Why?

[littlelolligagged]

Now that's just nonsensical. They are facts. They did happen, therefore they do happen. Something happening is demonstrative proof that the negative assertion, that it doesn't happen, is false.

They aren't facts. They are colored by your point of view of the events as they are occurring. Your own interests and desires dictate how you interpret the events.

Have you ever seen the movie Rashômon?

[Loki]

Now that's just nonsensical. They are facts. They did happen, therefore they do happen. Something happening is demonstrative proof that the negative assertion, that it doesn't happen, is false.

A fact in that context can only disprove/prove a necessary condition. Only if someone claims that something is impossible or something always happens will a few facts prove that wrong. Not too many people here make those claims, and even when they do, they rarely mean it.

[Illusions]

All pissing matches, all the time.

This thread is about to go meta...

[littlelolligagged]

This thread is about to go meta...

We could make this really simple, and everyone could just give me exactly what I want.

You'd all be much happier that way.

[LittleFuzzy]

They aren't facts. They are colored by your point of view of the events as they are occurring. Your own interests and desires dictate how you interpret the events.

Have you ever seen the movie Rashômon?

No I haven't. And everything is colored by your point of view. You don't interpret statistics in an unbiased way either.

They're still facts.

[Aimless]

Do you guys remember the challenge Spawnie once proposed on CC, where we were asked to change our views to their opposites in some debates/discussions? I don't remember how successful that exercise was, but I liked the idea of challenging yourself to explore the strengths of a view that you've previously rejected. I think that if we regularly allowed ourselves to do things like that we would, occasionally, realise that those who disagree with us aren't necessarily stupid misguided villains.

Re. attitudes, I think it might help to approach some of the discussions on D&D with the explicit goal of clarifying what participants think about the subject and why. If the goal is to make sure everyone has a fair idea of what everyone else thinks, then maybe we can avoid trying to one-up one another, or avoid the tendency to try to make people eat their words, or avoid setting up straw men.

I don't think we can accomplish the above, or accomplish very much at all, unless we force ourselves to behave as if we all deserve some modicum of respect by virtue of being fairly decent and fairly intelligent people--as well as being peers in a pretty sweet community--regardless of the veracity of our claims. And I really don't think we can get very far if we pretend that people don't--or shouldn't--have feelings in discussions, because we clearly do and they clearly often get in the way of good discussion.

In sum, my concrete suggestions: we should try to make sure we understand each other, and we should treat each other as thinking feeling individuals that matter.

For my part, I realise that I occasionally go over the line eg. with my psychobabble, and I will try to keep it at a bare minimum. It's a defense mechanism more than anything else




Re. anecdotes and the like, while they may not be very strong evidence, I think it's important to be able to share anecdotes without fear of attack. At the very least an anecdote--and our interpretation of it--should warrant an explanation or at least a reason for dismissal that is better than "that's just an anecdote". Just like all other facts. I tend to reflexively dismiss anecdotes, but I prefer to be able to understand them.



Finally, re. threads going meta... look, we're a self-governing community. I think it's inevitable that our discussions are going to go meta from time to time, and I think it's a good thing. It's a sign of a community with good resources for development. Even if that sort of thing may mess up a discussion, in the long term I think it's great that we can have discussions about our discussions but I suppose there is no harm in restricting meta-discussions to this sub-forum

cheers


EDIT: Nessie

[Dreadnaught]

I generally agree with Minxie about the need to post "challenge your views" threads and the value of sharing anecdotes among an international group. And I do think things have gotten too personal at times.

Though when it comes to actually trying to impose rules like limiting quantity, warning for behavior I'd like folks to imagine how that would actually work. I struggle to see how it would.

As Rand and I have said, make your posts in the fashion that you want the forum to be. If you want long discourse in posts, then that should be your template for your posts and others will follow.

Who wants to make the first "advocate a view you disagree with" challenge? Call out some people!

[EyeKhan]

Can't we have one forum where we're obligated to be excellent to each other? Even if we're all horrible dicks.

#1. Is that drawing by your own hand? There's so much more life in something like that vs. tip tapping and look-at-this-pic.

#2. I'm up for the being excellant to each other. I genuinely think this is a great idea and I think we should do it at least in one forum and enforce it via modding. It will be a forum where the expectation is that flaming will get you reported and spanked and the reporter is not a whiner jerk for it.

