Small suggestion: No more nerf herding threads

[TheAdjustor]

44 minutes ago, GM Capocollo said:

If you see a suggestion thread and you have a reason why the proposal is objectively bad or unworkable, make your case for why and then leave it at that.  There is no reason to turn a misguided suggestion thread into a 20-page mud wrestling match about people's motives and personal failings.

 

Absolutely but it brings to mind this observation

 

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. -- James Madison"

[MunkiLord]

Personally I think this thread constantly going back and talking about another person not involved in this thread is tacky and people need to move on. The feelings on the subject have been made clear by multiple people over and over, at this point it's just piling on.

[nihilii]

41 minutes ago, justicebeliever said:

How is that not a good thing, except for the part where she didn’t agree philosophically about it being broken in the first.  (Which is also ok, or there would never be any changes to the game, ever)

I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. I have no qualms with the OP of that thread, and greatly enjoyed the conversation (heated as it was).

I do have qualms with GM Capocollo's post in that to me it characterizes those who disagreed with OP as overreacting and uninformed. There was no shortage of legitimate reasons to disagree with OP, and imho most posters by far were legitimate.

Edited September 29, 2019 by nihilii

[justicebeliever]

16 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

The inherent contradiction is outlined in red. The right of free speech in the public square vs speech in private forum. They are not the same thing and never have been.

Not suggesting this is a public forum, nor I am suggesting they are the same thing.  Merely, that I tend to err on the side of not restricting speech as part of my upbringing.  Maybe it wasn't a part of yours.  I don't know, but either way, since neither of us are moderators here, and we don't make the rules, it's open to debate.

 

48 minutes ago, justicebeliever said:

This particular thread is about censuring peoples ability to criticize the game and the game mechanics because they don't like it.

20 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

No it's not. It is entirely about preventing topics that inevitably polarize people, provoke confrontational actions and sow discord.

 

Nerf herding isn't even criticism, it's a demand for harm to be done to how some people play the game. What's more it encourages personal attacks and the personalization of the debate.

 

As it stands the people who dislike the idea of limiting these threads (Perfectly fine position to hold I am not in love with it but see the need for it) , have already fallen to distorting the thread ,creating strawmen, and appeals to emotion to make their points.

 

Your post is a good example to this. The 1st amendment is a true national treasure of the United States. So appealing to the emotion that is associated with it inherently encourages people not to take up the issue but decide it on how they feel about the 1st amendment.  It's also a strawman for the simple reason the supreme court has repeatedly and over a very long stretch of time said it does not say what you are trying to say it does. There are all kinds of speech that aren't permitted under it, fighting words, and incitement are good examples.

I misspelled slightly.  I meant censor, not censure.  And this is absolutely censoring: censor (verb): to suppress or delete as objectionable; and it is absolutely about criticism: criticizing (verb): to find fault with : point out the faults of

 

And my critique is neither appeal to emotion, nor strawman.  I'm not asking others to take up 1st amendment issues here, I'm merely stating that I believe personally, and I tend to believe of others within the United States (and I only limit myself there, because I am admittedly unfamiliar with people of other nations, since I don't travel abroad), that because of our culture, I and we tend to react negatively against suggestions that restrict free speech.  I didn't even mention the 1st amendment.  And this is squarely one of those suggestions.  

 

And it's hardly a strawman, since we weren't talking about all speech on the forums here, including fighting words or incitement (which would be banned under the code of conduct), just a specific kind of thread.  

 

I agree my position is perfectly fine to hold, and I appreciate you saying so (sincerely), but I am in no way trying to distort this thread, merely stating my objection and my reasons for it.  As for your reasons, I do agree that some threads encourage personal attacks and the personalization of the debate.  However, if we abide by the code of conduct, we can avoid the attacks and the personalization.  Those are choices that the person reacting makes, not the person posting.  And I believe the onus of behavior should fall on those misbehaving, not those who aren't.

[justicebeliever]

12 minutes ago, nihilii said:

I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but I don't necessarily disagree with it either. I have no qualms with the OP of that thread, and greatly enjoyed the conversation (heated as it was).

