Chief Technical Officer
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least we know who will be this playtests's Gorbacz.I hate you. Couldn't you have called for Pazuzu instead?The really important question is: who is going to be this playtest's Frank Trollman?
I'm seeing some contenders.
-Skeld
There will only be one? That's a relief!
Customer Service Manager
|
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just have a request for the mods along these lines: When someone has posted something expressing an opinion in a terrible way that needs deletion, would you please add a few words to the effect of "several posts were deleted. This behavior will not be tolerated. BY THE WAY, the posters liked drawing a weapon as part of a move action". That way, people who are interested in seeing the balance is shifting between different ways of looking at playtest rules questions will not see a skewed result.
If I'm reading correctly, you're asking for me to sum up the gist of post that gets removed? If that is the case I don't think I could do that. One reason is that I'm just not well versed enough with rules to be able to understand people's feedback on really nuanced rules stuff, particularly if it involves rules/design theory. I don't feel that I could accurately sum up what someone's opinion was without starting a chain of "that's not what I meant," "you're putting words in my mouth," etc, which would derail threads.
It also would put myself and other moderators in a position of reading, processing, and translating offensive or abusive language. That shifts the emotional labor of communication away from the poster and onto other people. If you're looking to participate in the Playtest, you have to be able to communicate without being actively abusive–that really is not a high bar. Doing that would set a precedent for say whatever you want, however you want to and a mod can just remove and translate for you. We do have a standing policy, which I try to reiterate when I remove longer or substantive content, where if you want your removed text back you can email community@paizo.com and I will email you the text back so that you can rewrite it without whatever problematic content caused it to be removed. Ideally though, and what we want to encourage, is people posting without being abusive towards other people. I am uninterested in trying to accommodate abusive or offensive language. If I remove a post and the author of that post wants to have their feedback visible, they will need to put in the effort to rework their text.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
First from Scientific American How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail.
1 keep emotions out of the exchange, 2 discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad hitlerum), 3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4 show respect, 5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.
And maybe this comic about belief.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
See that, Paizo folks? That right there is why I think you guys are great.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, my! I have a whole bunch of bookmarks about that stuff, Sara Marie.
I'll try to organize them and share.
** spoiler omitted **
Damn it. What a wasted opportunity. Could’ve had a tutorial.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo agrees and makes a statement soon about that.
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
Another way I tried to explain my concerns:
I've taken back the idea of having books for just stat block conversions. Ultimately, whether people want to admit it or not, material from PF1 will be converted to PF2. So, for example, a red dragon is a red dragon and magic missile is magic missile. The base descriptions, I think, are unlikely to change -- only some of the mechanics. Therefore, just admit it and do this in a way that's a win-win for both Paizo and its current, loyal customer base. Don't screw us. Offer a discount to us on the PF2 books where we have the PF1 version AND don't obscure that by guggling the material around in the pretense of having an all new product -- because it's not. It's an upgrade. I should, for example, be able to buy a PF2 Bestiary book at a discount because I already own a PF1 Bestiary book.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So while I totally understand why you want cheap stuff (heck, I'd love it if Paizo sent me a free copy of, well, anything, I just don't expect them to) I really don't think anything actually works like this.
Like can you cite a single example of a company releasing a new version of a product offering a discount on a new version because you owned the old one? Like I can guarantee the new iPhone won't be cheaper for people who owned the old one. A PS3 wasn't cheaper for anybody who owned a PS2.
WotC didn't give anyone a discount on the 3.5 PHB just because they owned the 3e one.
Other thing to keep in mind is that since Pathfinder 2nd edition is still an OGL game that means the rules are open source- so even if you don't buy the bestiary you will still be able to find the stats for a red dragon on any of several online reference documents. Paying for the bestiary is a way to get the art, the layout, the lore, and to have it all nicely organized as something one can read; as well as to support the company, but the rules are all free. It is assuredly a better use of Paizo's time and effort to make the PRD ready to go for the PF2 release, than it is to figure out the logistics of crediting people for books they already own.