Yeah, the girls are sort of right-ish. Maybe we should impose a rule in D&D where a reply that's too short is simply rejected. That way at least the quality of the sniping would be upped

Oh, I don't know about that. First its arbitrary, and second, walls of text arn't necessarily better than an elegant triumverate of clever sentences.

[GGT]

We could make this really simple, and everyone could just give me exactly what I want.

You'd all be much happier that way.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What rules would you personally like to see, Zigz?

The keep Zigz as far away from making the rules rule.

What method do you see of getting the shit-slinging down to a manageable level?

Bananas. I don't know.

Can you fix it?

I'm in trouble when I have to fix a door handle. (Although yesterday I succeeded. Proud as I was I pointed out this remarkable feat to my girlfriend. Harumph! is all I got. Psah. Where's my motivation come the next breaking of a door handle?) This better be handled by the more illuminous lights in out little sewing circle.

[']['ear]

Wait, you had me read a thread wherein Lolli goes hypocritical by saying "can't we all be nicer" after dropping a few from-nowhere bitchy bombs on me over the last couple of weeks, and then the thread degenerates into regulating how long posts are, and some cheerleading about how we could make some more interesting threads?

Gee, thanks.

Tell you what: I was wrong to mention Loki, because it was in a thread other than where he was practicing his typical manipulative and dishonest dickery. From here on I will not flame another forum member unless they have directly solicited that response by being an ass. This has generally been my policy in the past, and I'm pretty good at responding negatively only when provoked. But I do stray on occasion, and I will attempt to rectify that.

I will not, however, turn the other cheek to provocations, but just agree not to provoke in my own right. The job of cleaning up provocateurs is that of the mods and the community as a whole, not me.

Additionally, I reserve the right to make legitimate points that happens to hurt somebody's excessively over sensitive and dramatic feelings, like the comments on house size. People can disagree with me, and obviously many (but not all) did. But the point was a legitimate and long-held one, and one that is supported by sound reason. So sorry it ruffled somebody's feathers, but really that's just tough shit. If you have an open community, regulating conduct not really relevant to the free exchange of ideas is reasonable, pending the general agreement of the community. Stifling legitimate ideas? Not so much.

[Aimless]

It doesn't matter if it's hypocritical, what matters is that it's a good idea to be nice in the D&D forum, and I hope that we can manage it. If we can't then I hope mods make sure to stomp a little on provocateurs as well as on those who rise to their bait.

[']['ear]

Right! Trollers aren't criminals, it's the people who respond to trollers who are!!!

Well logicked.

[Aimless]

Right! Trollers aren't criminals, it's the people who respond to trollers who are!!!

Well logicked.

Since when are you such a staunch supporter of vigilante justice?

[Aimless]

Anyway, here's how I see it: if that sort of behaviour is both undesirable and avoidable, then people who choose not to avoid behaving that way should be reprimanded, even when it's me. It's the only way to stomp it out completely. Getting a friendly reminder to cool it and to be polite isn't the same as being put in prison anyway

[littlelolligagged]

And, at any rate, for the past few days everyone has been making a conscientious effort - and the tone of D&D improved greatly.

Cut the shit, please.

Thank you.

[Aimless]

And, at any rate, for the past few days everyone has been making a conscientious effort - and the tone of D&D improved greatly.

Exactly, and it's great to see

[Nessus]

Wait, you had me read a thread wherein Lolli goes hypocritical by saying "can't we all be nicer" after dropping a few from-nowhere bitchy bombs on me over the last couple of weeks, and then the thread degenerates into regulating how long posts are, and some cheerleading about how we could make some more interesting threads?

Remember how dumb it was that Kerry was called a "flip-flopper"? Yeah. People can change, people respond to the general atmosphere of the forum, people can get sick of other people. Cries of hypocrisy should, from you in particular, be left un-cried.

That said, it is fantastically incomprehensible, IMO, that both of our moderators asked you to read this thread as some kind of guide-line on how to behave. Their response, inasmuch as it existed, to my similar complaints was "pooh-pooh" and "generate more interesting content! !" The naivete of the official line here is staggering; people are simply told to "keep up a positive spirit", "chin up sonny" and so on, all the while some caustic posters respond to each thread with a proverbial kick right in the teeth. What is the point of being nice and posting happy thoughts day after day in the hopes that maybe this thread won't be shitted into oblivion?

[Illusions]

Best dysfunctional family ever...

[EyeKhan]

Additionally, I reserve the right to make legitimate points that happens to hurt somebody's excessively over sensitive and dramatic feelings, like the comments on house size.

