Forums » General
If I may insert my own opinion here, I would put forth that "eye for an eye" justice brings nothing but more retribution. For proof, one needs only look at Israel/Palestine, where said form of justice has been working its magic for over fifty years.
Thus, I propose that tolerance be the solution. Instead of pushing back, no matter how grievous the provocation, step aside. A man has nothing to prove through striking back but his own short temper. I have found that respectful discourse, thoughtful response and an even keel have gotten me further both in meat life and online community than confrontation ever will.
Addendum: This does not mean that one should be high-handed, and flaunt his ability to step aside, for that is nearly as provocative as a violent response.
Thus, I propose that tolerance be the solution. Instead of pushing back, no matter how grievous the provocation, step aside. A man has nothing to prove through striking back but his own short temper. I have found that respectful discourse, thoughtful response and an even keel have gotten me further both in meat life and online community than confrontation ever will.
Addendum: This does not mean that one should be high-handed, and flaunt his ability to step aside, for that is nearly as provocative as a violent response.
*bump*
Timely bump there matey!
/me gives SL a cookie
/me gives SL a cookie
Wow, I missed this thread.
Another flame tactic that people use, that irritates me to no end (oops, was that an appeal to pity?):
"no offense, but you suck, your mother's a mule, and you fly like a nerf-herder."
The "no offense" clearly does not nullify the offense intended by the statement. Don't let yourself be deceived by the fact that just because you said "no offense" that the person will indeed take no offense to your statement.
On the subject of hypocrisy: It's a delicate subject in this game. Many things are untested features and theories until we get ahold of them. A most recent example is that of the unlocked state of the sector 12 station. Before the Forum Moderator came on and said "Don't dock," I went, and docked, and mined, and exploited the bots. Why? To test! Think of it this way, if one person knew about it and never used it, because he thought it was an exploit, and deemed himself "above exploiting," it would never come to the attention of the devs. When the game's released, dozens of players that have no qualms against exploiting would take advantage of the exploit and the devs would have to crash together and launch a patch. So, from my view, if there's an exploit, use it! Use it a lot! Yes, people claim that you have "no honor" (generally meaning that you killed them in a way that they can't get back at you for), but this program isn't about honor, it's about testing.
This is why, in a way, I appreciate those who grief new pilots. It quickly showed that sector defense (turrets and AI) was needed to keep the newbs safe from attack. I also appreciate the widespread piracy. It showed the genuine need for something like the DSG, and hopefully a form of which will be implemented into governments.
So, there's a difference between Vendetta and released games. I remember when I used to play Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. There's a bug with the ladders that allows you to "crawl under the map" and see everyone and kill people without taking damage. Now, EA has never released a patch to fix this, so many servers have the policy that if you're caught under the map, you're booted and IP-banned. Vendetta is not out yet, so in a sense, it's our duty to go "under the map" and expose all the problems and exploits. Yes, I hated the proverbial guts of the players that "insta-nuked," but in actuality they were demonstrating a problem with the current content. Had no ingenious soul figured out the exploit, it would have laid undiscovered until who-knows-when. Yes, some people might be disappointed that the #1 Weapon of Fun has been removed, but rest assured that the devs will add it back in.
Another flame tactic that people use, that irritates me to no end (oops, was that an appeal to pity?):
"no offense, but you suck, your mother's a mule, and you fly like a nerf-herder."
The "no offense" clearly does not nullify the offense intended by the statement. Don't let yourself be deceived by the fact that just because you said "no offense" that the person will indeed take no offense to your statement.
On the subject of hypocrisy: It's a delicate subject in this game. Many things are untested features and theories until we get ahold of them. A most recent example is that of the unlocked state of the sector 12 station. Before the Forum Moderator came on and said "Don't dock," I went, and docked, and mined, and exploited the bots. Why? To test! Think of it this way, if one person knew about it and never used it, because he thought it was an exploit, and deemed himself "above exploiting," it would never come to the attention of the devs. When the game's released, dozens of players that have no qualms against exploiting would take advantage of the exploit and the devs would have to crash together and launch a patch. So, from my view, if there's an exploit, use it! Use it a lot! Yes, people claim that you have "no honor" (generally meaning that you killed them in a way that they can't get back at you for), but this program isn't about honor, it's about testing.
