I may kidnap his dog and force it to love me instead.
This one is my fav.
I also seem to be missing something... this guy was an Aasimar summoner?
I missed that, where was his eidlon?
Where were the other party members?
All we hear about is this assimar, the revenant and the wizard that orbed him out the window...
So the fighter didn't pound on it, the cleric didn't turn it, everyone just watched it crush their buddy unit he shouted "Blow me away Wizzy!"
It just seems like something more is missing?
IF he was a synthesist, doesn't it seem odd he couldnt have done more about the situation? Most of these builds are half way to the house of broken, and he couldnt get out of a grapple?
Usually, when something grapples someone in our group it just makes it an easy target for us to pound on.... would think there would have been more options here... just saying
Synthesist summoner, so he WAS the eidolon. The zen archer and ranger (dps) both got hit with her fear affect and had to bail out of the fight. The wiz is mostly crowd control and the cleric mostly support buffs. That leaves just the three. Cleric, wiz, summoner. And yes their were more options, they just chose the poopy one.
@Vincent - This is what I was saying about authority being an illusion.
The GM can't make that guy stop causing problems at the table. He really can't.
The only power the GM has is to tell the guy no and hope he listens.
And the player didn't. The player threw a fit.
You accused the GM of being unfair. You continue to accuse him of being unfair. He is not being unfair.
He is being fair.
He has a player who is causing problems for himself and other players at the table and he is asking the player stop doing so.
The player is refusing to stop. He is writing 50 pages of e-mails accusing the GM of being unfair to him.
This isn't a strawman. This is what is actually happening.
If a player isn't going to play the game as the rest of the people at the table want the game to be played, the player is trying to assert authority over the table. He is currently trying to assert authority over the GM as to what the rules are.
Why would anyone reasonably or rationally defer the decision of the outcome to the least reasonable person involved?
That is what you are asking for. You are saying to appease and accomodate the player? To what end? Because it will make him stop? Clearing that isn't the case. Clearly he will continue to do this each and every time, because he got what he wanted.
He is asserting authority. Because authority is an illusion. Who is in charge is the person people are willing to defer to. He is demanding the GM defer to him. Titles are meaningless if the player is the one who is actually GMing.
And this can be a good thing. Lord knows when I run with my group I am playing with people who have played and run longer than I have, and so when they know the rule better, and have shown they are reasonable people, I will likely defer to them.
This guy isn't reasonable. This guy doesn't know the rules. The only reason to defer to this guy is if you are trying to get him to stop complaining.
The GM offered a compromise, it was refused. The player wants it his way,...
This is why i'm done arguing with you ciretose. Clearly you dont listen to anyone's voice but your own because I didnt accuse the gm. Most importantly I said IF... IF you're being unfair because you dont like him then stop it. Thats not an accusation. Thats an opportunity to explore the motive for the unfairness that the op specifically at the time mentioned he would apply towards other party members and you're personal view of if that's even unfairness or not is not a "defacto proof that i'm being accusatory." I want to say it only makes me accusatory if your view of fair is the only version of unfairness there is which clearly is not the case. But even thats not true. Even that doesnt make me accusatory. And I'm sure not going to waste 5 more pages trying to help you understand the difference between your definition of accusatory and mine. We know which way that madness lay.
Its an unnarivable destination. You'll never arrive at that point because you're trapped in the definitions of your world that you place on it. You don't seem to want your view to ever be up for debate, but thats what the forums are for. Sorry my opinions arent conveniently covered by your rose colored 'i'm always right' glasses.
Your authority over the definitioin of what is fair is an illusion. Its an illusion because there's more than one definition of fair. I've gone above and beyond by both explaining that not only is your version of fair both a valid one and also the more common (more popular?) one, but I've explored the differences of the two and the results of their applications. It sure does seem remarkably easy for you to defend against your version of fair since the defense for it is 'they dont deserve it so screw em' but to say that 'not another word needs to be said about it' I'm right, we're done? I beg to differ sir. I'm not going into detail about the differences between your perfectly valid opinion and my also perfectly valid opinion for your benefit. Doing so is like tossing poker cards into a fireplace. I'm offering a different but completely valid perspective and backing it up to the best of my ability.
