badmojo wrote: »

I think you see some terms and automatically assume the worst Mablung.

Negative
Hostility
Attack
Confrontation

Sometimes these things can be very constructive. It all depends on the context in which they are used. Intent, as they say, is more important than the actual term used.

I could easily call this thread hostile towards honest people, I could say it is painting us in a negative light, and attacking our right to confront the people we disagree with.

Does me saying that make this thread bad? Toxic? Or un-constructive? I don't think so, it is what it is, the terms used and the negative overtone doesn't automatically make it bad, it's just language.

When I challenge people who complain on these forums, I do so in an attempt to give them more information. They should know that not everybody agrees. Attacking their ideas is a useful way to lead someone to the conclusion you've already come to. Simply telling people they are wrong, or telling people how it is, never works. We're human beings, we all have to understand why, or how we are wrong. At the same time, if they don't agree they will "attack" my ideas and possibly lead me to their conclusion. It's a constructive way to converse with people of differing opinions. Sadly, it gets misinterpreted as a personal attack many times and people become defensive and it all goes to ***.

Mablung wrote: »

Lalai wrote: »

It also depends on what you consider an attack. I've seen you throw around the term fanboy and white knight to discredit an opinion that is contradictory to your own. I've seen that with a lot of posters actually.. the moment they post something positive, regardless of how many criticisms they've given something in the past, they'll get a response along the lines of "you're just a fanboy". Or when a poll doesn't go the way a poster wants, they'll make a comment about the fanbois being out in force, when really, it's just that people have differing opinions.

You are absolutely correct. I have used labels. I have never justified them nor am I justifying my use of them. It is wrong. I allow myself to become emotional at times when I see the same filth spewing from certain posters and it is very hard for me to refrain from commenting. I am not looking for it to be excused. I am going to help forge a better community though by creating dialogue such as this so that we can attempt to salvage a part of the game we have control over.

Mablung wrote: »

These forums have some of the most poisonous people I have ever seen in a gaming community. Complaints are expected. People are going to post negative thoughts, feelings and experience about this game no matter what. I have felt that there has been some good postings and some bad postings in this regard. What never fails however is the quick attacks, insults and attempts to discredit these posters by those who allegedly love and support this game.

Mablung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

I think you see some terms and automatically assume the worst Mablung.

Negative
Hostility
Attack
Confrontation

Sometimes these things can be very constructive. It all depends on the context in which they are used. Intent, as they say, is more important than the actual term used.

I could easily call this thread hostile towards honest people, I could say it is painting us in a negative light, and attacking our right to confront the people we disagree with.

Does me saying that make this thread bad? Toxic? Or un-constructive? I don't think so, it is what it is, the terms used and the negative overtone doesn't automatically make it bad, it's just language.

When I challenge people who complain on these forums, I do so in an attempt to give them more information. They should know that not everybody agrees. Attacking their ideas is a useful way to lead someone to the conclusion you've already come to. Simply telling people they are wrong, or telling people how it is, never works. We're human beings, we all have to understand why, or how we are wrong. At the same time, if they don't agree they will "attack" my ideas and possibly lead me to their conclusion. It's a constructive way to converse with people of differing opinions. Sadly, it gets misinterpreted as a personal attack many times and people become defensive and it all goes to ***.

The terms you list are bad in relation to any topic where someone is attempting to counter anothers experience or opinion. You could very easily call this a toxic thread but it is not. There have only been a few posts I would consider toxic by both standards. If you were to label it as such then yes it becomes unconstructive and morphs into combative.

If you want to disagree with someones opinion do so by expressing yours with examples of what makes your experience different and good for you. Not by attacking, insulting or creating hostility through confrontation.

badmojo wrote: »

Mablung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

I think you see some terms and automatically assume the worst Mablung.

Negative
Hostility
Attack
Confrontation

Sometimes these things can be very constructive. It all depends on the context in which they are used. Intent, as they say, is more important than the actual term used.

I could easily call this thread hostile towards honest people, I could say it is painting us in a negative light, and attacking our right to confront the people we disagree with.

Does me saying that make this thread bad? Toxic? Or un-constructive? I don't think so, it is what it is, the terms used and the negative overtone doesn't automatically make it bad, it's just language.

When I challenge people who complain on these forums, I do so in an attempt to give them more information. They should know that not everybody agrees. Attacking their ideas is a useful way to lead someone to the conclusion you've already come to. Simply telling people they are wrong, or telling people how it is, never works. We're human beings, we all have to understand why, or how we are wrong. At the same time, if they don't agree they will "attack" my ideas and possibly lead me to their conclusion. It's a constructive way to converse with people of differing opinions. Sadly, it gets misinterpreted as a personal attack many times and people become defensive and it all goes to ***.

The terms you list are bad in relation to any topic where someone is attempting to counter anothers experience or opinion. You could very easily call this a toxic thread but it is not. There have only been a few posts I would consider toxic by both standards. If you were to label it as such then yes it becomes unconstructive and morphs into combative.

If you want to disagree with someones opinion do so by expressing yours with examples of what makes your experience different and good for you. Not by attacking, insulting or creating hostility through confrontation.

I agree this is not a toxic thread, that was my point. While my description used "bad" terms, and was for the most part accurate, those terms don't define the discussion we're having in the thread.