I do have qualms with GM Capocollo's post in that to me it characterizes those who disagreed with OP as overreacting and uninformed. There was no shortage of legitimate reasons to disagree with OP, and imho most posters by far were legitimate.

I didn't take Capocollo's post as saying all responses where one way or the other.  And I'm not taking a position on the Hasten post either.

 

I did read the whole thread, and I will say there were some very measured discussions that took place there.  And there were some very unmeasured ones.  And his post was about the unmeasured ones that took place, because the measured ones did as Capocollo suggested, made their points and moved on.  But some people either reacted emotionally, or got frustrated when the other person didn't accept their "overpowering" logic; and those people decided to switch to character assassination, personal attacks, name calling, etc.

[TheAdjustor]

20 minutes ago, justicebeliever said:

Not suggesting this is a public forum, nor I am suggesting they are the same thing.  Merely, that I tend to err on the side of not restricting speech as part of my upbringing.  Maybe it wasn't a part of yours.  I don't know, but either way, since neither of us are moderators here, and we don't make the rules, it's open to debate.

Further personalizing this ? Is the goal to provoke me into making personal attacks ? I'll just not that in a thread that has tried to keep this topic as mild as humanly possible, the above strays near the line of insulting me and my long dead parents.

Quote

I misspelled slightly.  I meant censor, not censure.  And this is absolutely censoring: censor (verb): to suppress or delete as objectionable; and it is absolutely about criticism: criticizing (verb): to find fault with : point out the faults of

 

And my critique is neither appeal to emotion, nor strawman.  I'm not asking others to take up 1st amendment issues here, I'm merely stating that I believe personally, and I tend to believe of others within the United States (and I only limit myself there, because I am admittedly unfamiliar with people of other nations, since I don't travel abroad), that because of our culture, I and we tend to react negatively against suggestions that restrict free speech.  I didn't even mention the 1st amendment.  And this is squarely one of those suggestions.  

 

And it's hardly a strawman, since we weren't talking about all speech on the forums here, including fighting words or incitement (which would be banned under the code of conduct), just a specific kind of thread.  

 

I agree my position is perfectly fine to hold, and I appreciate you saying so (sincerely), but I am in no way trying to distort this thread, merely stating my objection and my reasons for it.  As for your reasons, I do agree that some threads encourage personal attacks and the personalization of the debate.  However, if we abide by the code of conduct, we can avoid the attacks and the personalization.  Those are choices that the person reacting makes, not the person posting.  And I believe the onus of behavior should fall on those misbehaving, not those who aren't.

Censure, censor, is potato, potatoe here. The point was that the appeal is not to limit all criticism just a very narrow form of it. and even so to just demand a higher stand of care for it. So yes when that's turned into something much much larger that is at the very least a strawman and when it is linked to a subject of emotional import, is very much an appeal to emotion bordering on demagoguery

Edited September 29, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[justicebeliever]

1 minute ago, TheAdjustor said:

Further personalizing this ? Is the goal to provoke me into making personal attacks ?

No intent to personalize this.  Apart from us sharing "personal" opinions.  I am not attempt to provoke you, just discuss.  And while I could attempt to provoke a personal attack, this is the internet, and you can ignore me (it's very doable on the forums) or choose not to attack me (It's very doable in life).  You make it seem like I am in control of your behavior.

 

4 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

The point was that the appeal is not to limit all criticism just a very narrow form of it. and even so to just demand a higher stand of care for it. So yes when that's turned into something much much larger that is at the very least a strawman and when it is linked to a subject of emotional import, is very much an appeal to emotion bordering on demagoguery

You saying it doesn't make it so.  It's not a strawman, and emotional import you give it, is your choice.   I am merely saying (repeating myself), that I don't believe we need the additional restriction on speech here on the forums.  And what you are suggesting is a restriction on speech.  The reason?  I believe, unless there is a need to, we shouldn't suppress speech on forums.  The code of conduct is such a restriction, and it's needed to ensure that we can have the opportunity for polite and civil conversations.  And I believe it's sufficient to manage the type of thread you are suggesting from becoming personalized and devolving into attacks.

