10-02-2011, 03:51 PM
Hello friends! It's that time again.
Something that has bothered me recently is a lack of understanding which seems to be evident in many people on CotH. If you’ve seen the arguments over prestiges, living death knights, or even a spat today in /barrens over the nature of the Horde/Alliance war, you probably know what I meant.
Or perhaps you don’t, and believe that there’s just a lot of right people and very few but vocal wrong ones.
The issue is on compromise, or rather the lack thereof. In arguments concerning lore and general facets of RP there tends to be a very definite wall formed by each side; one that neither acknowledges, continually bashing against one another until people become too weary to bash any longer. Despite having said most of the following multiple times, I feel the need to actually write it all down in one (semi) concise post for the perusal of the rest of the server.
1. A Circle of Friends Does Not Represent the Entire Server.
When it comes to an argument there are two sides which debate. More often than not those on one side of the debate will usually convene together, talking about how completely wrong the other side is. Not necessarily good, but you’re not doing anything more than discussing your views amongst your friends; that’s perfectly fine. When it turns sour is when you take the agreeable climate to heart and say something like
There’s an issue here. First off this person assumes they’re in the majority—and why wouldn’t they feel that way, if they spend their time exclusively speaking to those of the same opinion? They’ve been surrounded by similar minds, and thus might have the illusion of a majority opinion on their own side of the debate.
In reality this just doesn’t work. Hardly ever will an opinion be so starkly divided, and more often than not you have a rather even divide when it comes to the final count. Assuming you’re in the majority (or just ‘in the right’ as far as an opinionated debate) means your invalidating the feelings of the rest of the group; saying that you’re right because you have the most support when there is still large amounts of support for the other side. You ignore the opposing side of the argument in this way, and an ignored group breeds contempt, which is a whole other matter.
Another thing which should really be done away with is the use of ‘common sense’. Common sense is not always common, simply put; your friends believe X, they believe Y, and someone in the other room thinks Z.
2. Don’t Assume the Silent Majority.
Another issue which seems to crop up frequently is that there is an assumed silent majority, and it’s always on your side. They aren’t saying anything because you’ve said it all for them, or some similar explanation.
I’ve seen this in quite a few cases; where the real majority just isn’t active on the forums, not online at the time, or just doesn’t care to respond due to redundancy. Show, don’t tell though. If these people agree with you, won’t they post in response? At least like your argument? Beyond that, assuming that the silent numbers all look to you with approval is dangerous to begin with. You’re putting words in their mouths; remember that not everyone even needs to have a side.
3. Realize the Opposing Stance.
As said above, arguments are not nearly as simple as one being right and the other wrong. To become angered over a lack of agreement and attempting to trivialize another person’s point doesn’t lend yourself to seeming intelligent and blunt; it makes you seem close-minded and rude. Odds are the other side is just as set in stone on their opinion as yours; they see your side as foolish, and mocking theirs will only change their minds about you as a person.
Mr. Strawman has just alienated the entire other side of this debate by saying this. The conversation is no longer an argument; it’s an outright attack on one another. What if some people enjoy combat RP? Are they invalidated because you prefer peaceful RP? What if they can play fleshed out characters, and your perception of the character is only based upon either your own limitations or those you have picked up from the worst of the group?
Not only does the above post do nothing to further any side of a discussion, but it’s just outright offensive to the other side. If you’re just offending people then there isn’t really any reason for the debate. You’re not discussing sides and changing views, you’re just hardening opinions against both you and the ideas you support. Speaking of offensive posts, though…
4. Know What You’re Arguing For.
You’ve come to a discussion and posted something like the third example. What exactly are you here to do?
Are you actually seeking to change a viewpoint, and make your side of the debate more understood to others? Are you trying to explain, or simply trying to bash down the other side? There’s a difference between stating your opinion and stating it in a way which is hurtful to others; an opinion in and of itself should not be damaging in essence, but your presentation very well could be. I compare it between saying:
And,
Strawman 1’s opinion may not be shared by all, but he’s not going to offend anyone by it. He’s considerate of the other side of the debate, and knows better than to instill anger in the rest of the group. Strawman 2 though doesn’t care; he wants to make a point, without caring who may be offended by it. In the end though he isn’t contributing, just adding fuel to the fire; insulting rather than offering any assistance in the matter. There might be people who enjoyed the power –and- the combination of the class, or the class itself, or the so forth; but Strawman 2 has blankly stated that it’s all about the power, every single one. This ties into a lack of a middleground, which leads me to…
5. Comprimise.
I want you to think on this some. In an argument, what is the goal that you’re working towards?