Paizo is a professional company and they've done playtests before with even bigger risks, so I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do a playtest now with the expected level of competency. The more often you do something, the better you get at it. They are asking for our assistance/experience with pointing out flaws with the system, and there wouldn't be much of a reason to do that if they didn't intend to consider our feedback relative to the final product. In terms of communication its the onus of the speaker to explain themselves clearly with the intent of being understood, and cooperating with others in that act when the listener asks for clarification. Eloquence isn't necessary, clarity is.
Also I don't really see what asking for a discount has to do with the topic of this thread. I would create a separate thread on the topic if you'd like a focused discussion, instead of copying and pasting it from other threads.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2
You're right!
In fact, I DEMAND that they release all the 2e rules for free and publish them on the internet! Like in a curated rules resource, for example!
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Side note:
I am a huge nerd for the science and psychology of communication. If anyone here is going to PaizoCon and wants to nerd out about it with me or has reference materials to link me to, I love that stuff
I am too. Could we have a panel about that at PaizoCon? I would love to have an entire panel aimed at Disagreeing without being Disagreeable, and different means of communication. This is a passion of mine as well.
Mark, that linked article was great!
Hmm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Removed because the discussion I was replying to has been long dead by about a month and a half. Sorry!
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a Customer Sevice / Feedback stand point: “Complaint is a Gift” by Janelle Barlow et al. This one was a treasure trove for me. It really colored how I respond to all sorts of gripes and complaints, and let me see the passion that lay behind them. I think it’s one of the most influential books that I’ve ever read.
Another key author for me was Suzette Hadin Elgin. Her “Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense” and other books on communication were full of ideas of how to get past heated and toxic conversations and either disengage or get into deeper modes of communication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you’re talking about isn’t playtesting, it’s crowdsourced design. It’s very important to calibrate your expectations that what’s happening is refining and improving the design. Much like the APG playtest there was no changing the name of the Oracle to anything else, even though the oracle had almost no divinatory power. There are likely to be some aspects of the game that have more flexibility than others.The fact that they already have a print date of only a year from now tells me one thing.
The playtest feedback isn't going to be given much weight. It might revamp a skill or feat, or maybe get a class rewritten, but thats it. It tells me that they are hard set on the system as a whole and will not change it no matter what the feedback says.
If this 3 actions a round thing ends up pissing off exactly 100% of the tester base, a year is not enough to rewrite it (and by extension everything that relies on it, which is pretty much everything) and re-test.
For good or for ill, 90% of what they've got at this point is already locked in stone.
This. More people need to get this. Thank you for saying this clearly dudemeister.
Some folks think they are suddenly being employed as professional designers, you are not. This is a playtest. We have plenty of history with Paizo and playtests, which makes me think we will have a net positive experience.
Game designers need to be able to sort the chaff from armchair game designers (like me lol).
The game designers do not owe an explanation as to why something can or can not be changed. Your opinion as to why something should be changed is valid, but at the same time a response of "we aren't changing that" is also valid and they do not need to respond past that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just have a request for the mods along these lines: When someone has posted something expressing an opinion in a terrible way that needs deletion, would you please add a few words to the effect of "several posts were deleted. This behavior will not be tolerated. BY THE WAY, the posters liked drawing a weapon as part of a move action". That way, people who are interested in seeing the balance is shifting between different ways of looking at playtest rules questions will not see a skewed result.If I'm reading correctly, you're asking for me to sum up the gist of post that gets removed? If that is the case I don't think I could do that. One reason is that I'm just not well versed enough with rules to be able to understand people's feedback on really nuanced rules stuff, particularly if it involves rules/design theory. I don't feel that I could accurately sum up what someone's opinion was without starting a chain of "that's not what I meant," "you're putting words in my mouth," etc, which would derail threads.
