Why can't people assume good intentions from others, rather than interpreting the worst?
Why can't people stay out of discussions if they have nothing useful to add?
Why don't people resist snide remarks and insults?
I have to admit I am guilty of the above, and I am not going to excuse my poor behaviour. I am sorry I did it. I apologise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the f@+% do you mean by that?
Because there is somebody wrong on the internet.
Why can't people assume good intentions from others, rather than interpreting the worst?
Experience.
Why can't people stay out of discussions if they have nothing useful to add?
Because there usually is some useful gunk behind the banter.
Why don't people resist snide remarks and insults?
Because its a very fine line between a clever turn of phrase and a snide one. Mostly the difference would be handled by tone of voice But...
Why can't people assume good intentions from others, rather than interpreting the worst?
Why can't people stay out of discussions if they have nothing useful to add?
Why don't people resist snide remarks and insults?
I have to admit I am guilty of the above, and I am not going to excuse my poor behaviour. I am sorry I did it. I apologise.
Many times people don't assume the worst, they just misinterpret. It is also hard to remember to state exactly what you mean online, and it takes people time to learn to be precise since "reading" people is a lot easier in person.
As an example if you say things like never, and always it will be taken literally. This is due to some people saying some silly things so you have to take what you read as being literal at times, at least until you get to know the poster.
They don't stay out of discussion because they don't realize they are not being useful or they can't ignore something that annoys them.
It is hard to resist an insult, and it is harder to resist one that changes the context of what you said into something else.
Since you have done it I think you also understand, at least to a certain point.<---not a snide comment
Sara Marie: I had that xkcd in mind too.
I came across the posting guidelines for Gnome Stew today. They have only two points. It inspired my initial post.
1. Don’t be a jerk. Use common courtesy and don’t make personal attacks. Within reason, swearing is fine. If we, the authors, think you’re being a jerk, you’ll be banned from posting here.
(point 2 is about using your comment in their published work.)
I think it has a lot to do with the anonymity of the discussion board. There are no real consequences for trolling. You are not insulting a real person, you are raving at name over a perched falcon.
If we were all sitting together in a room dicussing these things, I'm sure it would stay fairly civil. Except for the politics discussions. I have seldom seen those stay civil even in face to face encounters.
Why are people insulting, small-minded, impatient and often surprisingly foul-mouthed?
Because this is the Net, and they know you cannot find them to kill them.
(Meant only partly in jest. Study the history of societies where duelling was allowed, and societies reknowned for their courtesy and diplomacy. I noticed the high correlation and it's kinda become a pet theory of mine.)
...well, attitudes like this, too. X)
There's an odd experiment I keep wanting to try. It might just be idle fancy, or it might, at some level, have some merit and I've never been able to decide which (which in itself may say a thing).
You see, I keep wondering if Paizo might make a "Popcorn Thread" area, where all of the Classics might be shifted to and discussed. You know the topics I'm talking about.
This lets them be discussed, though also marks them as "silly" at the same time, which is what may need to happen with mage v. fighter (etc. etc.): they should be taken with humor and salt. Have some popcorn. Don't get upset.
Just...now and again, you get someone new who is new to the genre, and it starts it up all over again.
Popcorning might help with that, too, but I'm not sure. It would be an experiment that may or may not work.
I don't think that's the sort of thing Paizo could do, though, without upsetting a number of people. There are those who really do enjoy mage v. fighter, lawful stupid, alignment, rollplay v roleplay discussions. In some way also, they're a staple of the genre.
To be fair, again, it isn't only those discussions. We're also dealing with a dedicated audience who are yes, dedicated about their hobby. Have you ever received flamemail over a grammatical change to a website? I have.
Had someone "stalk" you through a series of minor changes, saying "I saw you corrected that 3.04 minutes ago, then got to the other at 3.42 minutes, so didn't want to say anything"? I've had this, too.
It's an excellent trait to have, when applied to editing, programming, or even law. ...but it can also be disconcerting when encountered.
And, let's not forget the level of dedication: the change to something like Power Attack resulting in "Quitting Forever!!!" posts.
Now, add the internet. Mix together all of the above, and it can get to be a bit of a mess sometimes. Paizo deserves respect for keeping things as even-keeled as they have.
|
Actually this is a psychological thing. You pick up on a myriad of verbal and body language cues whilst talking with someone face to face which you don't get responding to a statement in a white box. Therefore you can often miss the intention of what the writer was trying to say and get angry as a result.
I have in the past gone back to read posts that I have made trying to sound reasonable and measured and been shocked at how much of an arrogant (expletive deleted) I sounded like. I didn't want to sound like that but in isolation it ended up sounding terse and unpleasant.
There are three rules that I learnt early on when posting on messageboards that I can share with you.
1) Don't post on religious, political or other contentious matters: You won't change anyone's mind on stuff like this with a messageboard post, you will only make yourself and other people mad.
2) Be prepared to concede and walk away: Monty Python sketches notwithstanding no one wants an argument. Rehashing the same point over and over will only make you angry. Be the bigger person, say that you have made your point and walk away. Being the last person to post does not mean you have won the argument, so why keep arguing?
