Change in moderator policies

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Look at that, hyperbole after hyperbole without once mentioning either Citizen Kane or The Room, just irrelevant philosophical twaddle irrationally being applied to a physical craft.

Which chair is better Pladio:





Right, you can apply subjective taste and bleat on about "depends for what purpose" and all that crap, but, no, seriously, which chair is objectively better?

Neither…

I'd go with the more comfortable one, which means I would have to try them both out.

It has been mentioned in this thread a few times. So, it makes me wonder to what extend it is allowed to hurt someone's feelings to get a point across. Is it just laziness that makes this person don't want to bother rewriting it or is it an inability to communicate in another way or is there really no other way to get that point across?
What also makes me wonder if that same person would talk like that face to face to someone else in that way. If not, then what is the point of doing it online.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
It has been mentioned in this thread a few times. So, it makes me wonder to what extend it is allowed to hurt someone's feelings to get a point across. Is it just laziness that makes this person don't want to bother rewriting it or is it an inability to communicate in another way or is there really no other way to get that point across?
What also makes me wonder if that same person would talk like that face to face to someone else in that way. If not, then what is the point of doing it online.

I would gladly answer for my own part, but I kinda promised to leave the thread alone.

If you're curious, you can start another thread and I'll explain why I think it's more important to show who you are and what you're thinking than trying to spare the feelings of those you're talking to.

I must say I'm bit puzzled you could really believe it's about being lazy or uncaring. You seem wiser than that.

@Myrthos All good questions. One thing we all can agree on is that the Internet facilitates bluntness. And I think it bleeds into other kinds of interactions. For example, I've never seen US politics more disrespectful than now.

Nice derail bait Thrasher

No intent there, just an observation. This media enables disrespect and unaccountability.

EDIT: Which is why I appreciate Myrthos' attempt to fix it here.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I would gladly answer for my own part, but I kinda promised to leave the thread alone.

It wasn't targeted to you personally, but was intended to be a generic question on how this works for people. I kinda have an idea on how it works for you, but it also has been mentioned by others that some insults would be OK.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
No intent there, just an observation. This media enables disrespect and unaccountability.

EDIT: Which is why I appreciate Myrthos attempt to fix it here.

Uh huh

Occasionally I like to stir the pot, but I try to do it with respect.

Originally Posted by Eye
Without respect you don't care about your message being understood.
If all you care about is being honest and clear - according to your standards - all you care about is being able to drop your turds wherever you feel like.

So you prefer the two face? The person that says nice things straight to your face and stabs you in the back as soon as you turn around?

To me if a person can be honest with me it is a reference point to change a persons opinion on a matter.

I know that honesty is no longer a like-able trait but its food for thought no?

Being polite and respectful while arguing with someone with a different opinion is neither dishonest nor backstabbing. It is a way of exchanging opinions every adult should use. At least here at RPGWatch - the friendly bar around the corner where CRPG enthusiasts meet each other.

If someone thinks that the only way to be honest is to be mean and nasty, then that person has a problem. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Being polite and respectful while arguing with someone with a different opinion is neither dishonest nor backstabbing. It is a way of exchanging opinions every adult should use. At least here at RPGWatch - the friendly bar around the corner where CRPG enthusiasts meet each other.

I agree that is the happy medium. Where you can be honest and respectful.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Being polite and respectful while arguing with someone with a different opinion is neither dishonest nor backstabbing. It is a way of exchanging opinions every adult should use. At least here at RPGWatch - the friendly bar around the corner where CRPG enthusiasts meet each other.

Not to rain on your parade, but being english, the metaphorical birthplace of politeness, I can assure you that the term 'polite' is indeed another term for two-facedness - "white man speaks with forked tongue", "The english are just pragmatists", "Putting on a good show". Politeness is basically acting, a cold and detached form of communication designed to 'avoid' conflict - thereby completely at odds with the concept of debate, you cannot be 'polite' in a debate, it's a complete fallacy. The only objective of politeness in a debating scenario is to attempt to portray the opposition as unhinged by the over exaggeration of remarks about displays of emotion, a basic and routine on-line troll tactic where the objective is to get someone else banned. This is why you find very little politeness in official debating venues even in england, including the house of commons.