I think i've gone above and beyond to keep these posts out of 'fighty post' territory. Punchline is you'll just keep coming back and saying I'm a wrongy wrong wrong covered in wrong sauce and to that I say we really are done. If authority is an illusion then why do you cling so tightly to the authority that your own version of the truth is the only or rightest best version of the truth, not just in this forum but in every forum you post in. Maybe the illusion of victory that is 'having the last word' is what you're after. If thats the case have at it hondo. It's all yours.
Treating characters differently becuase of the personality of the players is wrong-bad-unfun.
I get what Ciretose is saying about fair and I think people are really oversymplifying it. I know Ciretose is a probation officer, I am a social worker and dealing with the concept of "fair" is part of boundary setting that is required by ethical standards of our professions. I have to maintain a certain level of training on these issues and topics.
If you treat everyone equally, disregarding behaviors of the person, the past history of the person in relating with you, and the needs of the person then you are being unfair.
For instance. I treat my wife, an adult woman one way, I treat adult women, who are my friends, another way. If I treated my adult female friends and my wife the same way, I am willing to be that my wife would find that very unfair. (It would also be creepy).
What makes an interaction fair is if your reaction and behaviors are consistent across people based upon the behaviors they display and the relationship you have (relationships are based on the historic trends of behaviors that this person has had towards you). If someone is being abuisve towards you and someone is being friend towards you, I hope you are reacting different between these two individuals. Not only is it fair, but it is also healthy.
(I know that oversimplyfied some of this, but my brain is partially melted from reading commitment documentation. Legal Jargon, Medical Jargon, and Psychiatric Jargon all balled up into 36 page documents. Good times!)
This is a bad example. Your wife is not equal to your friends bt her very nature. None of the players are inherently more deserving than the others.
In other words your friends are in a way interchangeable. You could not exchange a friend for a wife. Your players may all be unique as people, but they all share the rank of "player". There's no "super player whom I like better" and if there is, that's a problem.
I assume you treat your female friends, basically, the same accounting for how they wish to be treated. If Karen...
Dude, how do you think affairs and whatnot start?
Your premise about the "player" rank assumes that there are no other social connections between us, that we do not form social connections upon interacting, and that we do not make judgements based upon social schema.
|
Vincent - Dude, you have continued to call the GM unfair for not giving someone who has not earned special treatment special treatment.
What you seem to not get is everyone else at the table would get "more" than fair treatment specifically because they don't send 50 page e-mails.
You work tech support. If you are working with someone who knows what they are doing you are going to give them different instructions than someone who doesn't. You will meet the expectations of your job, but for people who make your job easier you might go above and beyond.
From the very beginning, anything the GM would do other than say no would be above and beyond. The night was over, the ruling was made, the game had moved on.
No one is entitled to "more" than fair treatment. People earn "more" than fair treatment.
But if you have to make it personal with me rather than stepping up and apologizing to the GM for your accusations about his being unfair to a player, that is your choice.
I posted a little while ago that I expected people who made accusations that were wrong would apologize. If I were in your position, I would apologize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big disconnect is there are two definitions: "fair = everyone treated equally" and "fair = everyone being treated as they deserve to be treated based on past conduct". I don't think there is really a wrong definition here, except to say the former is an ideal, and the latter tends to be the reality of things. This is in large part due to human nature and our tendency to, sometimes subconsciously, inject personal bias into things.
Generally a good post and one I agree with, except one part in this section. Yes, I am going to quibble, but it is an important one.
Fair = everyone treated equally should only be the ideal setting when one meets a stranger, once one engages in a social interaction with a stranger this stance becomes detrimental. By subscribing to those stance "Fair = Everyone treated equally" you are saying that actions don't matter. That all actions should have the same response. The guy who punches you in the face should be treated the same as the guy who shakes your hand. This does not work.
|
|
Your premise about the "player" rank assumes that we are either that there are no other social connections between us, that we do not form social connections upon interacting, and that we do not make judgements based upon social schema.
Exactly. And further some people have earned special treatment. The player who turns himself in all the time has earned the benefit of the doubt at our table. The player we have caught fudging dice in the past has earned greater suspicion. The guy who knows the rules backwards and forward doesn't have to show me the spell, but the guy who always "forgets" any of the limitation of the spell does.
