Jump to content

Debates are not arguments


Seriphyn

Read the following, and choose an option  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Read the following, and choose an option

    • Answer 1
    • Answer 2
    • A compromise between the two


Recommended Posts

How does it shut everything else out? It's textual communication. Everybody's posts and responses can be seen regardless of what's being discussed. If Guy A and Guy B are calling eachother mean names over the LS, it's not like I can't see Guy C's replies, or that my conversation with Guy C about bread is somehow negatively affected by Guy A and Guy B's spat.

 

Because negative attitudes have this tendency to overpower everything else in the room, textual or no. It's also incredibly difficult to follow more than one conversation in something like an LS due to the lack of line-by-line color segregation.

 

Maybe you've never been in this situation before, but trust me, this is exactly how it happens and it's not a good thing in the slightest.

 

I've been in this situation countless times and could still carry on a conversation just fine. An argument only turns into some big thing that engulfs the entire chat when people who aren't participating in said discussion cause a big stink about not wanting it to happen. I suppose I just lucked out and none of those arguments were strong enough to 'overpower' my unrelated conversation.

Link to comment
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How does it shut everything else out? It's textual communication. Everybody's posts and responses can be seen regardless of what's being discussed. If Guy A and Guy B are calling eachother mean names over the LS, it's not like I can't see Guy C's replies, or that my conversation with Guy C about bread is somehow negatively affected by Guy A and Guy B's spat.

 

Because negative attitudes have this tendency to overpower everything else in the room, textual or no. It's also incredibly difficult to follow more than one conversation in something like an LS due to the lack of line-by-line color segregation.

 

Maybe you've never been in this situation before, but trust me, this is exactly how it happens and it's not a good thing in the slightest.

 

If its that intrusive for you, just temporarily black list them or turn the channel off for a while.

Link to comment

I do not see why people would get offended over lore debates though. ESPECIALLY in a roleplaying LS/FC.

 

If someone acts up as an offended obnoxious brat OOC, then there is no purpose onto continuing though. I absolutely love seeing discussions about lore though, always something new to learn.

 

But. When it ends up in a "I do w/e the fark I want, don't judge meeeeee" then well eh. It's kinda pointless. Debates are to be had with people who've got an open mind. The ones set in their own ways are not likely to be changed in any case. Arguments are pointless. Debates are great.

Link to comment

This is the first MMO community I've been a part of that's had such an erratic and bizarre allergy to any and all critique, critical thinking and passionate discussion. I know a lot of role-players who have given up on this site entirely because of the borderline bullying and antagonistic behaviour they've been met with as a result of trying to stir up a debate instead of treating this place like the echo chamber posters seem to want it to become.

 

Then there's the ridiculous habit of people deliberately reading every post that they disagree with in the worst possible light to try and paint them as being needlessly aggressive. It needs to stop, especially since the people guilty of that are, quite laughably, the same individuals who desperately claim that the best way to solve any issue is to talk it out beforehand. 

 

So in short? I'm glad this thread has been made. More people within this community really need to be able to agree to disagree and participate in debates without attacking each other over differences in opinion.

 

One thing I would push, with all due respect, would be for the moderators to consider avoiding locking threads and just deal with the problematic posters who repeatedly derail controversial debates instead.

Link to comment

This is the first MMO community I've been a part of that's had such an erratic and bizarre allergy to any and all critique, critical thinking and passionate discussion. I know a lot of role-players who have given up on this site entirely because of the borderline bullying and antagonistic behaviour they've been met with as a result of trying to stir up a debate instead of treating this place like the echo chamber posters seem to want it to become.

 

Then there's the ridiculous habit of people deliberately reading every post that they disagree with in the worst possible light to try and paint them as being needlessly aggressive. It needs to stop, especially since the people guilty of that are, quite laughably, the same individuals who desperately claim that the best way to solve any issue is to talk it out beforehand. 

 

So in short? I'm glad this thread has been made. More people within this community really need to be able to agree to disagree and participate in debates without attacking each other over differences in opinion.