This is why, in a way, I appreciate those who grief new pilots. It quickly showed that sector defense (turrets and AI) was needed to keep the newbs safe from attack. I also appreciate the widespread piracy. It showed the genuine need for something like the DSG, and hopefully a form of which will be implemented into governments.
So, there's a difference between Vendetta and released games. I remember when I used to play Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. There's a bug with the ladders that allows you to "crawl under the map" and see everyone and kill people without taking damage. Now, EA has never released a patch to fix this, so many servers have the policy that if you're caught under the map, you're booted and IP-banned. Vendetta is not out yet, so in a sense, it's our duty to go "under the map" and expose all the problems and exploits. Yes, I hated the proverbial guts of the players that "insta-nuked," but in actuality they were demonstrating a problem with the current content. Had no ingenious soul figured out the exploit, it would have laid undiscovered until who-knows-when. Yes, some people might be disappointed that the #1 Weapon of Fun has been removed, but rest assured that the devs will add it back in.
Wow... the second two thirds of that were so amazingly off-topic, yet so debatable, that you should make a new thread so I can argue with you.
Actually, no, n00b, it was dealing with hypocrisy, which was brought up here.
my 2 cents.
hypocraty is when you should have known better,
than to do what you just did!
so SirChamps is not only debating that, but also
also debating expliots and ingame playingstyle.
a bit offtopic, but the subject were opened by others.
learn to argue well: join a debate club.
The Flying Banana®
p.s. FM thanks for creating this thread, we realy need(ed) it
EDIT: and thanks for bumping it SL
hypocraty is when you should have known better,
than to do what you just did!
so SirChamps is not only debating that, but also
also debating expliots and ingame playingstyle.
a bit offtopic, but the subject were opened by others.
learn to argue well: join a debate club.
The Flying Banana®
p.s. FM thanks for creating this thread, we realy need(ed) it
EDIT: and thanks for bumping it SL
on hypocrisy:
although i am certainly not beyond reproach in regards of being a hypocrite, i do not condone hypocrisy.
i think, the problem here is also that pretty much everyone is being hypocritical at some point. some more, some less.
on the rest of the thread, that is, pretty much fm's and ctishman's post:
i agree with ctishman that instant and exact retaliation is not the solution.
then again, the (in-game) community is in a state where the law of the stronger is pretty much the only law that can be enforced by now. so, revenge is the natural outcome.
while this is true for the game/test, it is not true for the boards. i am unsure whether ctishman was referring only to the game/test or also to the boards.
if the latter is the case, i have nothing to add. if not, tolerance should also be used when reading an inflammatory post/thread. there are no winners in a flamewar, only those who lose (please do not read this as a political statement and excuse the shameless rip-off).
although i am certainly not beyond reproach in regards of being a hypocrite, i do not condone hypocrisy.
i think, the problem here is also that pretty much everyone is being hypocritical at some point. some more, some less.
on the rest of the thread, that is, pretty much fm's and ctishman's post:
i agree with ctishman that instant and exact retaliation is not the solution.
then again, the (in-game) community is in a state where the law of the stronger is pretty much the only law that can be enforced by now. so, revenge is the natural outcome.
while this is true for the game/test, it is not true for the boards. i am unsure whether ctishman was referring only to the game/test or also to the boards.
if the latter is the case, i have nothing to add. if not, tolerance should also be used when reading an inflammatory post/thread. there are no winners in a flamewar, only those who lose (please do not read this as a political statement and excuse the shameless rip-off).
Hey FM - do you have any classical debate theory? It seems you do...I coach competitive high School debate...So I luv this thread!!
