Recent Events...

[Sylum]

I'd like to adress that just cause.someone sounds rude to you doesn't mean they are. Whenever someone challenges your opinion, it makes you feel attacked. There are obvious differences between an attack on your beliefs and getting your opinions questioned in a debate.

[Star Fox Runner]

Well in my opinion the problem can also come from ones mindset when going into a debate. When debating, one needs to know when they've made a mistake and be willing to compromise. The problem is that some people go into a debate thinking. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, if they say otherwise they can kiss my ass."

That's when problems arise. No one is going to win in that kind of argument, and it will either end with someone getting fed up and leaving, or a flame war starts.

[Robert Monroe]

Let's get something straight about debates here: challenging your points is not attacking you. Attacking the debator in question is an ad hominem, which is something the likes of myself or Milk almost never do, because its pisspoor form. Ok, yes, sometimes we call everyone "babies" when we feel they're being whiny, but you know what? As much as we -don't- make fun of them for other things (and beleive me, there is a lot), and as much as WE IN TURN suck up -real- flames (being called a troll), I think a -little- damn grace goes a long way.

We are not actively trying to make anyone feel like shit. I have said this so. many. TIMES in the past, but either people don't listen or forget. There is nothing to be gained from DOING IT. Yeah, sometimes we're rude, but everyone is sometimes. We're human. We are not perfect machines. We get mad, we get passionate. And furthermore, guys like Sabre are much MORE rude and have been around for much longer than any of us 3 (not calling out on Sabre, I'm just stating a fact). If you get offended, honestly, that is more of your problem than ours. Instances like Milky's explosive meltdown in "Enough is Enough" is not the norm, and me, him, and Xort all have to put up with crap from other people on here that drives -us- crazy, too, you know. The difference is we don't make it a grudge to hold and get mad about it because its a waste of damn time and energy.

We are not entering debates thinking we are right. Indeed, we are entering debates wanting to find good, strong counterpoints. Debate is not about winning and losing, its about enlightenment. Both parties walk away with new thoughts. But this never happens, because noone provides good counterpoints, and then they cry about it when their arguements crumble under their own weight.

[evilwaffles]

Rob', sometimes it isn't the fact that you are debating that can provoke other members, it is the language you use during that that can be seen as a personal attack, for example:

so you shut your whore mouth.

That to me, was a clearly unnececary response. Yes he may be saying that he dispieses Team Fortress 2, yes you attacked his post but then ended it with that. Some people will feel provoked if the debator words their sentence in a way that may seem like an attack regardless of intentions:

That's a bullshit way of justifying laziness.

In this case you were in the right and I will not deny it, I made a mistake which you corrected. I know now that you were not trying to attack anything then but you have to understand that not everyone will appreciate (as I didn't back then) the way in which you word your debates. I feel that is why some people here feel about you the way they do.

In any case, that's my two cents on the matter.

[Sabre]

Question. At what point does it go from 'sticking to their guns' to 'being willing ignorant' or 'trolling'?

For example

"X is true"

"X isn't true because Y, Z, A, B and possably C."

"..... X IS TRUE!"

A friend of mine recons as soon as that happens the thread is as dead as if a hilter had been played. I get the feeling people do it deliberatly, and/or don't even read the post.

[Tiberius]

Peaceful ending to an argument A:

"Hey, I believe this opinion is correct because of that fact."

"Well, I do not believe it is correct because of blahbity blahbity blah."

"Well take into account blah and blah."

"I see your point there. I guess youre right."

B:

"I think blah is better."

"Actually, blah isnt because of blah."

"Im sorry?"

*posts link* "look here"

"oh. i see. My mistake."

C:

"I think this is better."

"I dont think it is because of blank."

"Well, I have my opinion and you have yours. Lets just leave that alone."

I question all of you including myself as to why this only happens on a blue moon.

[Xortberg]

I question all of you including myself as to why this only happens on a blue moon.

Because that's not fun.

[Tiberius]

... Lets just say I'll not comment on that.

[Scott7]

Because that's not fun.

Dude, most of the stuff that's been going on was most Definitely not intended for thrill  or enjoyment of winning or losing, not judging anyone or saying that you are but that honestly sounds troll-like.

The point of it to make changes and compromises that both Sides agree with so that activity and discussion can be made in Harmony without these kinds of conflicts arising.

[Sabre]

No. You assume compremise where is there is none. That's called the golden mean falacy.

There are open questions, where opinions do not class. eg. favourite ice cream.

There are cases where you try and convice the other person to your way of thinking. You must be willing to change your opinion based on evidence. Basicly have a preset thing that will falsify your belief. eg. I don't believe in aliens. What would change my mind would be evidence. A crashed space ship, seeing an alien in person ect. This is where people are getting upset because when those conditions are met, they throw a wobbler.