 

One thing I would push, with all due respect, would be for the moderators to consider avoiding locking threads and just deal with the problematic posters who repeatedly derail controversial debates instead.

I think it comes from a lot of RPers not wanting to be told their RP is "wrong", even if the established lore and the community at large tells them they are. It doesn't help when there are people encouraging them to ignore any sort of criticism.

Link to comment

[align=center]1) Should participants in the lore debate shift to a private conversation?[/align]

[align=center]OR[/align]

[align=center]2) Should observers who are uncomfortable tolerate the lore debate?[/align]

 

For me, the key word here in the second option is "uncomfortable."

 

I am a great believer in discourse, discussion, and that many people outside of the initial debate become more informed when there is a debate on an issue. By Seriphyn and I debating lore (using this example) I believe that a 3rd party may come to learn something from both my point of view and/or Seriphyn's and then come to form their own opinion on the matter by measuring each others' points, just as we, the debaters may come to an agreement where before we differed.

 

That said, the moment our discussion becomes uncomfortable to the 3rd party viewers, it's time to move that discussion elsewhere because we have stopped being a beneficial influence. One of us has done something to offend the other, and that is not the goal of debate. You earn yourself (or your position on your topic) no favors by being inconsiderate of those around you. Just as you permit your debate opponent the courtesy of his opinion when you debate, you should also be courteous of the opinions of those your argument affects.

 

In real life, I am a Paramedic. As a medic I have many stories, most of which, would be inconsiderate to tell in a public place where I might easily be overheard. Not everyone is desensitized to horrific stories of vomit, roaches, intubation, drug overdoses, or fatal MVCs. If I'm at a bar with my friends and I get into one of my stories, and the owner comes around and asks that I take the rest of my story outside because I'm making their other patrons uncomfortable... it is sure as hell not my place to tell them to grow a thicker skin and get over it. It is my place to either stop the discussion or leave, because I have done a disservice to my fellow patron. My story, while fun and educational to those involved, was not well received by everyone else. So too must debates follow similar courtesy when in a public setting where others (who have not agreed to this debate) are forced to play bystander. Move to /tells or form a party and continue your debate. Hell, make a LS called "Lore Debates" so that way everyone inside that linkshell has consented to a debate environment.

Link to comment

[align=center]1) Should participants in the lore debate shift to a private conversation?[/align]

[align=center]OR[/align]

[align=center]2) Should observers who are uncomfortable tolerate the lore debate?[/align]

 

 

For me, the key word here in the second option is "uncomfortable."

 

I am a great believer in discourse, discussion, and that many people outside of the initial debate become more informed when there is a debate on an issue. By Seriphyn and I debating lore (using this example) I believe that a 3rd party may come to learn something from both my point of view and/or Seriphyn's and then come to form their own opinion on the matter by measuring each others' points, just as we, the debaters may come to an agreement where before we differed.

 

That said, the moment our discussion becomes uncomfortable to the 3rd party viewers, it's time to move that discussion elsewhere because we have stopped being a beneficial influence. One of us has done something to offend the other, and that is not the goal of debate. You earn yourself (or your position on your topic) no favors by being inconsiderate of those around you. Just as you permit your debate opponent the courtesy of his opinion when you debate, you should also be courteous of the opinions of those your argument affects.

 

In real life, I am a Paramedic. As a medic I have many stories, most of which, would be inconsiderate to tell in a public place where I might easily be overheard. Not everyone is desensitized to horrific stories of vomit, roaches, intubation, drug overdoses, or fatal MVCs. If I'm at a bar with my friends and I get into one of my stories, and the owner comes around and asks that I take the rest of my story outside because I'm making their other patrons uncomfortable... it is sure as hell not my place to tell them to grow a thicker skin and get over it. It is my place to either stop the discussion or leave, because I have done a disservice to my fellow patron. My story, while fun and educational to those involved, was not well received by everyone else. So too must debates follow similar courtesy when in a public setting where others (who have not agreed to this debate) are forced to play bystander. Move to /tells or form a party and continue your debate. Hell, make a LS called "Lore Debates" so that way everyone inside that linkshell has consented to a debate environment.

