The rules of good discussion, please read
I've noticed we've recently developed into something of a pattern of escalating tention and over all arguement that has often not been productive. This often seems because people get court up in the moment, or the emotions or their own perspective, and do not consider the over all flow of the conversation, what is being said, or what much of the context is.
So, I thought in the interests of making people more aware of what does and does notpromote harmonious iscussion on this forum, I'd share a few observations.
Disclaimer!
This is not a moderation issue, the moderation hat is off, these are by no way forum policies, these are just the ideas, thoughts and observations of DArk.
However, by the same tocan, this is a set of observations by someone who has been required to sort out a large proportion of the drama we've had over the years. Furthermore, I will say being a qualified ethicist, and actually required to chare debates in my time at
university, I'll say I've probably seen more than my fare share of arguementation of one sort or another.
So, while none of these are official announcements by any stretch of the imagination and anyone is free to disagree, dislike or otherwise hold adverse views, bare in mind these are observations based on at least a reasonable degree of experience.
1: Don't mistake an opinion for an arguement.
This one is quite commonly a cause of hassle.
"I don't like swamp because I find it boring and confusing" is an opinion. True, I have utilized the clause "because" in this sentence and attributed to Swamp two properties to explain my dislike, however those qualities are ones that "I find" when playing Swamp, not ones that I am atributing to Swamp universally. I am not drawing an opinion of Swamp players or of Swamp's over all quality as a game, I am stating my personal view. You can of course disagree with my vi
ew in this case, or ask why I think as I do, however because the statement "I think" is employed and this is an opinion, there often isn't too much point in violent disagreement. My opinion that "I don't like Swamp" makes no aspersions on those who do like Swamp, or on swamp's quality as a game, it just states my own relation to swamp, that I dislike it, and usually that is where an opinion ends.
"Swamp is a bad game because it is boring and confusing"
Is a propositional arguement. It attributes the qualities of being boring and confusing to the entity swamp and therefore declares that the possession of those qualities make Swamp a bad game. here I am making a categorical value judgement. I am attributing qualities to swamp, and thus am making an arguement which may be disagreed with quite freely, although after you propose a counter arguement I might well argue for my perspective in return. This is after all a discussion! fo rum and the operative word here is "discussion"
Btw, I use Swamp as an example here precisely because! cryticisms of Swamp are likely to fuel an emotional reaction, though of course bare in mind Dark actually thinkks Swamp is pretty awesome .
2: Disagree with the issue not the person.
It is quite possible to disagree with either of the above statements, either the opinion or the arguement.
You might ask me "why do you think swamp is boring", or "why do you find Swamp confusing" when i express my opinion.
If I express my belief that swamp is a bad game, you may of course disagree if you believe Believe swamp is a good game.
However, fundamentally, this is a disagreement about Swamp, not about the people who play Swamp, the people who enjoy swamp, or even the people who arguue against my or your current perspectiv
e on Swamp.
If I were to say "Well you only like swamp because it has gore and zombies and appeals to children, and you only argue against my view because your a child"
I am no longer addressing the issue of Swamp. I am attempting to devalue the views of those who disagree with me by explaining their arguement relative to themselves, I am not saying why I! think Swamp is a bad game, I have in short moved the arguement out of the degrees of discussion about the issue to a denigration of those who hold opposing views.
It is just as insulting as if I'd said "you only think that because your a moron"
This is a frequent sauce of Drama, when instead of keeping the conversation strictly about the issue under discussion one side or the other goes into discussing the views or motivations or personal history of those who hold opposing views. Humans are complicated creatures and trying to say "why someone thinks as they think" is no
t an easy matter, indeed I would hazard the guess that a person who violently disagrees with someone else's opinion is probably in the worst position of saying why! the first person holds that opinion! .
3: contrary views are not bullying.
Different people think different things, and as an American president said "you can't please all of the people all of the time"
This is a discussion! forum. Whether opinions or reasoned arguements, people's views will differ, and if you don't want to hear different opinions or counter arguements, you shouldn't be on a forum in the first place.
4: Avoid entrenchment.
In opinion wars, once opinions have been stated, that is pretty much that. This is the difference between a reasoned arguement and an opinion.
If I say "I just don't like Swamp", an
d you say "Well I do" well that is pretty much the end of the conversation.
Major drama frequently begins when one side dislikes another side's views, and the first side dislikes the dislike and so on, which is all pretty pointless.
5: Telling someone to ignore it.
this is a discussion! forum as stated previously, and generally speaking people like expressing their opinions or reasoning out arguements. If I were to post a topic with the title "Swamp is the worst game ever" and then state how much I disliked swamp, I'm sure I'd get a truck ful of contrary views pretty quickly.
If I then respond with "why bother answering this topic, just ignore it" I have effectively denied other people the right to their opinions or to use their reasoning faculties.
I'm effectively saying "Well if you don't agree with me, don't bother expressing your views here"
As said previously, "di scussion" is the operative word, and that means respecting the views of others, even if you violently disagree with them, as well as having yours respected.
6: "I have a right!"
Discussions about rights or any other ethical concept are of course fine. However, as said previously discagreements or exchanges of opinion should remain about the subject. Yes, everyone has a right to express their opinion or construct arguements or counter arguements, however reitterating this right as opposed to exercising it in a respectful fashion really won't aid discussion at all, sinse of course it necessitates a confrontation. If you think your right is being infringed and your experiencing personal attacks, ---- well tell the mods, don't protest to other members.
Conclusion.
I'm really sorry to post yet another topic on the subject of drama, however given a recent occurrence yesterday I found it necessary, sinse frankly it seems people are forgetting what a discussion forum is for or the rules of civilized debate, and I'm getting a little tired of seeing escalating tentions over matters that really don't warrent them that then necessitate brute force moderation interventions, rather than people coming to their senses.
Discussion and arguement is a good thing, sharing views and opinions is a good thing, but if you can't respect and listen to other members, then it becomes entirely pointless!
And btw, if this topic degenerates into a similarly over baked ridiculous arguement I shal go and bang my head upon the wall! and all of you will be responsable for me having a sore head!
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