Being respectful is a different kettle of fish. As you can see from my debates with Pladio, Pladio is quite clearly not respecting any of my points, deliberately ignoring questions he can't answer, deliberately obfuscating the point and just repeating dogmatic philosophy akin to a religious fanatic. His favourite tactic being to take one sentence, or even one solitary word from a post if it suits him, and write a few words contradicting that one micro-point and then claim a total victory. This is the exact same issue people have with HHR. And it's no surprise that both Pladio and HHR love the P&R forum. From years, nay near decades, of on-line forum'ing, this is the exact 'personality' of practically anyone who regularly posts to politics forums. It's utterly insane, but that's how fanatics function.

When it comes to moderating fanatics, it's not about the subject matter, it's not the subject matter which infuriates people, it's also not the insults and jibes, it's the complete inability for any regular politics contributor to know when they're either beaten or admit defeat - the brick wall of either circular denial or the classic change of point - all things I have highlighted by people in this thread. This is the reason I don't tend to bother much with political discussions on-line, it's like talking to a completely different species, a species which makes even joxer seem like an amiable and good natured angel.

In order to moderate 'respect' you would first have to understand my post. You would have to have an even greater knowledge of the subject than me, who is a mere casual forum goer. You would have to be the epitome of Mr. Spock, so unnaturally unhuman as to be incapable of knowing what is or isn't a 'respectable' subject matter. In effect, the correct moderating mind-set of clinical neutrality would contradict the ability to recognise unpleasant topics and people.

Moderating by subject matter can only lead to a circle jerking echo chamber where the post count declines like a stone in water as no-one has any reason to contribute further. Moderating by quality of argument will result in unpleasant extremes getting more limelight than their subject matter deserves, the fanatic always being more determined to fight long after death, victory by relentlessness. Moderating by word usage and the extent of insults will result in sub-games where the topics become necessarily overly controversial in order to secure the 'win' by 'knocking out' the opposition, to which the best way to achieve this is constantly repeat bollox regardless of what anyone says - it's only human for someone who is approaching a debate from a 'sane' perspective to 'crack' in this situation.

So the current method is the best. If Myrthos hears about it, myrthos can look into it, and then myrthos can decide. If myrthos is unsure of how to act, myrthos can open the topic up for debate. Myrthos seems to have a pretty competent head on his shoulders… most of the time… balancing all the above so that nothing is dominant.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
It wasn't targeted to you personally, but was intended to be a generic question on how this works for people. I kinda have an idea on how it works for you, but it also has been mentioned by others that some insults would be OK.

I promised to leave the thread alone - and I failed. I felt Myrthos was looking for an explanation - and this will have to suffice as mine.

Fair enough, Myrthos, though I'm not convinced you kinda know how it works for me

In any case, I don't understand the value of these concepts of respect or politeness as people talk about them. In my world, the only way to respect someone would be to fully know who they are and what they're capable of in any key situation.

I already know what any human being is capable of given the right or wrong circumstances - so I don't go around respecting them.

I can love them, care for them, protect them, fight for them, admire traits they have - and so on. But respect? No.

Respect is admiring a person as a whole - and that means you have to admire their ability to lie, cheat, murder and what's worse. I can't respect human beings - no way.

You could respect your co-workers because they're polite and pleasant - but they could be beating their wife or cheating the company in their spare time. There's just no way to know.

So, unless you're extremely certain you absolutely know a person - respect is based on an illusion or assumption that the person is "worthy".

However, unlike many here - I don't see one person as more worthy than the next. We're either all worthy or we're not.

I don't belittle people because they hold a minority opinion and pretend I'm being a respectful pleasant person like so many of you do around here. I just speak my mind openly and honestly - and I don't attribute "value" to people just like that - because they share my opinions. If they're hurt as the result of my opinion, then that's not something I enjoy or take pleasure in - in any way. In fact, I dislike hurting people quite a bit. Very, very few people take genuine pleasure in the process of hurting others.

Do you really think it's easier to be honest and direct than to be "pleasant" and polite?

Trust me, it's not.

What's easy is to be polite and avoid conflict whenever it's deemed too much work. It's also a life made up of illusion.

In my world, there's no such thing as a bad or a good person. We're just human - and human beings are extremely flawed.

Not a single one among us deserves more respect than the next in a way that can be established - and most of you are a lot more deceitful than you're willing to admit.