[TheAdjustor]

1 minute ago, justicebeliever said:

No intent to personalize this.  Apart from us sharing "personal" opinions.  I am not attempt to provoke you, just discuss.  And while I could attempt to provoke a personal attack, this is the internet, and you can ignore me (it's very doable on the forums) or choose not to attack me (It's very doable in life).  You make it seem like I am in control of your behavior.

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

 

Quote

You saying it doesn't make it so.  It's not a strawman, and emotional import you give it, is your choice.   I am merely saying (repeating myself), that I don't believe we need the additional restriction on speech here on the forums.  And what you are suggesting is a restriction on speech.  The reason?  I believe, unless there is a need to, we shouldn't suppress speech on forums.  The code of conduct is such a restriction, and it's needed to ensure that we can have the opportunity for polite and civil conversations.  And I believe it's sufficient to manage the type of thread you are suggesting from becoming personalized and devolving into attacks.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.^[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

Seeing as you are attacking an argument that I did not make and have repeatedly disavowed, yes you are making a strawman argument.

[justicebeliever]

1 minute ago, TheAdjustor said:

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

 Are you seriously accusing me of trying to incite violence or hatred?  That's a pretty strong reaction to some pushback.

 

3 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Seeing as you are attacking an argument that I did not make and have repeatedly disavowed, yes you are making a strawman argument.

If you are not arguing about censoring threads that are critical of the game, then I apologize, because I clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

If you are telling me that not allowing so called "nerf herding" threads is NOT a form of censoring criticism, then I apologize, because clearly we have very different definitions of the words, criticism and censor mean, and I should not have engaged here.

 

Help me out here, what I am missing?  Because I am honestly not trying to put forth a strawman, just trying to voice an opinion.

[Infinitum]

Delete Combat Jumping - its OP

 

Its time to slap FIre Kin trollers on the wrist.

 

Stalkers Crit too easily and overshadows Scrappers - this needs to be adjusted.

 

If i posted any of that as a thread title, what do you think the reactions would be?  Im just using the above as examples i have read in threads at some point or another - its not my position.

 

I would go into that aware i am going to get an emotional and probably heated reaction to that if i posted that as a thread topic. Acting shocked that someone has an issue with topics like that is naive at best, and unethical at worst because its honestly appealing for a strong reaction which doesnt do anyone any good on here.

 

We are getting more topics like that without a shred of evidence to prove it.  We have numbers as to what the powers do, we have numbers of people chosing them, but nothing that shows a cancerous imbalance in the game to prove anything is out of whack.  This is what would lead any normal person to question the motives behind it, because it isnt game improvement.  Nothing suggested in any of the heated nerf threads would improve the game one iota. 

 

That leads to the why at that point, I get questioning motives and intents isnt part of the logical debate guide, but its still relevant as to why the heck would someone request whats being requested.  We can only guess, but an educated guess would be for notoriety at the expense of others, wanting to leave a mark on the game - no matter what it is, or just making other people to do things the way you would like them done.

 

Those are the conclusions thread titles like these lately lead to.

[TheAdjustor]

17 minutes ago, justicebeliever said:

 Are you seriously accusing me of trying to incite violence or hatred?  That's a pretty strong reaction to some pushback.

Let me get this straight, your post questions my self control, acts like nobody ever reacts badly to personal attacks, and questions my upbringing all in one go and somehow pointing out that there are limitations of acceptable in speech in all circumstances is an overreaction.

 

Really ?

Quote

If you are not arguing about censoring threads that are critical of the game, then I apologize, because I clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Once again with the strawman and the passive aggressiveness ? I am talking about requiring a greater standard for threads that call for changes to the game that by their nature are upsetting to many people and   "When uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

Edited September 29, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[justicebeliever]

6 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

We are getting more topics like that without a shred of evidence to prove it.  We have numbers as to what the powers do, we have numbers of people chosing them, but nothing that shows a cancerous imbalance in the game to prove anything is out of whack.  This is what would lead any normal person to question the motives behind it, because it isnt game improvement.  Nothing suggested in any of the heated nerf threads would improve the game one iota. 