Finally, we have logical arguments. This is where something is provable with logic, reason and good thinking. eg. Homeopathy or Conspiracy Theories. There is no scientific evidence or plausable reason for it working. People get upset at these thanks to good old cognitive disonace. It's more palpable for people to believe they are right and everyone is against them rather then admit they were wrong, and likely put alot of time and effort into something that turned out to be crap. This is unique in that there is a definitive correct answer.

The last 2 there is no middle ground. eg. You can't say that half an alien visited earth, or that homepathy works some of the time. That is bollocks.

EDIT- Here's a funny comic that makes the same point, but funny.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=216

[Xortberg]

... Lets just say I'll not comment on that.

Dude, most of the stuff that's been going on was most Definitely not intended for thrill  or enjoyment of winning or losing, not judging anyone or saying that you are but that honestly sounds troll-like.

The point of it to make changes and compromises that both Sides agree with so that activity and discussion can be made in Harmony without these kinds of conflicts arising.

It's nothing wrong at all. Trolling is, as Robert so helpfully demonstrated, me saying "You guys are wrong because you're furries and furries are all stupid lol" and you getting pissed. That's not what's going on here. I debate because I enjoy debate, not because I enjoy pissing people off. I like to work my mind a little bit, and the peaceful solutions Tiberius presented just aren't fun for me.

[Robert Monroe]

Rob', sometimes it isn't the fact that you are debating that can provoke other members, it is the language you use during that that can be seen as a personal attack, for example:

That to me, was a clearly unnececary response. Yes he may be saying that he dispieses Team Fortress 2, yes you attacked his post but then ended it with that. Some people will feel provoked if the debator words their sentence in a way that may seem like an attack regardless of intentions:

In this case you were in the right and I will not deny it, I made a mistake which you corrected. I know now that you were not trying to attack anything then but you have to understand that not everyone will appreciate (as I didn't back then) the way in which you word your debates. I feel that is why some people here feel about you the way they do.

In any case, that's my two cents on the matter.

I have been rude in the past. I will probably be rude in the future. I am not however, rude all the time. Emotions are fickle. How we post things can be determined by our feelings of that paticular day. Sometimes I catch myself and don't bother posting. Sometimes I don't. I already addressed this: this is not the norm, first of all, and second of all, we suffer insults and rudeness as well, so this is not mutually our problem. I already asked that a little grace for all of us goes a long way.

This all said, take everything I say with a grain of salt, and apply it to the discussion, not yourself. I speak my mind openly, and I have the right to do so as long as I'm not you know, hounding people. If I call something a load of crap, that doesn't mean I think -you're- a load of crap. This happens with my sister all the time, she says to me "I'm not stupid" and I always say back "I now you're not stupid but what you just did was stupid". If I say something rude to you, consider the fact I more than likely didn't mean to insult you and ignore it. If you are fairly offended by it, then let me know and I'll probably apologize. More than certainly will, even. And in return, I'll try and be less rude at times because yeah it annoys some people (like Kursed).

It's nothing wrong at all. Trolling is, as Robert so helpfully demonstrated, me saying "You guys are wrong because you're furries and furries are all stupid lol" and you getting pissed. That's not what's going on here. I debate because I enjoy debate, not because I enjoy pissing people off. I like to work my mind a little bit, and the peaceful solutions Tiberius presented just aren't fun for me.

There is room for peace as well as heated discussion. Pissing everyone off all of the time does you no favors.

Likewise being mellow and hold-handy and crap doesn't do anyone any favors either.

[Kursed]

If the discusson angers you that much  take a break from it and think it over.

I'll be bluntly honest with you here there are times when I feel like  i'm good friends with Robert and Milky (Sadly this is mostly when we agree)

[Xortberg]

There is room for peace as well as heated discussion. Pissing everyone off all of the time does you no favors.

Likewise being mellow and hold-handy and crap doesn't do anyone any favors either.

Of course. There's plenty of times when I either decide to post and just contribute to an already existing discussion, or decide to not post at all because I know my post would possibly just piss people off unnecessarily. I was simply explaining to Tiberius and Kursed why me arguing and thinking it's fun isn't trolling in and of itself.

If the discusson angers you that much  take a break from it and think it over.

This is quite possibly one of the more sensible suggestions so far in this topic.

[Robert Monroe]

If the discusson angers you that much  take a break from it and think it over.

I'll be bluntly honest with you here there are times when I feel like  i'm good friends with Robert and Milky (Sadly this is mostly when we agree)

This applies to -both- parties. I already mentioned that I catch myself sometimes when emotionally riled. Either way, a good suggestion.