And all of that is fair.
This guy doesn't get the "more" than fair the other players get because the other players have all earned "more" than fair treatment and this guy hasn't.
Not. Complicated.
LOL
See ciretose. So much support of your opinion of the word fair. I wonder why you wont let other opinions of it survive in a thread.
Dude, you have continued to call the GM unfair for not giving someone who has not earned special treatment special treatment.
Thats it buddy, take it to your grave. Keep riding that rollercoaster. Keep ignoring the word IF and keep them filtered glasses on tight as you can. I love you man.
On a side note
Now, if a kid is immediately defiant, I remember that authority is an illusion. I have no real control over a kid. And I tell them that, usually by saying "I can't make you do anything. I really can't. If you want to keep doing what you are doing, I can't stop you. But I will point out that it isn't working out so well for you at this point, considering you are on probation.
Sort of exacly proves my point that you're operating in an environment where you tell someone 'Do what is expected of you even if you dont agree with it or like it or else bad things will happen to you and the only person anyone will blame and the only person who will suffer is you'
I may not know much about parole officers but if you're one of them thanks for backing up my point. Thank goodness your job allows you to use that opinion as a way of being 'benevolent' to the person who doesnt agree with the scenario. I knew you had my back, brother.
I was utterly confused by that.
'Do what is expected of you even if you dont agree with it or like it or else bad things will happen to you and the only person anyone will blame is you'
Kinda like when you act like a jerk, and then not get a favor from the DM?
|
|
I was utterly confused by that.
'Do what is expected of you even if you dont agree with it or like it or else bad things will happen to you and the only person anyone will blame is you'
Kinda like when you act like a jerk, and then not get a favor from the DM?
I guess in his world it doesn't matter how you act, everyone has to be nice to you all the time and not treat anyone better just because they are nicer.
Edit: Which also explains why he isn't apologizing I guess.
Yep. He games like he lives and nobody can fault him for it.
He came by it honest.
Same could be said for me, except somebody here doesnt want it to be a possibility. Be nice to people even when they're not nice back to you is a tenet aspired largely to by christianity, but I wont argue with you that many of them are not very good at it. To say they dont exist though... Or worse to imply that they shouldnt exist because it doesnt make any sense to you... how could any good possibly come from such a thing... what kind of a fool would even try such a thing.
Synthesist summoner, so he WAS the eidolon. The zen archer and ranger (dps) both got hit with her fear affect and had to bail out of the fight. The wiz is mostly crowd control and the cleric mostly support buffs. That leaves just the three. Cleric, wiz, summoner. And yes their were more options, they just chose the poopy one.I also seem to be missing something... this guy was an Aasimar summoner?
I missed that, where was his eidlon?
Where were the other party members?
All we hear about is this assimar, the revenant and the wizard that orbed him out the window...
So the fighter didn't pound on it, the cleric didn't turn it, everyone just watched it crush their buddy unit he shouted "Blow me away Wizzy!"
It just seems like something more is missing?
IF he was a synthesist, doesn't it seem odd he couldnt have done more about the situation? Most of these builds are half way to the house of broken, and he couldnt get out of a grapple?
Usually, when something grapples someone in our group it just makes it an easy target for us to pound on.... would think there would have been more options here... just saying
So the last time I checked, the revenant is an undead monster, the cleric couldn't channel/turn, or did he forget he can do that? ( a possibility) The wizards CC wouldnt have worked. Im giggling at the fighter types running away in fear....
That's a big group, only one bad thing to fight?
So if he WAS the eidlon did he have a crummy build? Ive never seen a summoner, never mind a synthesist at my table. EVERYTHING I read on the boards is how uber they are, So I'm surprised this went down like this.
The big disconnect is there are two definitions: "fair = everyone treated equally" and "fair = everyone being treated as they deserve to be treated based on past conduct". I don't think there is really a wrong definition here, except to say the former is an ideal, and the latter tends to be the reality of things. This is in large part due to human nature and our tendency to, sometimes subconsciously, inject personal bias into things.Generally a good post and one I agree with, except one part in this section. Yes, I am going to quibble, but it is an important one.