If more topics equals 3, then yes.  But I don't see three as an avalanche of trolling that requires a draconian policy change.

 

As for a cancerous imbalance...what would that look like?  Declining subscriptions?  Not a metric we can test against.  Reduced playtime?  Well, that is sadly what has been happening.  Month over month fewer people are playing.  I'm not qualified to say that's cancerous or not, but it's not an indicator that everything is the best it can be.  But seriously, what metric defines a cancerous imbalance (no sarcasm here, I'm genuinely curious if you or the community know of way that this can be measured)?

 

Since I believe I am a normal person, and I don't honestly know the answer, I would not question someone else motives.  Especially since it's just a suggestion that you can respond to.  It's not like they are a developer with any real power, and it's not like their voice is stronger than your voice.  So why silence them?

 

Furthermore...if you feel that a particular person is going to do this, then just ignore them.  It's an easy feature of the forum boards.

 

[justicebeliever]

@TheAdjustor

I'm really not sure how to respond or engage with you.  I've made no attacks on you.  Perhaps look back at this thread and decide if you are imputing some motive to me that doesn't really exist.  I have no idea how you were raised, and in fact, I have said so several times.  You accuse me of inciting hatred or violence, which is a stretch on my worst day of posting.  Every time I say something, you call it out as a personal attack on you and a straw man.  Pretty hard to have a constructive conversation.  

 

If you feel that internet posts control your responses, then yes, I question your self control.  Because I don't automatically believe a thread that says "Delete Brutes" and then provides math, data, and rationale, is an attempt to troll bait me into personal attacks, verbal or otherwise.  I may not agree with that .  It may or may not be trolling.  But I still don't believe that we need to restrict that kind of speech on the internet because I can still choose to ignore it, or respond in a measured way.  Much like I am doing now.  This is a video game forum.  We aren't talking about politics, classes of people, modes of wealth, types of economies, environmental policy, how to raise children, or how to make a relationship work.  There is nothing here, that if said by the existing code of conduct, should cause a reasonable person to feel assaulted in such a way that a reasonable response is name calling, or a physical attack.  Yes, people react badly all the time.  It's true.  But that's on them.  Blaming others isn't' the solution.

 

Fighting words has two definitions.  One is the legal definition, of inciting violence or hatred.  If a post was started that said, "Delete Stamina and Health", that shouldn't lead to violence or hatred.  If it doesn't, I would question that persons self control.  It might lead to outrage, but outrage is not part of the legal definition.

 

The other definition, is the old Yosemite Sam bit, "those are fighting words, rabbit" which refers to

18 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

"When uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

First off, those fighting words are not a form of protected speech unless a reasonable person thinks it will incite violence or hatred.  It's just the grammatical definition for the phrase "fighting words".   Second, it's covered by the Code of Conduct.  Radical suggestions should be allowed.  Period.  I'm OK with it, and I don't want to see them suppressed.  People trolling intentionally will eventually be banned, and people who aren't shouldn't be treated like their ideas are.

 

Now if you feel the Code of Conduct isn't being enforced fairly, that's a separate suggestion.  But if that is the problem, adding another rule won't make the behavior better.  Lax enforcement is a separate issue from a lack of rules.  I'm not suggesting there is an enforcement issue btw.

 

If you want to just say strawman again, or accuse me of personal attacks again, feel free to do so.  That's your right, and I support it.  However, it'll be clear that we have reached the end of a discussion, and I'll go ahead and exercise my right to ignore you, because I don't have to turn to personal attacks myself if measured responses fail.

[PaxArcana]

1 hour ago, nihilii said:

I do have qualms with GM Capocollo's post in that to me it characterizes those who disagreed with OP as overreacting and uninformed.

I think @GM Capocollo was primarily speaking about THIS thread, and, about the general tendency towards Appeals to Motive that all too often come into play in hotly-contested Suggestions threads.  I interpreted his (her?) post as saying that we should discuss the merits of an idea, not why X person had that idea.