[Tiberius]

I just believe that those who are allowed to do debate should be calm and respectful rather than rude and emotional.

Eg: Tony Stark is rude and emotional, therefore debate wouldnt be good for him, even though he can sway public opinion (cause hes just popular)

Rhody should be a debator because of his organization, logic and calm disposition. He doesnt make people mad until he gets pissed off and the other guy is a drunk picking a fight.

Yes. I referenced a movie.

[Robert Monroe]

I just believe that those who are allowed to do debate should be calm and respectful rather than rude and emotional.

Eg: Tony Stark is rude and emotional, therefore debate wouldnt be good for him, even though he can sway public opinion (cause hes just popular)

Rhody should be a debator because of his organization, logic and calm disposition. He doesnt make people mad until he gets pissed off and the other guy is a drunk picking a fight.

Yes. I referenced a movie.

>Tony Stark

>movie

lolwut.

[Sabre]

>Tony Stark

>movie

lolwut.

Normally I would roll eyes at that kind of childish responce.

However, I agree with the idea. I just think you sid it in a dumb and possably insulting way.

[Robert Monroe]

Normally I would roll eyes at that kind of childish responce.

However, I agree with the idea. I just think you sid it in a dumb and possably insulting way.

[Tiberius]

Well, Im not laughing.

I was using an example, no matter how fictitious, to explain my theory.

[Milkyway64]

Alright. Rob has, unsurprisingly, covered for us very well in this topic. Almost anything he said, I back up. That said;

This issue with Milky is that User and I both told him to quit, and he didn't. That's why he was banned. Steve initially banned him for a week, but I am going to look into lessening it, as while I felt he needed a sock shoved into his mouth for a while, a week is a bit long.

Yeah, it was because I ignored User, I don't remember any warning from you, DZ, except for the babies comment. I was, as Robert bluntly stated, in "ultimate rage mode."

Peaceful ending to an argument A:

"Hey, I believe this opinion is correct because of that fact."

"Well, I do not believe it is correct because of blahbity blahbity blah."

"Well take into account blah and blah."

"I see your point there. I guess youre right."

B:

"I think blah is better."

"Actually, blah isnt because of blah."

"Im sorry?"

*posts link* "look here"

"oh. i see. My mistake."

C:

"I think this is better."

"I dont think it is because of blank."

"Well, I have my opinion and you have yours. Lets just leave that alone."

I question all of you including myself as to why this only happens on a blue moon.

This doesn't happen often because A and B usually have Krystal knights or whomever else on the side who refuses to see evidence. Situation C doesn't happen because arguments usually do not get that far before being shutdown/someone rage quits.

I'll be bluntly honest with you here there are times when I feel like  i'm good friends with Robert and Milky (Sadly this is mostly when we agree)

Well if it counts, we aren't necessarily ENEMIES, although you and OWA tend to show up often enough in the ol' drama ring. Not as much as Julius, though, which reminds me, I don't recall showing DZ my side of that argument nor do I really recall having a similar tone. Sure, I -was- being a smartass to him, but only because I was repeatedly being hard flamed with strong insults.

Well, Im not laughing.

I was using an example, no matter how fictitious, to explain my theory.

Your theory states that human beings have no business arguing. You were emotionally charged and tripped as well, so by your theory you have no place proposing anything.

Robert, Xort and I will continue doing what we do, and as Robert has hammered in, what happened the other day isn't the norm and we usually are not rude. It's standard debate interpretted as trolling, or it's people on the losing side of the debate flapping their arms around, stubbornly refusing to to explain their opinion or even defend it in any way that makes sense and opting for raging and name calling.

Us three handle the situation well enough most of the time, as we rarely ever get REALLY angry. I was angry in "enough is enough." I am not angry when trying to get Krystal fans to explain thierselves.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, but I can at least try to control myself. Why do you insist on fighting something like common courtesy? Im trying to show you SOME respect, but if you keep trying to make a joke out of things which is disrespecting people, that wont happen.

Its the way you guys carelessly say things that bothers me. You think that making a joke out of an argument will make people laugh, but it fuels the fire here. It may seem like a harmless prank, but there are people on the internet where you may not know how they will react. Granted they shouldnt be on in the first place, but thats not the case nor the point. A joke could very well be an insult at points in time and may cause someone unstable, even more so than Julius or KLA people (no offensive intentions), to possibly kill themselves. Then there's blood on your hands.

This has happened a lot in our time and age where technology is uncensored and people will see things that can hurt them and people abuse said technology for unlawful or immoral purposes. I don't know how much clearer I can make this now.

On the internet, legally you can do almost anything. Morally, you are much more restricted than you think.