Fair = everyone treated equally should only be the ideal setting when one meets a stranger, once one engages in a social interaction with a stranger this stance becomes detrimental. By subscribing to those stance "Fair = Everyone treated equally" you are saying that actions don't matter. That all actions should have the same response. The guy who punches you in the face should be treated the same as the guy who shakes your hand. This does not work.
Well yes, treating everyone equally regardless of past conduct is an ideal, not a realism. I mean, even if it is not as overt as a guy punching you in the face, people will subconsciously adjust their treatment of others due to past events. Potentially even things that don't really matter or register on a conscious level, such as manner of speech, dress, posture, etc., can have an impact. A complete "I treat everyone equally" philosophy is something that someone can aspire to, and even have relative success in achieving beyond the initial encounter (barring extreme conduct by other parties involved), but I view it as an idealistic impossibility due to human nature.
|
|
Also let's break down what you said I said for a second.
"Do what is expected of you even if you dont agree with it or like it or else bad things will happen to you and the only person anyone will blame and the only person who will suffer is you"
Now I didn't say this of course. What I said was
"I can't make you do anything. I really can't. If you want to keep doing what you are doing, I can't stop you. But I will point out that it isn't working out so well for you at this point, considering you are on probation."
Which means, you are going to do what you want to do. You are in control. I can't make you do anything. But the choices you've been making have led to outcomes you don't seem to like so maybe you want to think about that?
I work with oppositional defiant people. I don't game with them. Because you can't game with them without wanting to put your head through a wall.
If you can't see the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote, I'm very sorry.
|
Although these views about 'earned' fairness are not untrue, there is another perspective; one which Vincent is trying to highlight.
I totally get the concept of 'earned' fairness. I will treat others as they treat me, and one reason that this is a good thing is that it encourages people to treat me well!
But the other point of view is that, among other things, the DM must act as impartial referee.
Imagine being an NFL official. Imagine a play in which the wide receiver and the cornerback jostle each other as the ball is thrown. Is it pass interference? Is it a case of 'six of one, half a dozen of the other'?
It's a judgement call, and it is your duty to make that judgement without considering how well or how badly that player has treated you in the past.
What Vincent is saying, without passing judgement on the entirety of the OP's question, is that the OP himself said that he would make a different decision for players he likes than for those he doesn't.
While the OP may be justified in this, it cannot be denied that this is unfair from the point of view of a referee, while still being fair as a human being.
Believing that the OP was fair because he treated the player as well or badly as the player treated him, is not incompatible with the belief that the OP, by his own admission, was treating the player unfairly in terms of his responsibilities as referee.
In short, both Vincent and Ciretose are both right, but are actually having slightly different conversations without realising or admitting to it.
I take full criticism for being an idealist. Despite accusations of the contrary what I have not done was spend 5 pages being 'unfair' to the OP or to ciretose. I have not called his style wrongbadfun. Even if I were 'accusing' the op of being unfair, using it as a character assassination of my view on how it should be handled isn't a strong argument.
|
|
The OP posted a rules question, and by none of the rules is the player entitled to anything beyond being dead.
The GM went above and beyond the rules to give the player a MORE than fair solution. The player refused it and called the GM unfair.
In the abstract argument Vincent wishes he was having about a mean GM playing favorites, he isn't wrong.
Unfortunately for Vincent, that isn't the argument on the table.
Edit: And so a apology is in order for anyone who made accusations agains the GM, of which Vincent was one of the lesser offenders, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. He games like he lives and nobody can fault him for it.
He came by it honest.
Same could be said for me, except somebody here doesnt want it to be a possibility. Be nice to people even when they're not nice back to you is a tenet aspired largely to by christianity, but I wont argue with you that many of them are not very good at it. To say they dont exist though... Or worse to imply that they shouldnt exist because it doesnt make any sense to you... how could any good possibly come from such a thing... what kind of a fool would even try such a thing.
The idea of being nice to people even when they aren't being nice to you, is not the same as subjecting yourself week after week to that person's jerky behavior. It doesn't dictate that you keep going back and interacting with them, or going out of your way to reward their jerky behavior in any way.
/boggle
The OP posted a rules question, and by none of the rules is the player entitled to anything beyond being dead.