 

It seems to me, too, that many - not all, but many - of the people in that thread did over-react, on both sides of the debate.  I'm guilty of that myself, in fact.

 

---

 

1 hour ago, TheAdjustor said:

Further personalizing this ? Is the goal to provoke me into making personal attacks ? I'll just not that in a thread that has tried to keep this topic as mild as humanly possible, the above strays near the line of insulting me and my long dead parents.

... wow.  And I thought I had a severe problem misreading the worst into people's posts ... 🤯

 

40 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

questions my upbringing

Dude(tte), no.  Just, no.  JB was allowing for the possibility that you grew up in a culture different from that of the U.S.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

40 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

I am talking about requiring a greater standard for threads that call for changes to the game

Balderdash.

 

You called for rules forbidding certain kinds of threads.  That is the very definition of censorship: forbidding certain topics or subjects from being discussed.

 

---

 

52 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

We are getting more topics like that without a shred of evidence to prove it.  We have numbers as to what the powers do, we have numbers of people chosing them, but nothing that shows a cancerous imbalance in the game to prove anything is out of whack.  This is what would lead any normal person to question the motives behind it, because it isnt game improvement.  Nothing suggested in any of the heated nerf threads would improve the game one iota. 

The problem comes when someone's motives become the fulcrum of opposition to their idea, without first showing that the idea is bad; it's a logical fallacy called Bulverism.  In the words of the man who coined the name for that behavior, C.S. Lewis:

"Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error."

Edited September 29, 2019 by PaxArcana

[TheAdjustor]

18 minutes ago, justicebeliever said:

@TheAdjustor

I'm really not sure how to respond or engage with you

 

 

Well seeing as the rest of that post is a further distortion of what I have said. I'll propose a simple exercise for you,  try and come up with a list of topics you would think are problematic by their nature for this forum.

Quote

First off, those fighting words are not a form of protected speech unless a reasonable person thinks it will incite violence or hatred. 

Given the fact this statement is not close to anything that was actually said.

1. Fighting words were cited as not being protected by me,  so that statement is redundant at best, most likely deliberate in its obtusness.

2. It's a deliberate edit and misconstrual of the the definition which was presented in full and linked to relevant reference material

 

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

 

I seriously doubt that further engagement between us would be in any way productive.

 

Unfortunately the degeneration of this thread into a back and forth Tit for Tat is exactly the problem with "Nerf X" threads in general. So I probably will not engage with you further because to do so would be me taking part in what I consider a negative for the community.

[TheAdjustor]

16 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

Balderdash.

 

You called for rules forbidding certain kinds of threads.  That is the very definition of censorship: forbidding certain topics or subjects from being discussed.

 

Read the first post again. This time read all of it and try paying attention. It hasn't changed since shortly after it was posted.

[Snakebit]

21 hours ago, GM Sijin said:

A far better solution, although one that is above and beyond far more difficult, is educating the community as to what makes for a good discussion, and what does not. 

A "Read This Before Posting!" sticky with the whole post should about cover that, yeah? Maybe with a few words from other GMs to flesh it out?

 

Something that could be linked to quickly by the community in the event that someone inadvertently makes a contentious proposal without bringing any meat to the table would be very helpful. 

[Doc_Scorpion]

52 minutes ago, justicebeliever said:

I'm really not sure how to respond or engage with you.

Then don't respond or engage.  Seriously.

[Infinitum]

44 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

I think @GM Capocollo was primarily speaking about THIS thread, and, about the general tendency towards Appeals to Motive that all too often come into play in hotly-contested Suggestions threads.  I interpreted his (her?) post as saying that we should discuss the merits of an idea, not why X person had that idea.

 

It seems to me, too, that many - not all, but many - of the people in that thread did over-react, on both sides of the debate.  I'm guilty of that myself, in fact.

 

---

 

... wow.  And I thought I had a severe problem misreading the worst into people's posts ... 🤯

 

Dude(tte), no.  Just, no.  JB was allowing for the possibility that you grew up in a culture different from that of the U.S.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Balderdash.