If this is a debate in your theory, than we can finally make some common ground. Last week, MilkyWay, I wasnt arguing about trolling after my opinion reformulated. I was arguing about the level of respect you were lacking in, showing textbook narccisim thinking you won. If you had kept quiet like DZ and User said, it wouldve ended much nicer and things wouldve leveled out better. You probably wouldve better understood why we were upset. But your ego got your head and you showed off. Thats why you were banned, and thats why this is happening now.

To be perfectly blunt if you still dont know what happened, you said "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo. Im better than you." and we were offended.

[Milkyway64]

Yeah, but I can at least try to control myself. Why do you insist on fighting something like common courtesy? Im trying to show you SOME respect, but if you keep trying to make a joke out of things which is disrespecting people, that wont happen.

You still failed, try or no. Everyone agrees that almost everyone in the thread was out of control and out of line.

Its the way you guys carelessly say things that bothers me. You think that making a joke out of an argument will make people laugh, but it fuels the fire here. It may seem like a harmless prank, but there are people on the internet where you may not know how they will react. Granted they shouldnt be on in the first place, but thats not the case nor the point. A joke could very well be an insult at points in time and may cause someone unstable, even more so than Julius or KLA people (no offensive intentions), to possibly kill themselves. Then there's blood on your hands.

I never carelessly say anything. And the "joke" Robert made was clearly so, even if it's lulz potential was low.

This has happened a lot in our time and age where technology is uncensored and people will see things that can hurt them and people abuse said technology for unlawful or immoral purposes. I don't know how much clearer I can make this now.

On the internet, legally you can do almost anything. Morally, you are much more restricted than you think.

And I don't know how much clearer we can make that we aren't out to hurt people. In fact, we -RARELY DO.-  It's one thing to say things to get under someone's skin, it's another to successfully argue a point. We do the latter, and any of the former is unintentional, and a lot of the time, isn't our problem. People need to learn to roll with things and not take every little thing personally.

If this is a debate in your theory, than we can finally make some common ground. Last week, MilkyWay, I wasnt arguing about trolling after my opinion reformulated. I was arguing about the level of respect you were lacking in, showing textbook narccisim thinking you won.

Right. Because legitimate requests to see what I did is narcissistic bragging. Respect has to be earned. Calling me names and then stuttering and running away when I confront you with the "why" won't earn it.

If you had kept quiet like DZ and User said, it wouldve ended much nicer and things wouldve leveled out better. You probably wouldve better understood why we were upset. But your ego got your head and you showed off. Thats why you were banned, and thats why this is happening now.

To be perfectly blunt if you still dont know what happened, you said "Nanny, nanny, boo, boo. Im better than you." and we were offended.

Only I didn't. If I would have listened, the topic would have died and there'd be so much underlying tension, which would act as a ticking time bomb. I still wouldn't have understood why you were upset, because all of you refused to talk. You shrugged your shoulders and just went "Because we don't like you!"

I wasn't "showing off" or having an ego problem, I was pressing for answers you guys for no reason I could see were withholding, possibly because they barely exist. Leave your assumptions at the door, please, and your flame baiting. I've not said a damned thing about you as a person despite your constant finger pointing at ME as a person, and sorely misjudged at that. Thank you.

[ndf]

lol

People are still pissed about Mr. K leaving and Dermot?

The Star Fox online community is just a really fun place to be.

[Guest DRL]

Once again, I am going in due to a member's request (whose name,

again, I shall not mention.)

What I have to say is mostly on my 'letter' have written on the lounge.

I have tried to be non-offensive on it, and to expose what I think are

the problems. As far as they concern/involve me, of course.

To resume it, I think one of the main problems is the attitude.

There is the use of unecesary, yet-offensive words in the language

(saying stuff is 'bullshit', calling people 'drama whores' ect.)

Now, the above can be replaced with "you are making stuff up" and,

"you like drama", for example. Thus, the words are eliminated, there is

no fuzz, and no buss. What I mean is, calling people names and such

does not help the situation. Perhaps the discussion is not exactly the most

"intellectual one", but, do offensive words and flares need to be included?

I have to clarify that, making people down is not the intended purpose (I think), but in

practice, things may be different from theory. This is the case: Some people think

that they are not doing any harm, where in truth they do are causing trouble.

Another thing that I have addressed as a problem, is the unceseray - to my eyes -

bitterly fight over arguments that in the end do not matter. Robert considers all

debates equally serious; to me this is not the case. I have seen threads such as

"what is your favourite couple", degenerate into long, boring, and useless arguments

that in the end, serve no purpose other than making some people feel worse.

This is what I call "potentially offensive statements", that, when I have seen to be

combined with the before mentioned point, they are indeed a serious problem.

Again, perhaps it was the person(s) intention to just make a statement, but they

did not realize the effect this would cause on other people.