On the same point be aware that you could be in the wrong. Be an adult, examine your position and put your hand up if you find that you are mistaken. Don't stubbornly stick to a point just to try to win an argument.
3) Never, ever, ever post if you are angry or upset: You will come across aggressive and confrontational, this is how flame wars start. All you will do is make someone else somewhere in the world angry, why would you want to do that?
These rules work well for me and allow for a more mellow messageboard experience.
Because this is the Net, and they know you cannot find them to kill them.
(Meant only partly in jest. Study the history of societies where duelling was allowed, and societies reknowned for their courtesy and diplomacy. I noticed the high correlation and it's kinda become a pet theory of mine.)
You mean like " An armed society is a polite society" ?
Or paraphased from Kalten, Pandion Knight " Nothing reminds a man of his manners as the thought of a meter of steel through the guts." ?Afraid it won´t work out that well overall, as people would simply constrain themselves to insulting people who couldn´t defend themselves... like the weaker and poorer. Wish it wasn´t so.
AM VERY SIMPLE, REALLY. BARBARIAN AM AWESOME. CASTYS ON SITE WANT STEP WITH BARBARIAN, BUT BARBARIAN NOT ROLL LIKE THAT. CASTYS AM JEALOUS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ROLL WITH BARBARIAN. CASTYS HAVE MAGICAL FIRE CONTROL, SET FORUM ARGUMENTS ON FIRE.
BARBARIAN NOT ABLE GET ALL FIRE PUT OUT. BARBARIAN AM AWESOME, BUT AM ONLY ONE BARBARIAN. CASTYS AM LIKE WEEDS. PULL OUT ONE, LIKE SIX MORE POP UP ON FIRE.
OBVIOUS ANSWER AM SMASH ALL CASTYS ALWAYS. AM BRING PEACE TO ALL THREADS, ALWAYS.
Because there is somebody wrong on the internet.
I have a list of the usual suspects though I suspect posting it would be considered against the terms and policies.
Oh, I do not advocate violence as a form of conflict resolution (except in PF, where it is the foremost form of c. r.): I'm just saying that the perceived risk of physical retaliation (call it p) is inversely proportional to the rudeness of the speaker (r) where the speaker's level of being a jerk (j) is a constant.Because this is the Net, and they know you cannot find them to kill them......Afraid it won´t work out that well overall, as people would simply constrain themselves to insulting people who couldn´t defend themselves... like the weaker and poorer. Wish it wasn´t so.
That too.
Because this is the Net, and they know you cannot find them to kill them.
(Meant only partly in jest. Study the history of societies where duelling was allowed, and societies reknowned for their courtesy and diplomacy. I noticed the high correlation and it's kinda become a pet theory of mine.)
You mean like " An armed society is a polite society" ?
Or paraphased from Kalten, Pandion Knight " Nothing reminds a man of his manners as the thought of a meter of steel through the guts." ?Afraid it won´t work out that well overall, as people would simply constrain themselves to insulting people who couldn´t defend themselves... like the weaker and poorer. Wish it wasn´t so.
Not to mention that the idea of offering violence as a response to a perceived slight is pretty darn rude (or at least it is in my book).
I can just see the headlines...
"12 people dead after web discussion about overpowered wizards
It was horrible, one survivor said, it all started friendly enough, until one debater claimed that all wizards were overpowered and was skewered by another. After that, more and more people joined in what turned into a sword battle. Apart from the dead, over sixty people were wounded, some severely. The survivors are facing harsh prison sentences. As the local prosecutor says, internet discussions are today the most dangerous activity people can get involved in, having recently passed heroin dealing."
Hey, anything that causes trolls to become an endangered species is a good thing. Shame about the bystanders, though. ;)
But Internet trolls are actually healed by flames and acid. You need Humor-aligned weapons to bypass their regeneration.
Because they're not right here, sayin it to my face.
...but they started it.
That's what I'm sayin', Spanky! p is inversely proportionate to r where j is a constant! Upside their heads.
That's right. I'm that bad ass.
|
Why can't people assume good intentions from others, rather than interpreting the worst?
Lack of empathy and/or sympathy to the others belief/point of view/style of writing. It is very easy to do. While it is hard to infer "voice" when reading many peoples posts, this does not mean we do not, sometimes unwillingly "fill in the blanks." Thus oft times we see malice where there is none.
Why can't people stay out of discussions if they have nothing useful to add?
Inability to notice that they do not in fact have anything useful to add.
Why don't people resist snide remarks and insults?
Lack of manners, caused by the problem pointed out in your first question.
I have to admit I am guilty of the above, and I am not going to excuse my poor behaviour. I am sorry I did it. I apologise.
Oh I am sure I have done the same. Life goes on. Nothing will ever be decided by a simple internet forum chat.
Discussions here get "heated", mainly due to the passion that everyone involved feels for the game. But they are the model of civility compared to some other forums that I wll not mention the names of.