I'm very frequently guilty of exactly what the OP is railing against... but I'm the 1 person out of 10 who does that in person as well as behind a keyboard. It's part of my job description to find things that don't work, and to spot potential problems before they come up. The thing is, at work I get paid for it, whereas here I'm told to ignore problems because everything about 3.X must by definition be perfect.
And there I go again... sorry!
*Volunteers to get the pitchforks and torches for the KG lynching*
"Let's go get us some satyr, boys!" :-P
Seriously though, the biggest problem with douchebaggery (as it has been called) is that group who, for whatever reason, feels compelled to answer it, at no matter what level. So many of your "drive-by posters" are just looking to see how high they can get the flames to go before the building collapses, so to speak. Nothing is going to get them to "see reason" or change their minds, despite possible protests to the contrary.
If'n ya don't feed the troll, he'll mosey off ta park his keester somewheres else'n!
Whoa, there, Mister. Quality products don't come cheap!
...is that okay?You win. Surround yourself with 'yes men'.
You have not only deftly sidestepped my question and provided no real answer, but also appear to have made enormous and fallacious assumptions about what I am asking and saying. Rather than furthering the conversation and thought of this thread, your response cripples it.
Each of us has an identity within the community that is this messageboard; I know who you are within that context, and never have nor do now hold any ill will against you. At the same time, I would expect my personal history and the identity I hope and think I have established here on the boards to speak for my credit.
I reiterate my point: There are standards and rules of respect in conversation and social interaction, online and off. It is wrong to violate those standards. One way to violate them by belligerently expounding one's viewpoint when it is truthfully irrelevant to the existing conversation at hand, and offensive to the others in the conversation. The amount of attention one pays or does not pay to such belligerent statements does not change their inappropriateness.
I'm guilty of skimming the thread, but I have read a fair number of the posts.
Sometimes I think it's a fear reaction, honestly. Or a desire to control the topic by derailing it.
Take psionics as a hypothetical. Erik Mona asks, "What do psionics means to you?"
And I read a response like; "I hate psionics. Don't make such a book." And that's all they write.
(And that's an example, no one need feel they have to defend their opinion on psionics to me, right now)
I don't question the sincerity of the response, and it's legitimate feedback in that they don't intend to buy the book. However the way it comes across is just like they're shouting over the discussion. They're not explaining why they hate psionics. They just want to snuff out the dialogue. Kill it before the very idea catches on.
You see that in politics too. These Health Care town hall meetings are a noteworthy example. I won't express an opinion on the topic here, but when you refuse to enter in or allow discussion there reason usually is fear.. or a desire to control the conversation.
You have not only deftly sidestepped my question and provided no real answer, but also appear to have made enormous and fallacious assumptions about what I am asking and saying.
I was out of line and I apologize.
Not to justify my post, merely to explain it, I am sensitive about someone telling me what I can or can not say. I realize that is not at all what you were doing.
To answer your original question, maybe. Yes, it is rude, obnoxious and out of place. It is my personal opinion, that sometimes, rude, obnoxious and out of place behavior is entirely warranted. I seem to recall a certain 'tea party' in or around Boston.
You have not only deftly sidestepped my question and provided no real answer, but also appear to have made enormous and fallacious assumptions about what I am asking and saying.I was out of line and I apologize.
Not to justify my post, merely to explain it, I am sensitive about someone telling me what I can or can not say. I realize that is not at all what you were doing.
To answer your original question, maybe. Yes, it is rude, obnoxious and out of place. It is my personal opinion, that sometimes, rude, obnoxious and out of place behavior is entirely warranted. I seem to recall a certain 'tea party' in or around Boston.
I like your style, CF. It takes a true adult to recognize and publicly acknowledge one's possible mistakes. You have my admiration.
*Licks CourtFool*
Heh, I wanted to thank everyone for pretty much forging an interesting discussion out of what amounted to be being a bit frustrated and just wanting to vent a bit. In all honesty, some of you guys managed to put into words what was difficult for me to diffuse from my example.
You have not only deftly sidestepped my question and provided no real answer, but also appear to have made enormous and fallacious assumptions about what I am asking and saying.I was out of line and I apologize.
Not to justify my post, merely to explain it, I am sensitive about someone telling me what I can or can not say. I realize that is not at all what you were doing.
To answer your original question, maybe. Yes, it is rude, obnoxious and out of place. It is my personal opinion, that sometimes, rude, obnoxious and out of place behavior is entirely warranted. I seem to recall a certain 'tea party' in or around Boston.
No harm no foul! We all have hot-button issues that make us see red. I'm certainly guilty as well (searches far enough back will probably reveal some terrible threadcrapping on my part which I'm not happy about).
Personally, I feel that even rude and disruptive behavior should be carried out with some underlying thoughtfulness, such as at the Boston Tea Party. It should have the ability to stimulate thought in those who are willing/capable of listening. If it fails to do so, then either the speaker failed to deliver his point effectively, or he probably shouldn't have spoken at all. (This is all assuming that rational discourse has a chance of success, which unfortunately, history shows is not always the case)
Personally, I feel that even rude and disruptive behavior should be carried out with some underlying thoughtfulness, such as at the Boston Tea Party.
I think our opinions are much closer than I originally thought.