In reality, a lot of polite behavior is about making conversation easy. That's all it is. Easy for yourself in particular.

This whole myth that you can be truthful to other people without occasionally hurting them is a complete fabrication. It's a convenient lie you tell yourself so you can feel better about not telling people something true that they might need to hear.

Conflict is something people have been taught is a horrible thing - which doesn't help make it any easier when it could lead to something better.

If the norm was honest straight-faced talk - then people wouldn't have to go around living in an illusion about who they are and what they're like. They'd very soon learn to deal with it - and then honest exchange wouldn't feel like a conflict at all.

It would feel natural.

As utopian as that would be, it's something I think is worth striving for.

I think striving for a world where we can be honest about our flaws and wants - in an effort to better deal with them and improve - is worth it.

I've long since chosen to accept that most people "online" react very badly to being faced with a negative opinion. Heck, even if that opinion has nothing to do with them - they'll be pissed if it somehow affects them indirectly. Take a movie, for instance.

If you say something "disrespectful" of someone's favorite movie - the vast majority will react negatively - and they'll conjure up some reason OTHER than the real reason for being biased against the person speaking.

That's the kind of pathetic exchange that goes on - on most public forums every day. People throwing veiled insults at each other over movies, music, celebrities and games - all while pretending they're being polite and that being hurt has nothing to do with their lashing out.

What a sorry state of affairs, really.

If that's the kind of exchange you prefer on the Watch, rather than having to deal with minority opinions and extremes here and there, I say go right ahead.

Sometimes those extreme opinions are exactly what can teach us about each other - and deal with something genuinely relevant, but whatever.

You'll fit right in with a whole bunch of other sites - with the same kind of "fair" treatment of people - at least so long as their opinions are deemed acceptable - and their statements don't hurt or insult those who have a say.

To me this reads as: "It is about me and my truth, you have to live with it. I don't care how and if it affects you".
In the end it is just your opinion you are throwing at someone. Apparently you don't care to hurt people with your version of the truth. If they can't live with that, it is there problem. If your version of the truth is flawed, it is still their problem as it is your truth and you can share it as you please.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
To me this reads as: "It is about me and my truth, you have to live with it. I don't care how and if it affects you".
In the end it is just your opinion you are throwing at someone. Apparently you don't care to hurt people with your version of the truth. If they can't live with that, it is there problem. If your version of the truth is flawed, it is still their problem as it is your truth and you can share it as you please.

There's a big difference between "truth" and my honest opinion. At least, I can't just assume they're the same.

All I have is my opinion - and I've never claimed to know truth. I hope you're not claiming to know it either.

I'm not confusing the two.

I just pointed out that I dislike hurting people. Why do you insist otherwise? Could you not at least try to understand what I'm saying?

You're saying that when I say I don't like hurting people - it reads as if I don't care. Meaning you either think I'm a liar - or you just didn't read what I said.

However, my opinion is my opinion - that's very true. Everything I believe in - is something I believe in.

I can't ignore everything I believe in and pretend I don't believe in it.

I'm pretty sure that your position is your position because YOU believe it's a good position. When you choose to be polite - it's because you believe it's the best course of action.

When I choose to be honest, it's because I believe it's the best course of action.

In my opinion, people learn more from honesty than politeness.

I'm sure it's unfathomable to you, but I do what I do because I care about making things better and about people.

Words are very important here - and it's very important not to confuse them.

I care about people. I don't respect people.

Those two are not incompatible.

I don't respect myself either, by the way. It's a useless and silly concept all in all.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
snip

Actually, I have answered almost every single one of your questions. You just don't like my answers.

That doesn't make me wrong lb…

From DArt:

This whole myth that you can be truthful to other people without occasionally hurting them is a complete fabrication. It's a convenient lie you tell yourself so you can feel better about not telling people something true that they might need to hear.

While this is true, I think you can present facts in a respectful way. It still can hurt however.

Originally Posted by Damian
While this is true, I think you can present facts in a respectful way. It still can hurt however.

If the fact/opinion is hurtful - it will hurt no matter how it's presented, if it goes through unscathed.

In that same way, you don't go to your doctor and expect a respectful message about having cancer.

That's why they just go out and say it.

Some people would probably prefer not to know - but I think that's a bad idea.