There will be people in the world who are uncomfortable with -everything-. If we were to move any discussion that made anyone uncomfortable out of the public eye nobody would talk ever. People need to get over themselves and realize the world can't always cater to them and they need to toughen up.

Link to comment

I think it all boils down to what the actual goal behind the debate is. Often times, debates, especially about lore are entered with an agenda. May that be enforcing your own opinion as the proper one through provided arguments or to have someone else change their perception to something more akin to the oppositions side.

 

In itself, it isn't wrong as such. After all, Cohesion is a must for many in regards to Roleplay. And trying to get everyone on a similar page is quite beneficial aswell.

 

Usually, the difference between a debate and an argument lies in the tonality, and whether it has a moving agenda, and the degree of respect for the other person and the ability to not take the debate personally.

 

People can get defensive fast, and can presume a slight against a certain liberty with Canon lore to be akin to criticism to them, therein a prompt for them to not do it. Especially when it comes to lore, many people don't simply debate lore to find out what's right, they do it to be able to tell others that they should get their wrongs fixed.

 

 

In the end, it largely  depends on who you surround yourself with and how open the individuals you are with are to discussion. I personally come from communities where we'd argue and debate things to the death until a unified conclusion was achieved, and no one was upset or insulted by anyone participating in kind. However, there 'are' more frail minds out there, and to simply say 'they need to toughen' up is pretty redundant. They need to toughen up as much as you need to shut up, fact is, either consideration goes both ways or none.  This however only counts for Public channels and Linkshells.

 

If there's a thread titled "Discussing BLM in FFXIV", and you actively get into that topic trying to derail it with your sensitivities, and your 'personal hurt' in regards to what's said that, stay out of it. It is not a public channel, it is a discussion created for those willing to discuss it.

Link to comment

I hold the firm belief that there's a time and a place for everything but I'm not too sure a debate regarding role-play is anywhere near the same level as a discussion involving horrific injuries and accidents. As unfortunate as it may be for some having a reasonably thick skin is pretty much a necessity when it comes to online interaction. There's some pretty solid reasons as to why online interaction isn't really taken into account when giving a game such as this an age rating and not every last little detail or individual can be micro-managed. Nor is the real world that way in many scenarios either.

Link to comment

If its that intrusive for you, just temporarily black list them or turn the channel off for a while.

 

Why should anyone have to do something so obtuse over 2-3 people that can't be bothered to back off before things turn sour?

 

This was the whole point of my first post: have consideration for your fellow players. It really isn't that hard, folks.

Link to comment

If its that intrusive for you, just temporarily black list them or turn the channel off for a while.

 

Why should anyone have to do something so obtuse over 2-3 people that can't be bothered to back off before things turn sour?

 

This was the whole point of my first post: have consideration for your fellow players. It really isn't that hard, folks.

 

In all fairness, consideration goes both ways not just one. More often than not you'll see one person branded as confrontational in a heated debate when the reality is multiple people usually get involved and egg it on from both sides.

 

Besides, quite a lot of people in the community are more than willing to compromise or agree to disagree. The main issue is that they're so rarely given the benefit of the doubt or even approached for dialogue because the common reaction from many is to gossip and brand someone eager for debate as a bit of a prick. Which doesn't help anybody.

 

Now, I've said this before but I think it's well worth repeating again: just because someone happens to be pretty blunt and direct it doesn't make them a bad person. Some of the more direct posters on this very site have turned out to be incredibly friendly and wonderful people whilst those who desperately lace their every word with sugar and claim to be friendly and approachable are, in fact, some of the most vile and manipulative individuals I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.

 

Sweeping judgements are rather silly, in other words.

Link to comment

If its that intrusive for you, just temporarily black list them or turn the channel off for a while.

 

Why should anyone have to do something so obtuse over 2-3 people that can't be bothered to back off before things turn sour?