It also would put myself and other moderators in a position of reading, processing, and translating offensive or abusive language. That shifts the emotional labor of communication away from the poster and onto other people. If you're looking to participate in the Playtest, you have to be able to communicate without being actively abusive–that really is not a high bar. Doing that would set a precedent for say whatever you want, however you want to and a mod can just remove and translate for you. We do have a standing policy, which I try to reiterate when I remove longer or substantive content, where if you want your removed text back you can email community@paizo.com and I will email you the text back so that you can rewrite it without whatever problematic content caused it to be removed. Ideally though, and what we want to encourage, is people posting without being abusive towards other people. I am uninterested in trying to accommodate abusive or offensive language....
I am all for upping my own game!
Engaging with that behavior as a mod exposes the mod to that toxicity. Some processing is a good thing; additional processing adds that additional layer.
I love to build communities, though I am taking a breather at the moment for my own well-being. There's so much that I wish I'd known then that I've a better inkling of, now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is do modern gamers have enough self awareness to be thoughtful, kind and generous in their criticism?
** spoiler omitted **
So we have now blamed both sides for anger and issues that don’t even exist yet.
Maybe everyone should just check their baggage and we can start with positive outlooks instead.
That isn’t to say there is anything wrong with saying X,Y,and Z are not fun, they don’t work numerically as I think they should, or we tried them and its confusing. That kind of feedback is all fine. After all if there are parts that you find unfun, report it. If there is math that does things unexpected report it. If there are rules that are confusing report them. But remember as much passion as we all have for this game show as much respect as you can.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we have now blamed both sides for anger and issues that don’t even exist yet.
There are a number of Playtest Forum threads that staff have had to lock, and a large numbers of posts were removed from those threads
Plus there have been threads that staff locked, went through to remove posts that break the guidelines and then decided to leave locked because the whole issue was so toxic.
Those threads exist, they are in full flame even as we post. I don't think you've gotten a good overview of the forum so far if you believe that these don't exist.
So while I totally understand why you want cheap stuff (heck, I'd love it if Paizo sent me a free copy of, well, anything, I just don't expect them to) I really don't think anything actually works like this.
Like can you cite a single example of a company releasing a new version of a product offering a discount on a new version because you owned the old one? Like I can guarantee the new iPhone won't be cheaper for people who owned the old one. A PS3 wasn't cheaper for anybody who owned a PS2.
WotC didn't give anyone a discount on the 3.5 PHB just because they owned the 3e one.Other thing to keep in mind is that since Pathfinder 2nd edition is still an OGL game that means the rules are open source- so even if you don't buy the bestiary you will still be able to find the stats for a red dragon on any of several online reference documents. Paying for the bestiary is a way to get the art, the layout, the lore, and to have it all nicely organized as something one can read; as well as to support the company, but the rules are all free. It is assuredly a better use of Paizo's time and effort to make the PRD ready to go for the PF2 release, than it is to figure out the logistics of crediting people for books they already own.
That's more a thing with ditigal goods anyway I think. It's easier to upgrade someone's program/app/game/system than it is to ship a whole new thing to their doorstep. Lot easier to prove too.
Example, I've gotten some enhanced/upgraded editions of games because I have owned said game for either X amount of time or heard about some deal they were doing. Now this isn't every game but it does happen.
I dunno what they could do with long time fans/supporters. Maybe let them have the playtest sooner? It's a trick idea of what to do to maybe reward them going forward, while at the same time making sense to do and not allowing some people to game the reward system some how.
As for the actual topic, well it's a two way street I feel. Can those of us coming in with worries or bias actually give either credible or useful data? I mean I'm not looking to bring the game down but I'm already going to walk in thinking "This is a think I don't like" when it comes to some aspects.
My opinion is still valid but also not as useful to the playtest. And it's going to take some work to trim such data down to the more community useful bits.
As for the actual topic, well it's a two way street I feel. Can those of us coming in with worries or bias actually give either credible or useful data? I mean I'm not looking to bring the game down but I'm already going to walk in thinking "This is a think I don't like" when it comes to some aspects.