And everyone who recognizes what a hypocritical, judgemental dick you are when you do it reserve the right to call you as you are. Call that the Copper Rule; you don't want to be treated like you're a dick, then don't act like a dick. Pretty simple.

[EyeKhan]

It doesn't matter if it's hypocritical, what matters is that it's a good idea to be nice in the D&D forum, and I hope that we can manage it. If we can't then I hope mods make sure to stomp a little on provocateurs as well as on those who rise to their bait.

Woops. Just rose to the bait . . . got tolled again.... Sorry everybody, I'm weak.

[littlelolligagged]

Woops. Just rose to the bait . . . got tolled again.... Sorry everybody, I'm weak.

You're only responsible for your own behavior. You were bad, you admitted it, and now you can move on.

While I would appreciate it if this particular thread didn't evolve into a bitchfest, for the moment I am only trying to clean up D&D, so it can actually be what it is meant to be.

Just a thought.

(notice I avoided being baited, women are superior to men and don't forget it )

[EyeKhan]

Just a thought.

(notice I avoided being baited, women are superior to men and don't forget it )

I noticed and well done. I will live your example hence forth.

[']['ear]

But my mention of the house issue was relevant to the thread, and thus could not be considered trolling. Well done, Chaloobi.

But since you are the one who violated the "code of civility," I can respond in kind by calling you the whiny little bitch you are.

[Nessus]

But my mention of the house issue was relevant to the thread, and thus could not be considered trolling. Well done, Chaloobi.

But since you are the one who violated the "code of civility," I can respond in kind by calling you the whiny little bitch you are.

So is it pussy you think you can garner by this kind of behaviour? Or what? Don't be a jackass.

[littlelolligagged]

But my mention of the house issue was relevant to the thread, and thus could not be considered trolling. Well done, Chaloobi.

It really wasn't relevant to this thread.

You, like all the rest of us, are only responsible for your own actions (or words, in this case).

*sigh*

[EyeKhan]

It really wasn't relevant to this thread.

You, like all the rest of us, are only responsible for your own actions (or words, in this case).

*sigh*

His post stands for itself so nothing need be said unless I want to have a flame war.


And I do not.


Copper - behave in a way that will elicit the treatment from others you would like.

Gold - treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.

Platinum - treat others the way they want to be treated.

[']['ear]

It really wasn't relevant to this thread.

BS. It was utterly relevant, and validated in this thread. I reserve the right to make reasonable on-topic comments, even if somebody can't handle them and decides to flame. Under no circumstances should I be held responsible for somebody else's going ballistic. It wasn't a troll, and any resulting flames are NOT my responsibility. I have this policy because the forum has NEVER enforced its no trolling rule, even in CC.

You, like all the rest of us, are only responsible for your own actions (or words, in this case).

Of course I am. I take responsibility for calling Chaloobi a whiny bitch in response to his calling me a dick. But I don't take responsibility for starting the flaming, nor did I troll him. But I damn well reserve the right to defend myself, because our wimpy mods will not and never have. If people decide to change that, let me know and I'll gladly roll with the changes {cue REO}. But until it has changed, don't go knocking on my door and expect me to turn the other cheek while others are initiating far more nastiness to me than vice versa. Ain't gonna happen.

This was precisely the point I wanted to make in my post, it was totally relevant and on topic, and then Chaloobi illustrated the point for me. I'm not in the wrong on this, and Chaloobi was in the wrong. *IF* I am in the wrong on something like that, I'll accept the opprobrium.

*sigh*

The sanctimony isn't sitting well with me after you dropped some out-of-the-blue bitchy comments on me recently. I'd accept it from Dread or Rand but not you, because you're just being a hypocrite.

[']['ear]

His post stands for itself so nothing need be said unless I want to have a flame war.


And I do not.


Copper - behave in a way that will elicit the treatment from others you would like.

Gold - treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.

Platinum - treat others the way they want to be treated.

And you couldn't walk away. Feel free to blame it on me, though.

[EyeKhan]

I find it curious in a thread about not having flame wars you're working so hard to start one, even going so far as to taunt me for abstaining.

Stop pretending comments like this "points that happens to hurt somebody's excessively over sensitive and dramatic feelings," and this " even if somebody can't handle them " are neutral observations of reality. They are nothing but personal attacks. For reasons that honestly mystify me you clearly posted with the intent to needle me and provoke the response you got. And that behavior is exactly what this thread is an appeal to stop. Nobody likes it, its unprovoked, unnecessary, and disruptive, so why don't you just stop it?