And at no point did i ever recommend the op should let him survive. Simply that if he'd let anyone else at the table survive that it could be viewed as bias and create more bad water at a table that already has tension. The OP wasnt asking how do i deal with a player who's constantly a pain in the butt. (we learned that later).
The question was how do i handle a troublemaker and while 'treat him like the troublemaker he is' is a valid solution, and an easy solution to arrive at, and a common solution, and the popular solution, and an easy to defend solution, so is 'dont let a troublemaker change who you are, if you'd bring others back, dont change the rules for this guy'
A guy who is always whining for better treatment
gets treated worse
thus he feels he's being treated worse
thus wants to whine for better treatment...
Its a self feeding monster. I only suggested dont feed the monster.
Thankfully in the case of the OP, the troublemaker has no idea that he's being treated unfairly unless he was made specifically aware that any other player would have been brought back except his whiny butt, so you can operate under the 'treat him like the troublemaker he is' philosophy with impunity.
|
|
Perhaps you have forgotten some of your comments from the thread.
"But not this guy. Not this time. Because his gm style kind of annoys me and I think a guy who flat out admits he isnt fair to everyone is probably needing a break from the gm chair.""And i'm sure the player that got kicked out of the campaign would like for the people he's gaming with not to personally single him out for a mudhole stompin...
I just dont think any of that happened here. I think this is an awesome example of how you chase a gamer from the game and in support of my hobby and the industry of my hobby I say thats wrongba.... I say thats just fine for a table of this calib... I say thats just a sad sad thing.
I'm sure everyone at the table is thankful this whining powergamer is no longer crowding their gamespace. They're all heroes and i'm proud to count myself among such generous, understanding, mature, fun oriented, individuals.
If everyone at the table had fun watching the whiney powergamer get shot out of a window to his death and upon having any other opinion than 'thank you that was fun' get kicked from the table... Well we're all good then aren't we?"
"Vilifying schmilifying.
I don't decide if I think he's a fair dm just because you say he is. I look at the tone of his posts and his word usage. Then I look at yours. And I come to the same conclusions."
"If you ask me the gm telling this player 'this is not the table for you' is doing him a huge favor. Your tone is such that I wouldnt be at all surprised if this 'novice gm' came to work and asked you how you'd handle this 'powergaming whiner' and you advised him 'let him make the character then kill it off'..."
Why would you apologize. Have you still "come to the same conclusions?"
|
|
The OP posted a rules question, and by none of the rules is the player entitled to anything beyond being dead.And at no point did i ever recommend the op should let him survive. Simply that if he'd let anyone else at the table survive that it could be viewed as bias and create more bad water at a table that already has tension. The OP wasnt asking how do i deal with a player who's constantly a pain in the butt. (we learned that later).
The question was how do i handle a troublemaker and while 'treat him like the troublemaker he is' is a valid solution, and an easy solution to arrive at, and a common solution, and the popular solution, and an easy to defend solution, so is 'dont let a troublemaker change who you are, if you'd bring others back, dont change the rules for this guy'
A guy who is always whining for better treatment
gets treated worse
thus he feels he's being treated worse
thus wants to whine for better treatment...Its a self feeding monster. I only suggested dont feed the monster.
Because if you give the whining guy the special treatment he is demanding, he will stop whining now and in the future when he wants more special treatment?
Perhaps you have forgotten some of your comments from the thread.
Why would you apologize. Have you still "come to the same conclusions?"
"But not this guy. Not this time. Because his gm style kind of annoys me and I think a guy who flat out admits he isnt fair to everyone is probably needing a break from the gm chair."
That post was a satirical implementation of your logic. Not a valid opinion of mine against the OP. Way to take it out of context. And I didnt accuse him of anything. I developed an impression of him but never accused him. Saying "I don't decide if I think he's a fair dm" isnt the same thing as saying "I think he's a crap gm".
Lets not keep painting me to be what you want me to be. I'm not a man made of straw.
Because if you give the whining guy the special treatment he is demanding, he will stop whining now and in the future when he wants more special treatment?
The christian response to this is that a whiner who sees new and unexpected generosity may be less of a whiny troublemaker. Even if that is the exception to the rule, as an idealist I consider it a possibility worth pursuing. Then if you had to kick him from the table at least you knew you did everything you could possibly do to avoid it.