My opinion is still valid but also not as useful to the playtest. And it's going to take some work to trim such data down to the more community useful bits.
The absolutely most useful thing ANYONE can do for this playtest, is actually play the game as the released rules are written, play using as much of the Death by Dawn adventure they're releasing at the same time, and note as many pain points as possible, things that just fell absolutely flat and why. Not how you'd fix them, but what did NOT work for your players/DM and why.
The NEXT most useful thing, is to do the exact same thing, but instead play as you normally would, and note any point points. Note what stopped you from playing normally, even if it's missing options. Write all this stuff up in whatever venue Paizo gives (these forums, some specialized web form, etc.)
Either of those are far more helpful than what some people are already doing, which is swearing (right now, not even seeing the product) that they're never touching the game because it's ruined Pathfinder due to ___insert argument here___. (My favorite recently was "thanks for giving us these options which are garbage" despite not even having details for said options!)
I have my doubts on some parts, but no game short of FATAL, Racial Holy War, or Spawn of Fashan has ever made me declare that it was so bad that I'll never play it.
The absolutely most useful thing ANYONE can do for this playtest, is actually play the game as the released rules are written, play using as much of the Death by Dawn adventure they're releasing at the same time, and note as many pain points as possible, things that just fell absolutely flat and why. Not how you'd fix them, but what did NOT work for your players/DM and why.
The NEXT most useful thing, is to do the exact same thing, but instead play as you normally would, and note any point points. Note what stopped you from playing normally, even if it's missing options. Write all this stuff up in whatever venue Paizo gives (these forums, some specialized web form, etc.)
Either of those are far more helpful than what some people are already doing, which is swearing (right now, not even seeing the product) that they're never touching the game because it's ruined Pathfinder due to ___insert argument here___. (My favorite recently was "thanks for giving us these options which are garbage" despite not even having details for said options!)
I have my doubts on some parts, but no game short of FATAL, Racial Holy War, or Spawn of Fashan has ever made me declare that it was so bad that I'll never play it.
For as much as I've complained about a LOT of things, I'll still try it. My view might be colored by disliking certain bits going in but my opinion can change if my fears are put to rest.
Also jsut to add to your little ending section, GRUPS. I can't play, I won't play it. WAY too many interlocking systems and bits and parts and numbers.
Here's a few that might be good for us here since they are about discussing/debating an issue with deeply held views and beliefs.First from Scientific American How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail.
article wrote:1 keep emotions out of the exchange, 2 discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad hitlerum), 3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4 show respect, 5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.
** spoiler omitted **
My jaw, literally, dropped upon reading this and I re-read it several times to make sure I was reading it correctly. I absolutely agree, but I have to say, my experience has basically been that the exact opposite is encouraged around these parts.
I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.
The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.
The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).
This seems to heavily support the "I'm offended, therefore you are morally wrong" strategy that I see used so frequently. I don't particularly want to get banned, so I'll say no more on the subject, but I think you know what I'm talking about in general.
|
|
Also jsut to add to your little ending section, GRUPS. I can't play, I won't play it. WAY too many interlocking systems and bits and parts and numbers.
I don’t know what GRUPS is, but if you meant GURPS, that’s one of my favorites! So modular! So balanced!
Alas, it has no Organized Play, so despite my love for it, I only get to use it now when I am GMing my own creations. I’m here with Paizo and Organized Play because that’s where the story is, and because they’ve put so much work into the worlds of Pathfinder and Starfinder. I love having the shared storyline and community of Organized Play.
Hmm
Also jsut to add to your little ending section, GRUPS. I can't play, I won't play it. WAY too many interlocking systems and bits and parts and numbers.I don’t know what GRUPS is, but if you meant GURPS, that’s one of my favorites! So modular! So balanced!