 

This was the whole point of my first post: have consideration for your fellow players. It really isn't that hard, folks.

If you're the only one offended over something 2-3 people are discussing wouldn't it make more sense for you to blist them or leave bing a single person instead of expecting a group of people minding their own business to cater to you?

Link to comment

If its that intrusive for you, just temporarily black list them or turn the channel off for a while.

 

Why should anyone have to do something so obtuse over 2-3 people that can't be bothered to back off before things turn sour?

 

This was the whole point of my first post: have consideration for your fellow players. It really isn't that hard, folks.

 

In all fairness, consideration goes both ways not just one. More often than not you'll see one person branded as confrontational in a heated debate when the reality is multiple people usually get involved and egg it on from both sides.

 

Besides, quite a lot of people in the community are more than willing to compromise or agree to disagree. The main issue is that they're so rarely given the benefit of the doubt or even approached for dialogue because the common reaction from many is to gossip and brand someone eager for debate as a bit of a prick. Which doesn't help anybody.

 

Now, I've said this before but I think it's well worth repeating again: just because someone happens to be pretty blunt and direct it doesn't make them a bad person. Some of the more direct posters on this very site have turned out to be incredibly friendly and wonderful people whilst those who desperately lace their every word with sugar and claim to be friendly and approachable are, in fact, some of the most vile and manipulative individuals I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.

 

Sweeping judgements are rather silly, in other words.

 

 

Please don't take this too seriously but, this is essentially what popped into my mind reading that; 

 

People like me are cool, and I like people like me. But some people think we're dicks.

 

 

 

that makes them even biggers dicks.

Link to comment

If its that intrusive for you, just temporarily black list them or turn the channel off for a while.

 

Why should anyone have to do something so obtuse over 2-3 people that can't be bothered to back off before things turn sour?

 

This was the whole point of my first post: have consideration for your fellow players. It really isn't that hard, folks.

 

In all fairness, consideration goes both ways not just one. More often than not you'll see one person branded as confrontational in a heated debate when the reality is multiple people usually get involved and egg it on from both sides.

 

Besides, quite a lot of people in the community are more than willing to compromise or agree to disagree. The main issue is that they're so rarely given the benefit of the doubt or even approached for dialogue because the common reaction from many is to gossip and brand someone eager for debate as a bit of a prick. Which doesn't help anybody.

 

Now, I've said this before but I think it's well worth repeating again: just because someone happens to be pretty blunt and direct it doesn't make them a bad person. Some of the more direct posters on this very site have turned out to be incredibly friendly and wonderful people whilst those who desperately lace their every word with sugar and claim to be friendly and approachable are, in fact, some of the most vile and manipulative individuals I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.

 

Sweeping judgements are rather silly, in other words.

 

 

Please don't take this too seriously but, this is essentially what popped into my mind reading that; 

 

People like me are cool, and I like people like me. But some people think we're dicks.

 

 

 

that makes them even biggers dicks.

 

I like to debate. Some people think that makes me a bitch.

 

I think it makes me productive.

 

Seriously, though. Discussion and differences of opinion need to stop being labelled as this evil, nasty thing.

Link to comment

There will be people in the world who are uncomfortable with -everything-. If we were to move any discussion that made anyone uncomfortable out of the public eye nobody would talk ever. People need to get over themselves and realize the world can't always cater to them and they need to toughen up.

 

The subject is irrelevant. It could be a debate on religion, lore, or a gruesome tale of medical traumas. What matters is that you've offended someone. Are there people who are more sensitive to certain issues that others? Yes, certainly, this varies by individual. Which is precisely why debaters must be aware and conscientious of their audiences. Everyone has a topic that they are uncomfortable with. Be that religion, or rape, or white magic, or blood, sex, or guts. It is not your place to decide what other people are comfortable being subjected to. It is well within their rights as unwilling, third parties to make known that they are uncomfortable either with the topic at hand or, more likely, how the debate has been handled between the two participants.