 

You called for rules forbidding certain kinds of threads.  That is the very definition of censorship: forbidding certain topics or subjects from being discussed.

 

---

 

The problem comes when someone's motives become the fulcrum of opposition to their idea, without first showing that the idea is bad; it's a logical fallacy called Bulverism.  In the words of the man who coined the name for that behavior, C.S. Lewis:

"Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error."

Yeah well i call it like i see it, and when something appears ludicrous there is a motive behind it.  Im sure you have any number of logical fallacies that violates, but in the real world everyone has a motive.

[justicebeliever]

39 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

 

Well seeing as the rest of that post is a further distortion of what I have said. I'll propose a simple exercise for you,  try and come up with a list of topics you would think are problematic by their nature for this forum.

Verboten topics would be those explicitly called out in the Code of Conduct, and any content that is completely unrelated to either the game or superhero culture at large.  It is a private forum as previously stated.

 

39 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Given the fact this statement is not close to anything that was actually said.

1. Fighting words were cited as not being protected by me,  so that statement is redundant at best, most likely deliberate in its obtusness.

2. It's a deliberate edit and misconstrual of the the definition which was presented in full and linked to relevant reference material

 

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

 

I seriously doubt that further engagement between us would be in any way productive.

 

Unfortunately the degeneration of this thread into a back and forth Tit for Tat is exactly the problem with "Nerf X" threads in general. So I probably will not engage with you further because to do so would be me taking part in what I consider a negative for the community.

I apologize, I did misstate something.  The general, Yosemite Sam definition of "those are Fighting Words, rabbit" are not a form of protected speech like I said, rather they are not a form of prohibited speech (I said the opposite of what I meant, and I do apologize.  You can use fighting words all you want that tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation, legally, so long as they don't meet the legal criteria of prohibited free speech (inciting hatred or violence).  Clearly, all legal fighting words meet the general definition, but the general definition does meet the legal definition all the time.

 

But regardless, you asked me to do something at the beginning of the post (which I did), and now here at the end of the post, it's let's not engage anymore.  Again, it makes it difficult to engage with you.  When you ask me to do something  and then suggest I go away.

 

I'll end our conversation with this, the degeneration of this thread had nothing to do with "Nerf X" threads, since you weren't suggesting a nerf.  It has to do with player behavior, and the belief that contrary opinions force others into derogatory behavior, something that is false.   And that's the commonality between this thread and the others.

 

I wish you well @TheAdjustor.  But I won't be hearing from you anymore sir!

[justicebeliever]

51 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Read the first post again. This time read all of it and try paying attention. It hasn't changed since shortly after it was posted.

This is condescending, since you, Pax, and I all know he is more than capable and in fact did read the first post.  Much as I did.  You just don't handle disagreement very well.

[justicebeliever]

23 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Yeah well i call it like i see it, and when something appears ludicrous there is a motive behind it.  Im sure you have any number of logical fallacies that violates, but in the real world everyone has a motive.

This is the problem here.  We don't let blind umpires call baseball games, because the can't call them like they seem them.  And you can't begin to guess at a motive from a 1000 word internet post.  There is no context, no intonation (sarcasm doesn't carry well, nor does innuendo), zero body language to read, and no prior interaction with the person to suggest how they go about things.  

 

Think about it,  Think about all the things you've ever said on the internet.  Are you willing to say that everyone of them should be taken 100% at face value and all of them represent who you are as a human being?

 

Yes, everyone has a motive, and I would never say otherwise.  But assuming its a bad motive is thinking the worst of people and only lowers the conversation for all

[nihilii]

2 hours ago, justicebeliever said:

But some people either reacted emotionally, or got frustrated when the other person didn't accept their "overpowering" logic; and those people decided to switch to character assassination, personal attacks, name calling, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on that one either, but it's still, to me, a completely different problem from saying people are having a kneejerk reaction from reading the title and not the body. *shrug*

[Widower]

This thread has descended into the absurd, and so I have decided to nerf close it. Please remember to assume good faith of everyone going forward.