Alas, it has no Organized Play, so despite my love for it, I only get to use it now when I am GMing my own creations. I’m here with Paizo and Organized Play because that’s where the story is, and because they’ve put so much work into the worlds of Pathfinder and Starfinder. I love having the shared storyline and community of Organized Play.
Hmm
Mistype. Tried it a few times.. Each time people built really stupid from some legal book and just wrecked things.
As for Organized play, I feel I've beat that dead horse enough. I hope Paizo doesn't put more stock into what PFS says over others come playtest. No offense to you Hmm but there's a reason I only have 1 PFS listed character with only 1 session.
|
Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Let's chat at PaizoCon this year and maybe a panel is something to think about in the future. I've found though after having run events in the past (games and seminars) that with all of the prep work for the convention itself, I have very little bandwith for planning seminars or games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The assertion that PFS represents RAI ... ehhh ... no.
If this is the intent for PF2, then the second edition rules should never need this stuff. Ever.
I will be pleasantly surprised if this turns out to be the case. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a few that might be good for us here since they are about discussing/debating an issue with deeply held views and beliefs.First from Scientific American How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail.
article wrote:1 keep emotions out of the exchange, 2 discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad hitlerum), 3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4 show respect, 5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.
** spoiler omitted **My jaw, literally, dropped upon reading this and I re-read it several times to make sure I was reading it correctly. I absolutely agree, but I have to say, my experience has basically been that the exact opposite is encouraged around these parts.
This seems to heavily support the "I'm offended, therefore you are morally wrong" strategy that I see used so frequently. I don't particularly want to get banned, so I'll say no more on the subject, but I think you know what I'm talking about in general.I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.
The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.
The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).
I find people tend to forget or not realize that emotions are complex biochemical reactions, and until we can synthesize the exact hormone and chemical cocktail we experience with a feeling they cannot be definitively shared (ie. my "happy" could be orders of magnitude less intense that your idea of "happy"). Thoughts, with some logic and reason can be shared more accurately.
And the whole offense culture these days baffles me, a life without being offended sounds terribly dull to me.
As for PFS and 2E, I'd be happy as a clam without a need for the Additional Resources page, but boon-locking seems too easy a way to reward play to pass up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but how I feel about something doesn't change the factual nature of it. Just because I'm upset doesn't make something true or not and it doesn't add anything to most feedback. I think most people that respond that way don't see it as an insult or attack, more just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for sharing a thought without offending someone, sure it's possible but I don't think it should be a goal - if I'm offended that's my problem, not yours. With the widespread nature of the internet and people playing Pathfinder I don't think it's possible to avoid offending everybody, and I don't think we should really devote more to that than standard courtesy in whatever form you're used to.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but how I feel about something doesn't change the factual nature of it. Just because I'm upset doesn't make something true or not and it doesn't add anything to most feedback. I think most people that respond that way don't see it as an insult or attack, more just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for sharing a thought without offending someone, sure it's possible but I don't think it should be a goal - if I'm offended that's my problem, not yours. With the widespread nature of the internet and people playing Pathfinder I don't think it's possible to avoid offending everybody, and I don't think we should really devote more to that than standard courtesy in whatever form you're used to.
I have some thoughts on the first paragraph but I can't really get past the bolded. It seems a truism to me that not only should "not upsetting other people" be a goal but that it's way, way more important than "getting my opinion onto the internet" (which is hardly worth the title of 'goal' in my opinion).
The internet is largely unaffected by any individual one of us posting or not posting. It's really a microscopic speck of opinion in a maelstrom of competing/reinforcing/identical ideas. On the other hand, the harm we do (intentionally or not) to other people in the way we say things has genuine, human consequence. The idea that we should prioritise the former over the latter seems so obviously wrong that I can't even comprehend beginning there.
I appreciate there's more subtlety to your position than that fragment of a quote I highlighted, but I can't really see any fruitful way to discuss it.
The real question is do modern gamers have enough self awareness to be thoughtful, kind and generous in their criticism?