 

You would not want certain topics to be discussed around your kid, for instance. It is well within the parent's right to ask the debaters to take their conversation elsewhere. Would you tell the kid to grow up and get a thicker skin? He'll learn it eventually. Or would you respect that parent's wishes? You have absolutely no reason not to, other than to demonstrate being a dick right? The same could be said to any public LS discussion. You do not know who is on the other side of that computer and what tolerances or triggers they may have.

 

You have absolutely nothing to lose by moving your discussion elsewhere and being courteous to the other party, even if you believe they are being prudish. Your brazen reply demonstrates a severe lack of tact or empathy towards a bystander who disagrees with your personal stance. And if you show that little care for a third party who is offended by your discussion, what does that show of your ability to respect the differing opinion of your debate opponent.

 

Debates can be fun, but what separates a debate from an argument is the amount of respect afforded the other participants.

Link to comment

I think it's worth noting that in the present day it's well worth taking a step back and looking to see if someone is being genuine or too sensitive when they claim to be offended by something related to an online debate involving fictional characters.

 

Much like the term 'racist', 'troll' and various other buzzwords 'offended' has become commonly misused. Does a line need to be drawn somewhere? Sure! Yet I'm confident in suggesting that it's a dangerous road to go down if we're going to stifle any debate the moment someone claims to be offended. It's a pretty direct route to misuse.

 

That's not to suggest that a line shouldn't be drawn somewhere, but...context is important. Describing a horrific accident in detail is just on a whole other level to engaging in a passionate debate regarding role-play.

Link to comment

There will be people in the world who are uncomfortable with -everything-. If we were to move any discussion that made anyone uncomfortable out of the public eye nobody would talk ever. People need to get over themselves and realize the world can't always cater to them and they need to toughen up.

 

The subject is irrelevant. It could be a debate on religion, lore, or a gruesome tale of medical traumas. What matters is that you've offended someone. Are there people who are more sensitive to certain issues that others? Yes, certainly, this varies by individual. Which is precisely why debaters must be aware and conscientious of their audiences. Everyone has a topic that they are uncomfortable with. Be that religion, or rape, or white magic, or blood, sex, or guts. It is not your place to decide what other people are comfortable being subjected to. It is well within their rights as unwilling, third parties to make known that they are uncomfortable either with the topic at hand or, more likely, how the debate has been handled between the two participants.

 

You would not want certain topics to be discussed around your kid, for instance. It is well within the parent's right to ask the debaters to take their conversation elsewhere. Would you tell the kid to grow up and get a thicker skin? He'll learn it eventually. Or would you respect that parent's wishes? You have absolutely no reason not to, other than to demonstrate being a dick right? The same could be said to any public LS discussion. You do not know who is on the other side of that computer and what tolerances or triggers they may have.

 

You have absolutely nothing to lose by moving your discussion elsewhere and being courteous to the other party, even if you believe they are being prudish. Your brazen reply demonstrates a severe lack of tact or empathy towards a bystander who disagrees with your personal stance. And if you show that little care for a third party who is offended by your discussion, what does that show of your ability to respect the differing opinion of your debate opponent.

 

Debates can be fun, but what separates a debate from an argument is the amount of respect afforded the other participants.

 

If "are white mages lore friendly IC?" is a trigger for someone, they should probably reconsider their choice of MMO, or maybe just not join any RP related communities. People shouldn't have to censor themselves from having a tame discussion about something relevant and important to the game itself. The topic does indeed matter.

Link to comment

If you're the only one offended over something 2-3 people are discussing wouldn't it make more sense for you to blist them or leave bing a single person instead of expecting a group of people minding their own business to cater to you?

 

What if you're not the only one? Silence says a lot more than words at times.

 

In all fairness, consideration goes both ways not just one. More often than not you'll see one person branded as confrontational in a heated debate when the reality is multiple people usually get involved and egg it on from both sides.

 

Besides, quite a lot of people in the community are more than willing to compromise or agree to disagree. The main issue is that they're so rarely given the benefit of the doubt or even approached for dialogue because the common reaction from many is to gossip and brand someone eager for debate as a bit of a prick. Which doesn't help anybody.