No the Christian response is to hold everyone accountable for thier own behavior, and rebuke them.
That sounds more like a Daoist response.
Depends on which christians you're talking about I guess.
Then again there are literally millions of definitions of christianity. The number of christians that i've met that 'hold themselves accountable for their own behavior' is pretty small.
Its true that the ones that say 'don't feed the monster' say it for the same reasons that a daoist would.
I never said the statistics were in my favor (and specifically said the opposite) but i'd ask you to site your sources on that 0%. Especially considering how rare my philosophy is in implementation. I doubt its been tried enough to create a valid sample size.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on which christians you're talking about I guess.
Then again there are literally millions of definitions of christianity. The number of christians that i've met that 'hold themselves accountable for their own behavior' is pretty small.
Its true that the ones that say 'don't feed the monster' say it for the same reasons that a daoist would.
I really don't know what to say to that.
You've misquoted me and not really responded to the point at all, all in the same post, unless obtuse is a response.Amazing.
Im not saying a parolee should be given a choice of how he's punished. I'm saying a parolee doesnt have much choice in his situation and treating a player like a parolee is in effect accusing them of the 'crime' of having a bad attitude, then establishing the same rules as a parolee which is 'walk this thin line (which to a willing parolee sound like 'keep your nose clean and to an upset parolee will sound like 'get your mind right') or bad things will happen to you'.
If we've already established our parolee is an upset one, are we more likely to get him to cooperate by telling him we're here to help him out as long as he keeps his nose clean or by telling him to get his mind right. But treating players like parolees and 'being a whiner' as a crime is kinda stretching it IMHO.
I never said the statistics were in my favor (and specifically said the opposite) but i'd ask you to site your sources on that 0%. Especially considering how rare my philosophy is in implementation. I doubt its been tried enough to create a valid sample size.
Yes it has. It's the same mentality behind "everyone gets a trophy".
With all the whiny twits being produced today, I think we can call that a failure.
Depends on which christians you're talking about I guess.
Then again there are literally millions of definitions of christianity. The number of christians that i've met that 'hold themselves accountable for their own behavior' is pretty small.
Its true that the ones that say 'don't feed the monster' say it for the same reasons that a daoist would.
I really don't know what to say to that.
You've misquoted me and not really responded to the point at all, all in the same post, unless obtuse is a response.
Amazing.
I dont really know what to say to that. I didnt quote you at all. The point is that what.. You're right. Maybe despite your idea of christians are not the same as mine, and that my idea of christians and your version of a daoist are similar? Unless reactionary is a way of receiveing my post. This sounds fighty to me and i'm not sure why.
Oh snap.
Is idealism the same as unwilling to accept reality?
If that's the case it (your philosophy) would certainly make more sense.
I never said the statistics were in my favor (and specifically said the opposite) but i'd ask you to site your sources on that 0%. Especially considering how rare my philosophy is in implementation. I doubt its been tried enough to create a valid sample size.Yes it has. It's the same mentality behind "everyone gets a trophy".
With all the whiny twits being produced today, I think we can call that a failure.
I'm pretty sure what you're arguing is that the 0% is an undisputed fact... and then trying to bandwagon support by comparing it to giving out trophies to people who you feel dont deserve it.
If what you're saying is that whiney players shouldnt get the trophy of being treated fairly then you're definitely in the majority. If what you're saying is theres an undisputed well documented proof that 0% of whiners who are treated fairly produces less whining then I'll say I don't believe you and again... Cite your sources...
If instead you're saying that the percentage is so low that the idea of trying bears no usefulness then by all means. Give up on humanity at your own pace and i'll give up on it at my own pace... Lets not start calling someone's version of hope 'wrongbadfun' now shall we?
|
|
Because if you give the whining guy the special treatment he is demanding, he will stop whining now and in the future when he wants more special treatment?The christian response to this is that a whiner who sees new and unexpected generosity may be less of a whiny troublemaker. Even if that is the exception to the rule, as an idealist I consider it a possibility worth pursuing. Then if you had to kick him from the table at least you knew you did everything you could possibly do to avoid it.
Like God did to everyone but Noah?
Odd how this is shifting to theology when straight logic wasn't working out.