If you say to prove a point or to make sure you get your way, then you’re doing it wrong. In the end CotH (or any other forum) is going to have a diverse playerbase with a diverse array of opinions towards the debate. In no way can everyone be happy with –any- decision that is made, as much as you would like to believe that yours is the best. Because of this there has to be a compromise at some point, whether it be a GM decision or a group effort towards an agreement of mutual acceptance. Compromise is the best solution in any matter, because while all may not be completely satisfied at least there is an amount of satisfaction on both ends of the spectrum. Sometimes compromise isn’t even coming to a decision; sometimes it is just acknowledging that there are two different opinions, and they must coexist.
You’ll notice that alongside the compromise I mentioned a GM decision, and I say this because in the end that’s part of our job. We’re meant to mediate to an extent, and if that requires us to come to a decision amongst a feud, that’s what will happen. Such may be unfair to one side, but in the end we’re here for a reason. GM opinion can be swayed, as can that of the admins, but if a decision is reached then I assure you it came to that conclusion while considering each argument. This goes back to my earlier statement; your common sense may not be our common sense, and while we will do our best to explain our reasoning that’s all we can do for you. Our opinions are just as fixed as your own, as well as others you argue with on the forums; it takes an amount of respect to realize that your opposing side’s mindset isn’t as trivial as you might be inclined to regard it.
In the end if it is important enough for each side to argue, then it’s of as much meaning to them as it is to you. Respect that, even if you don’t respect the idea; the person behind it earnestly believes it, and has the same outlook on your opinion as you do on his. If you want to convince other people to compromise or agree with you you have to begin here.
As usual I mean in no way to offend if an argument above or a line seems pointed towards you. These are just generic examples of arguments I have seen in the past, and if it mirrors a view similar to yours know I am not attempting to convey your side of an argument in any particular way.
Something that has bothered me recently is a lack of understanding which seems to be evident in many people on CotH. If you’ve seen the arguments over prestiges, living death knights, or even a spat today in /barrens over the nature of the Horde/Alliance war, you probably know what I meant.
Or perhaps you don’t, and believe that there’s just a lot of right people and very few but vocal wrong ones.
The issue is on compromise, or rather the lack thereof. In arguments concerning lore and general facets of RP there tends to be a very definite wall formed by each side; one that neither acknowledges, continually bashing against one another until people become too weary to bash any longer. Despite having said most of the following multiple times, I feel the need to actually write it all down in one (semi) concise post for the perusal of the rest of the server.
1. A Circle of Friends Does Not Represent the Entire Server.
When it comes to an argument there are two sides which debate. More often than not those on one side of the debate will usually convene together, talking about how completely wrong the other side is. Not necessarily good, but you’re not doing anything more than discussing your views amongst your friends; that’s perfectly fine. When it turns sour is when you take the agreeable climate to heart and say something like
’Mr. Strawman’ Wrote:That we should have a prestige system is common sense. Everyone is in agreement; it’s just the GM team that thinks they know better for the server.
There’s an issue here. First off this person assumes they’re in the majority—and why wouldn’t they feel that way, if they spend their time exclusively speaking to those of the same opinion? They’ve been surrounded by similar minds, and thus might have the illusion of a majority opinion on their own side of the debate.
In reality this just doesn’t work. Hardly ever will an opinion be so starkly divided, and more often than not you have a rather even divide when it comes to the final count. Assuming you’re in the majority (or just ‘in the right’ as far as an opinionated debate) means your invalidating the feelings of the rest of the group; saying that you’re right because you have the most support when there is still large amounts of support for the other side. You ignore the opposing side of the argument in this way, and an ignored group breeds contempt, which is a whole other matter.
Another thing which should really be done away with is the use of ‘common sense’. Common sense is not always common, simply put; your friends believe X, they believe Y, and someone in the other room thinks Z.
2. Don’t Assume the Silent Majority.
Another issue which seems to crop up frequently is that there is an assumed silent majority, and it’s always on your side. They aren’t saying anything because you’ve said it all for them, or some similar explanation.
’Mr. Strawman’ Wrote:A number of posts doesn’t mean that you’re in the majority here. Just because you can have more people repeat the same opinion doesn’t mean anything—we only needed one post to get our point across.
I’ve seen this in quite a few cases; where the real majority just isn’t active on the forums, not online at the time, or just doesn’t care to respond due to redundancy. Show, don’t tell though. If these people agree with you, won’t they post in response? At least like your argument? Beyond that, assuming that the silent numbers all look to you with approval is dangerous to begin with. You’re putting words in their mouths; remember that not everyone even needs to have a side.