I'm disappointed to see you using the terms against me yet again. No where did I say attacking, I said attacking ideas or opinions. There's a big difference between attacking someone personally, and attacking their post or ideas. Where do you pull insulting from? I didn't say insulting people could be constructive. Creating hostility is very subjective, one could potentially create hostility just from the act of disagreeing. Should we never disagree with anyone, for fear of it creating hostility? There's nothing wrong with a little confrontation, as long as it doesn't turn into personal attacks. Confronting someone with another opinion is a healthy way to start a debate on the subject.

I still don't think it's right for you to tell me how to express my opinion and interact with other people on these forums. That is a job for the moderators, and when you do it, it comes across as a bit of a personal attack on my way of conversing. It's no big deal, I'll live, it just rubs me the wrong way and makes me want to respond because I feel like my opinions are being attacked.(Which is something I'm fine with, I welcome it.)

badmojo wrote: »

Mablung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Mablung wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

I think you see some terms and automatically assume the worst Mablung.

Negative
Hostility
Attack
Confrontation

Sometimes these things can be very constructive. It all depends on the context in which they are used. Intent, as they say, is more important than the actual term used.

I could easily call this thread hostile towards honest people, I could say it is painting us in a negative light, and attacking our right to confront the people we disagree with.

Does me saying that make this thread bad? Toxic? Or un-constructive? I don't think so, it is what it is, the terms used and the negative overtone doesn't automatically make it bad, it's just language.

When I challenge people who complain on these forums, I do so in an attempt to give them more information. They should know that not everybody agrees. Attacking their ideas is a useful way to lead someone to the conclusion you've already come to. Simply telling people they are wrong, or telling people how it is, never works. We're human beings, we all have to understand why, or how we are wrong. At the same time, if they don't agree they will "attack" my ideas and possibly lead me to their conclusion. It's a constructive way to converse with people of differing opinions. Sadly, it gets misinterpreted as a personal attack many times and people become defensive and it all goes to ***.

The terms you list are bad in relation to any topic where someone is attempting to counter anothers experience or opinion. You could very easily call this a toxic thread but it is not. There have only been a few posts I would consider toxic by both standards. If you were to label it as such then yes it becomes unconstructive and morphs into combative.

If you want to disagree with someones opinion do so by expressing yours with examples of what makes your experience different and good for you. Not by attacking, insulting or creating hostility through confrontation.

I agree this is not a toxic thread, that was my point. While my description used "bad" terms, and was for the most part accurate, those terms don't define the discussion we're having in the thread.

I'm disappointed to see you using the terms against me yet again. No where did I say attacking, I said attacking ideas or opinions. There's a big difference between attacking someone personally, and attacking their post or ideas. Where do you pull insulting from? I didn't say insulting people could be constructive. Creating hostility is very subjective, one could potentially create hostility just from the act of disagreeing. Should we never disagree with anyone, for fear of it creating hostility? There's nothing wrong with a little confrontation, as long as it doesn't turn into personal attacks. Confronting someone with another opinion is a healthy way to start a debate on the subject.

I still don't think it's right for you to tell me how to express my opinion and interact with other people on these forums. That is a job for the moderators, and when you do it, it comes across as a bit of a personal attack on my way of conversing. It's no big deal, I'll live, it just rubs me the wrong way and makes me want to respond because I feel like my opinions are being attacked.(Which is something I'm fine with, I welcome it.)

So essentially you want a pardon to be able to be hostile towards people who do not share the same views or opinions as you do about the game? You want to be confrontational and create hostility to prove a point? You are not going to conform to create a better community because it is about what you want and how you want to express yourself regardless of the impact it may have on others?

Is this essentially what you are saying?

Essentially, I was saying don't get hung up on terms. When we call a post negative, you don't always have to take it as an insult.

I was attempting to show you how the terms you consider bad, can be used to describe a constructive discussion.

But, yet again you want to take everything literally and ignore the point I was attempting to make. Focusing on the terms used and not the intent, then turning around and spinning it into assumptions about me.

I will certainly not conform to your standards, and I'll kindly ask you to leave it to the moderators to decide if my way of expressing myself has a negative impact on others.

I'm getting bored of this thread, you don't respond to my points, you just find something in my post to pick apart or misinterpret.

williamburr2001b14_ESO wrote: »

Eh. @‌Mablung For what it's worth I agree with most of what you said. For also what it's worth, one of these people you've spent too much time responding to actually once hounded me into my private message-box to say that I was lying about my game experience, so when people talk to you about "sides" and what their version of "constructive" and "polite," take that with a BIG GRAIN of salt.

This game lost me for exactly the reasons you stated. I didn't want to come here to talk about the game, I was forced to because of problems. Then I got here, and many people here can't abide talking about problems without attacking like guard-dogs. The injury is having paid a tidy sum for a game that behaves oddly. Nobody can be expected to put up with insult on top of that. That portion of the community also supports each other by being very attentive post-flaggers. I tried using the same tactic to help clean things up, and it went nowhere. Insult, the t-word-that-rhymes-with "polling," the b-word-that-rhymes-with "mating" are acceptable to the establishment here, as long as it's in defense of the game as it is.

If we're talking sides, one side "attacks" the game, with their frustrations and observations. The other side attacks those players, with personal insult. These are not the same kind of toxic, and the worse one, the one against people, is protected speech here. No person should accept that or put up with it.

This is all symptomatic, of course. If things were going well, people wouldn't spend nearly as much time on the forums as they do. There'd be less anger too, and people wouldn't be so quick to attack other people. There'd be less frustration, so people would be calmer, and less rattled by personal attack and insult. The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, as the Bloodhound Gang would say. I went from cautious optimism to the next lyrics to that song, because that's what happens when a faction, an affiliation, treats you like a chump. You want them to be unhappy in return.