 

Now, I've said this before but I think it's well worth repeating again: just because someone happens to be pretty blunt and direct it doesn't make them a bad person. Some of the more direct posters on this very site have turned out to be incredibly friendly and wonderful people whilst those who desperately lace their every word with sugar and claim to be friendly and approachable are, in fact, some of the most vile and manipulative individuals I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.

 

Sweeping judgements are rather silly, in other words.

 

I'm pretty sure consideration for both parties was implied right from the get-go.

 

For the record, I don't think everyone with a debate-centric mind is a confrontational, self-centered jerk. I will say, however, that my experience has found this to be true more often than not.

Link to comment

Discussion on an open forum is how things get done without visiting grievous bodily harm on others in order to force your world view on them. Without civil discourse you resort to barbarity. Or in this day and age, passive-aggressive caltrop laying while thumbing your nose at people and then talking crap to your friends in private. =P

 

The point is that 'debate' or just polite conversation where two people are discussing $thing is productive. Always. Even if someone doesn't like what they are talking about or finds the topic 'uncomfortable'. If the individual finds said topic uncomfortable then it is the responsibility of the individual to remove themselves from the discussion and return later; not expect other people to revolve around their arbitrary feelings. That is not the way things work and it is likely not ever the way things will work as long as common sense prevails. 

 

Being made 'uncomfortable' by someone's conversation, to me, is just a way to try and shut down discourse and control a narrative by preventing it from happening. It's just a really crappy way to behave when others are having a discussion. Now if it's just two jerks beefin'? Then yeah tell them to stfu and go to their corner. Otherwise act as civil as they are and either enjoy the debate, participate, or bow out.

Link to comment

To be fair. . . In the defense of whoever was debating in game. 

 

Most debates aren't pre planned, they sorta just happen when someone voices disagreement with a statement made. So one can understand why there's always a LS debate or something and it doesn't happen in tells or forums. Because most of the time the people debating are caught in the moment whether it's civil or not.

 

So in defense, I don't understand why most people get so uptight about it like they've never been in the same situation whether in game or not.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment

You would not want certain topics to be discussed around your kid, for instance. It is well within the parent's right to ask the debaters to take their conversation elsewhere. Would you tell the kid to grow up and get a thicker skin? He'll learn it eventually. Or would you respect that parent's wishes? You have absolutely no reason not to, other than to demonstrate being a dick right? The same could be said to any public LS discussion. You do not know who is on the other side of that computer and what tolerances or triggers they may have.

Parents should be keeping their children away from people who talk about things they're not comfortable with their kids hearing. You don't bring your child into a bar and tell everyone there not to cuss in front of your precious baby.

 

Just like you don't join a linkshell/FC/forum and tell people not to discuss things that might make you uncomfortable when it's in your power to mute them or leave.

Link to comment

If a linkshell/FC leader/ SOMEONE tells you it's time to drop it, you drop it. If you don't like that, you leave. Most people don't want what is seen as disruptive chatter in the linkshells they frequent but sometimes do not want to speak up. If a temporary blacklist is needed for any reason, you can be rest assured that it is a permanent blacklist.

Link to comment

Very subjective examples. The Mother and Kids could be at a simple store with people discussing something of unsavvory nature, or in public transportation. 

 

Linkshell/FC/Forums have therefore Rules in them. The easiest, almost mind-numbing way to solve such issues is to create steadfast rules and enforce them. May that be in your Linkshell, FC, or Forums. Just add a 'Discussing lore is A-okay and will not be reprimanded' to the LS/FC/Forum rules and you have your results. That way, you can check the LS/FC/Forum, agree to the rules PRIOR to joining, and therein understand that, no matter your personal opinion, you saw the rules, you're therefore oblidged to adhere to them as long as you wish to stay part of the LS/FC/Forum.

 

If either of these do not provide such rules the resulting ambiguity is the perfect breeding pit for scenarios like these.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...