So glad I play at a table that isn't full of whiners we are trying to redeem...I just thought we were having a good time, but I guess some people view Pathfinder as a calling...
My source, is my personal experience, as I said in my post. I deal with whiny people all the time, have for many, many years. In my experience, if you give a whiny person an inch, they take a mile. Meanwhile, the other players get resentful of you the gamemaster.
I have many times, tried to deal with a whiny person by giving into them. It causes more problems than it solves.
While we are at it, site your sources please? Is this your experience? Your philiosphy of implementation is to give in to the whiner by letting them have their way and this fosters a feeling of unexpected generosity makes him less of a whiner? Or am I misrepresenting you here?
Cause that dog don't hunt pal. Human nature, if you whine and get your way, makes you more likely to whine MORE. Ask ANY parent, they will tell you the same.
But, you still failed to answer the question: What ideal are you promoting?
Well then I'm sorry I dont consider your personal experience to be a valid sample size for my purposes. I don't need to cite my sources because i'm not trying to establish that the microscopic percentage of the global population that you have personally met or known is a valid sample size. For an idealist percentage of success is not relevant. Even if the past performance is 0% i still do what i do in pursuit of even 1%. You bet thats idealism. Possibly by definition even...
The ideal being promoted against me is that whiners only learn not to be whiners by being punished for being whiners. Which works great for 3 year olds. The ideal i'm trying to promote is that treating people with kindness even when they dont return the favor can be regarded as a valid tool for making them change thier mind even if by and large its not often successful, and even if your life experience up to this point hasnt produced any examples of it, which is a sad state of affairs but makes the philosophy no less valid.
You calling it wrongbad fun?
Because if you give the whining guy the special treatment he is demanding, he will stop whining now and in the future when he wants more special treatment?The christian response to this is that a whiner who sees new and unexpected generosity may be less of a whiny troublemaker. Even if that is the exception to the rule, as an idealist I consider it a possibility worth pursuing. Then if you had to kick him from the table at least you knew you did everything you could possibly do to avoid it.Like God did to everyone but Noah?
Odd how this is shifting to theology when straight logic wasn't working out.
So glad I play at a table that isn't full of whiners we are trying to redeem...I just thought we were having a good time, but I guess some people view Pathfinder as a calling...
I'm also thankful that our table isnt full of whiners, and even moreso thankful that i've got so many tools to work with to try to solve those problems. The tools you agree that you use at your job, and even some tools of my own. Seems like our respective versions of social contract are working out great for us. I'm glad we could both put our tools in the box for folks who arent so lucky.
Want my source on whiny folks being misled to believe that their whining is actually ok, and a sense of entitlement despite bad behavior or other bad life choices is ok? Look at OWS. While it may have started based on legitimate complaints, it devolved into whiny people b@!+~ing and acting like general asshats, even to each other. Why? Because they were raised to believe that all opinions are valid. All cultures are equally valuable to society. There is no wrong answer. Earned merit is cliche and means nothing. Everyone should have equal respect regardless of their own behavior.
False.
This has absolutely nothing to do with hope. People don't hope for things beyond the realm of possibility. They wish for things like that.
This has to do with reality. I may seem jaded to you in my view of human nature, but so far I have not been dissappointed.
You said: The ideal I'm trying to promote is that treating people with kindness even when they dont return the favor can be regarded as a valid tool for making them change thier mind.
However, before that statement you said: Well then I'm sorry I dont consider your personal experience to be a valid sample size for my purposes. Which just basiclly says, "You don't know what you're talking about, your experience isn't valid" Which is rude and arguementive, and proves you don't pratice your ideal..
Deciding that 'I dont consider your personal experience to be a valid samples size' is the same thing as saying 'you dont know what you're talking about' is a very big leap in my opinion. The words changed quite a bit between my fingers and your eyes... If I thought you didnt know what you're talking about i'd have used those exact words'... Which might have been rude... which I wasnt. I sure hope there isnt another strawman being built of me...
However: If you think that I was being rude and its caused you to get more fighty then I think its very telling about how not being nice doesnt do such a great job of making you nicer... hows that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CLAP CLAP CLAP
you have managed to bring in religion in to the discusion I am so proud of how this is spiraling out of control...
now can somebody make Godwins law true and we can be on our merry way for this thread to be shut down....