** spoiler omitted **
First off holy cow its already at like 75 likes. Second pretty much yes this please! To many people don't understand the more confrontational you are the less people are willing to listen to your opinion even if it differs only slightly. Its even possible that you can state your opinion so poorly that people that were originally on your side switch sides. Be calm avoid the knee jerk reactions and try and think about things in a broader scale. Also if you are going to theorize problems make sure you say Its a theory heres a few nice set ups for people.
You know If X happens and Y remains the same then Z could happen so lets hope Y chaneges too.
I FEEL that If X happens It will create Z and that would be bad because of etc.!
It comes off less argumentative and opens up the floor for more honest debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but how I feel about something doesn't change the factual nature of it. Just because I'm upset doesn't make something true or not and it doesn't add anything to most feedback. I think most people that respond that way don't see it as an insult or attack, more just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for sharing a thought without offending someone, sure it's possible but I don't think it should be a goal - if I'm offended that's my problem, not yours. With the widespread nature of the internet and people playing Pathfinder I don't think it's possible to avoid offending everybody, and I don't think we should really devote more to that than standard courtesy in whatever form you're used to.
I have some thoughts on the first paragraph but I can't really get past the bolded. It seems a truism to me that not only should "not upsetting other people" be a goal but that it's way, way more important than "getting my opinion onto the internet" (which is hardly worth the title of 'goal' in my opinion).
The internet is largely unaffected by any individual one of us posting or not posting. It's really a microscopic speck of opinion in a maelstrom of competing/reinforcing/identical ideas. On the other hand, the harm we do (intentionally or not) to other people in the way we say things has genuine, human consequence. The idea that we should prioritise the former over the latter seems so obviously wrong that I can't even comprehend beginning there.
I appreciate there's more subtlety to your...
I think it is more important to get your internet opinion out there because there is no action or information that causes no “harm” to someone who reads it. Your very own statement threatens to harm anyone whoever would want to express an idea that someone else might find offensive. And frankly: I don’t think I should have to care about the “harm” my speech does so long as I mean what I say honestly.
I agree that harshness is not an effective strategy for convincing others and should be avoided for practical reasons, but I don’t want to live in a society where I am constantly afraid to speak my mind. I don’t think anyone does. Some people are just privileged enough to have an internet peer group that already agrees with them.
...It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but how I feel about something doesn't change the factual nature of it. Just because I'm upset doesn't make something true or not and it doesn't add anything to most feedback. I think most people that respond that way don't see it as an insult or attack, more just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for sharing a thought without offending someone, sure it's possible but I don't think it should be a goal - if I'm offended that's my problem, not yours. With the widespread nature of the internet and people playing Pathfinder I don't think it's possible to avoid offending everybody, and I don't think we should really devote more to that than standard courtesy in whatever form you're used to.
I have some thoughts on the first paragraph but I can't really get past the bolded. It seems a truism to me that not only should "not upsetting other people" be a goal but that it's way, way more important than "getting my opinion onto the internet" (which is hardly worth the title of 'goal' in my opinion).
The internet is largely unaffected by any individual one of us posting or not posting. It's really a microscopic speck of opinion in a maelstrom of competing/reinforcing/identical ideas. On the other hand, the harm we do (intentionally or not) to other people in the way we say things has genuine, human consequence. The idea that we should prioritise the former over the latter seems so obviously wrong that I can't even comprehend beginning there.
I appreciate
But whats the point (for you personally) of expressing an idea in such a way that no one wants to listen to you and in fact might choose the opposite side just because you expressed it in such a way that it makes people dislike you? If you think you can offend someone while turning them to your side you are mistaken their. All it does is further polarize people against you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is more important to get your internet opinion out there because there is no action or information that causes no “harm” to someone who reads it. Your very own statement threatens to harm anyone whoever would want to express an idea that someone else might find offensive. And frankly: I don’t think I should have to care about the “harm” my speech does so long as I mean what I say honestly.