3. Realize the Opposing Stance.
As said above, arguments are not nearly as simple as one being right and the other wrong. To become angered over a lack of agreement and attempting to trivialize another person’s point doesn’t lend yourself to seeming intelligent and blunt; it makes you seem close-minded and rude. Odds are the other side is just as set in stone on their opinion as yours; they see your side as foolish, and mocking theirs will only change their minds about you as a person.
’Mr. Strawman’ Wrote:The Horde and Alliance war is foolish. RP based around it is stale and generic, and the characters created off of it are one-dimensional.
Mr. Strawman has just alienated the entire other side of this debate by saying this. The conversation is no longer an argument; it’s an outright attack on one another. What if some people enjoy combat RP? Are they invalidated because you prefer peaceful RP? What if they can play fleshed out characters, and your perception of the character is only based upon either your own limitations or those you have picked up from the worst of the group?
Not only does the above post do nothing to further any side of a discussion, but it’s just outright offensive to the other side. If you’re just offending people then there isn’t really any reason for the debate. You’re not discussing sides and changing views, you’re just hardening opinions against both you and the ideas you support. Speaking of offensive posts, though…
4. Know What You’re Arguing For.
You’ve come to a discussion and posted something like the third example. What exactly are you here to do?
Are you actually seeking to change a viewpoint, and make your side of the debate more understood to others? Are you trying to explain, or simply trying to bash down the other side? There’s a difference between stating your opinion and stating it in a way which is hurtful to others; an opinion in and of itself should not be damaging in essence, but your presentation very well could be. I compare it between saying:
’Mr. Strawman’ Wrote:Prestige characters are unneeded. In the end they could be very easily played on a normal power scale and still provide character development or a different spin on an existing class.
And,
’Mr. Strawman’ Wrote:Prestiges are entirely unnecessary; most everyone who makes one makes it for the power, and not for the lore. We should just take away the power scale and let those who really want to play the class do so.
Strawman 1’s opinion may not be shared by all, but he’s not going to offend anyone by it. He’s considerate of the other side of the debate, and knows better than to instill anger in the rest of the group. Strawman 2 though doesn’t care; he wants to make a point, without caring who may be offended by it. In the end though he isn’t contributing, just adding fuel to the fire; insulting rather than offering any assistance in the matter. There might be people who enjoyed the power –and- the combination of the class, or the class itself, or the so forth; but Strawman 2 has blankly stated that it’s all about the power, every single one. This ties into a lack of a middleground, which leads me to…
5. Comprimise.
I want you to think on this some. In an argument, what is the goal that you’re working towards?
If you say to prove a point or to make sure you get your way, then you’re doing it wrong. In the end CotH (or any other forum) is going to have a diverse playerbase with a diverse array of opinions towards the debate. In no way can everyone be happy with –any- decision that is made, as much as you would like to believe that yours is the best. Because of this there has to be a compromise at some point, whether it be a GM decision or a group effort towards an agreement of mutual acceptance. Compromise is the best solution in any matter, because while all may not be completely satisfied at least there is an amount of satisfaction on both ends of the spectrum. Sometimes compromise isn’t even coming to a decision; sometimes it is just acknowledging that there are two different opinions, and they must coexist.
You’ll notice that alongside the compromise I mentioned a GM decision, and I say this because in the end that’s part of our job. We’re meant to mediate to an extent, and if that requires us to come to a decision amongst a feud, that’s what will happen. Such may be unfair to one side, but in the end we’re here for a reason. GM opinion can be swayed, as can that of the admins, but if a decision is reached then I assure you it came to that conclusion while considering each argument. This goes back to my earlier statement; your common sense may not be our common sense, and while we will do our best to explain our reasoning that’s all we can do for you. Our opinions are just as fixed as your own, as well as others you argue with on the forums; it takes an amount of respect to realize that your opposing side’s mindset isn’t as trivial as you might be inclined to regard it.
In the end if it is important enough for each side to argue, then it’s of as much meaning to them as it is to you. Respect that, even if you don’t respect the idea; the person behind it earnestly believes it, and has the same outlook on your opinion as you do on his. If you want to convince other people to compromise or agree with you you have to begin here.
As usual I mean in no way to offend if an argument above or a line seems pointed towards you. These are just generic examples of arguments I have seen in the past, and if it mirrors a view similar to yours know I am not attempting to convey your side of an argument in any particular way.