/me is confused on why the fm would make this post but... wait no but exists...
i try not to argue so i dont think i should post on this anymore...
-io
i try not to argue so i dont think i should post on this anymore...
-io
Well you see, fm made this thread 4 months ago. A little back I went thread huntin' and found this along the way and bumped it since it seemed appropriate.
A little bit of wisdom:
Keep in mind that in any case of conversation... argument, or otherwise (but especially argument)... you are dealing with creatures of emotion, not creatures of logic. In learning to argue well, one must learn this fact. Nobody is perfect (except for me...). 99.99999% of the time, even if you DO end up 'winning' an argument, you will not have changed that person's outlook. Its all about inviting the person to change their mind themselves. YOU can't change anybody's mind. Sad enough as it is (but very true), you can't control the way someone thinks or acts.
This 'invitation' obviously doesn't come by attacking the person's integrity. As the Forum Moderator already stated, attacking the person himself does absolutely no good. But there are much more subtle and painful attacks to a person that you can make by simply outright insulting them.
Please keep in mind that a really really good argument ends with everybody being happy. Its all about how you handle yourself, keeping close attention to the opposing view. You've got to put yourself in their shoes and find out WHY they beleive what they do (NOT a good example: "He thinks that way because he's stupid"). As true as it might be that the person REALLY IS stupid... you're not going to solve _anything_ by stating the fact. If you want somebody to change their mind... then it takes a little... love.
Yeah, yeah... ok thats pretty sappy. But its true. Why do you think people stay and become friends? Its because they learn who the person is, and find out how NOT to deeply insult them. Even when they're proving eachother wrong. Its that trust that people stay together. If you want to win arguments, develop people's trust. They trust you - they trust that your ideas are good - you win arguments (keeping in mind that your arguments ARE actually sound).
Realizing that we as humans have emotions (that regardless of who you are, change the way you think) will _win_ you more arguments than pure logic ever will.
Keep in mind that in any case of conversation... argument, or otherwise (but especially argument)... you are dealing with creatures of emotion, not creatures of logic. In learning to argue well, one must learn this fact. Nobody is perfect (except for me...). 99.99999% of the time, even if you DO end up 'winning' an argument, you will not have changed that person's outlook. Its all about inviting the person to change their mind themselves. YOU can't change anybody's mind. Sad enough as it is (but very true), you can't control the way someone thinks or acts.
This 'invitation' obviously doesn't come by attacking the person's integrity. As the Forum Moderator already stated, attacking the person himself does absolutely no good. But there are much more subtle and painful attacks to a person that you can make by simply outright insulting them.
Please keep in mind that a really really good argument ends with everybody being happy. Its all about how you handle yourself, keeping close attention to the opposing view. You've got to put yourself in their shoes and find out WHY they beleive what they do (NOT a good example: "He thinks that way because he's stupid"). As true as it might be that the person REALLY IS stupid... you're not going to solve _anything_ by stating the fact. If you want somebody to change their mind... then it takes a little... love.
Yeah, yeah... ok thats pretty sappy. But its true. Why do you think people stay and become friends? Its because they learn who the person is, and find out how NOT to deeply insult them. Even when they're proving eachother wrong. Its that trust that people stay together. If you want to win arguments, develop people's trust. They trust you - they trust that your ideas are good - you win arguments (keeping in mind that your arguments ARE actually sound).
Realizing that we as humans have emotions (that regardless of who you are, change the way you think) will _win_ you more arguments than pure logic ever will.
Excellent post, Ijzer. Also explains why the most "passionate/caring" politician always wins, not necessarily the one with the best logic and plan.
Yay Arnold.
Uh... does anyone else notice the irony about arguing how to argue in a thread which was intended to advise people how to argue but on which no arguments were intended?
er... dave, i think you're missing the point. the fm said discussion was welcome as long as it stayed within boundaries.
Yeah, but i got the word "argue" and its variants 4 times in one sentence! Open your eyes!