I agree that harshness is not an effective strategy for convincing others and should be avoided for practical reasons, but I don’t want to live in a society where I am constantly afraid to speak my mind. I don’t think anyone does. Some people are just privileged enough to have an internet peer group that already agrees with them.
What I find incomprehensible is the idea that one shouldn’t try. That we shouldn’t have a goal of not upsetting people.
It’s perfectly possible to try and frame your opinion in an inoffensive way, even if from time to time you cross someone’s line. If that happens, you apologise and try again (or give up).
What do you lose by having a goal of not upsetting people?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but how I feel about something doesn't change the factual nature of it. Just because I'm upset doesn't make something true or not and it doesn't add anything to most feedback. I think most people that respond that way don't see it as an insult or attack, more just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for sharing a thought without offending someone, sure it's possible but I don't think it should be a goal - if I'm offended that's my problem, not yours. With the widespread nature of the internet and people playing Pathfinder I don't think it's possible to avoid offending everybody, and I don't think we should really devote more to that than standard courtesy in whatever form you're used to.
I have some thoughts on the first paragraph but I can't really get past the bolded. It seems a truism to me that not only should "not upsetting other people" be a goal but that it's way, way more important than "getting my opinion onto the internet" (which is hardly worth the title of 'goal' in my opinion).
The internet is largely unaffected by any individual one of us posting or not posting. It's really a microscopic speck of opinion in a maelstrom of competing/reinforcing/identical ideas. On the other hand, the harm we do (intentionally or not) to other people in the way we say things has genuine, human consequence. The idea that we should prioritise the former over the latter seems so obviously wrong that I can't even comprehend
I agree with you that it is a bad idea to be unduely offensive.
However, I think it is deeply ethically wrong to say a person’s right to not be offended is more important than a person wanting to be heard. I don’t think a society that truly believes that can ever be anything other than oppressive.
...It's possible to share thoughts without offending the person you're speaking to. If you accidentally do you can just apologise and reword your argument. It's not necessary to take "I'm offended by what you said" as an insult nor an attack.
Unfortunately, people often respond to the situation where they've offended someone by debating whether the listener "should" have been offended when there's no should about it.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but how I feel about something doesn't change the factual nature of it. Just because I'm upset doesn't make something true or not and it doesn't add anything to most feedback. I think most people that respond that way don't see it as an insult or attack, more just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for sharing a thought without offending someone, sure it's possible but I don't think it should be a goal - if I'm offended that's my problem, not yours. With the widespread nature of the internet and people playing Pathfinder I don't think it's possible to avoid offending everybody, and I don't think we should really devote more to that than standard courtesy in whatever form you're used to.
I have some thoughts on the first paragraph but I can't really get past the bolded. It seems a truism to me that not only should "not upsetting other people" be a goal but that it's way, way more important than "getting my opinion onto the internet" (which is hardly worth the title of 'goal' in my opinion).
The internet is largely unaffected by any individual one of us posting or not posting. It's really a microscopic speck of opinion in a maelstrom of competing/reinforcing/identical ideas. On the other hand, the harm we do (intentionally or not) to other people in the way we say things has genuine, human consequence. The idea that we should prioritise the former over the latter seems so obviously wrong that
See now I feel your on a completely different issue. As far as that goes IMO manners are one of the big things that separate us from the animal. We should always try to hold on to those. intentionally Saying offensive stuff is definitionally rude= bad manners. whats that old phrase didn't your mom ever teach you any manners!? Heck mine would slap me on the back of the head for being rude. (I do not suggest this mind you!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve was saying that it is more important to not offend someone than it is to be heard. I think that is ethically wrong and I was responding to that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I think it is deeply ethically wrong to say a person’s right to not be offended is more important than a person wanting to be heard. I don’t think a society that truly believes that can ever be anything other than oppressive.
I think you’ve misunderstood my position. I don’t think anyone has the right to not be offended.