51 réponses à ce sujet

[interesting03]

Why would you want to argue in a civil cognitive manner over the internet? It just doesn't add up.

[Jordi B]

Torias wrote...

As a reminder, since it's on the topic of the thread:

personal insults and attacks directed at other community members are not allowed on these forums.

we are here to discuss dragon age (and have a fun time doing it ;-) )...

Bioware wants this to be a pleasant and welcoming community, without the nastiness and incessant bickering / insulting that happens on a lot of internet forums.

I always noticed that there was an army of moderators listed at the bottom of each page, but I think this is the first time I've actually seen one in the wild. Question for you: are you guys extremely lenient in the policy you mention here, or are you simply understaffed? I'm asking, because from a lot of the topics on these forums it would seem that there are no moderators enforcing rules at all (although to be fair, if they were removing posts, we would have no way to know). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you guys are using your spare time to make this a better community, it's just that it seems that there are still a lot of less than civilized (and spoilers containing) posts.

Godeshus wrote...

I think one of the issues lies in how
people take things. My best friend speaks really bluntly. He's not mean
or anything, he just tells it like it is. But when you can't see the
person's expressions and mannerisms, it can be easy to get offended.

It's
happens sometimes when we're arguing about our points of view, and I
say something that he can't really digest, and simply says: "That's
dumb". While I don't always agree with him on that, sometimes I kind of
have to give him credit for it because, well, yeah, it was dumb.  He
never said that I was dumb though. He just said his opinion on my
opinion, in his own way. 

I think this is indeed a big issue. Nobody here knows each other and a lot of people may not be very good at expressing themselves, so people will often take things the wrong way even when no harm was meant.

However, I think the bigger problem is that there will also always be people that abuse the anonimity of the internet to troll just because they enjoy ruining other people's day.

[Godeshus]

purplesunset wrote...

I'm afraid to say that the OP will most likely be preaching to the choir with a thread like this.

In other words, people who commit these fallacies will most likely just use a fallacy to disregard this thread (see the sweet irony above for an example)

As a veteran of many internet forums, I have come to accept that useful, constructive discourse are few and far between, and even then you will have to wade through a lot of swill to find the gem posts. The reasons for this are many but the obvious ones are...anonymity combined with freedom. There is also a very distinct "internet culture" that places like 4chan help to cultivate. This causes people to post things just to fit in with the culture, and people who are new to that culture love to use those buzzwords to get a sense of belonging, even though they might not personalyl believe in it themselves.

If you are familaiar with MBTI personality type theory, you will see how it also plays a role in a forum's specific culture.

NT heavy forums tend to have a distinct lack of tact, coarse bluntness, and "internet tough guys"  whose idea of fun is calling  anyone who needs help a "stupid noob" 

NF-heavy forums tend to have excessive smileys, and long-winded, self-absorbed emotional rants.

It may be that such things are accurate, but I've always found that  using an algorithm to define something as chaotic as emotional states of mind and personality type to be at odds with itself. I've tried to take the "test" a couple of times, but then found that Bioware hadn't included the dialog option that my character would choose 

[purplesunset]

slikster wrote...

MachDelta wrote...

Go go gadget Flame Warriors!

Thanks for that, that was awesome.

Yikes, I think I see a bit of myself in some of those flame warrior descriptions. :ashamed:

I think many people are a mix of flame warriors. The types don't seem to be mututally exclusive to me.

For example, "The Blowhard," "the Atheist" and the "Android" usually come rolled into one really formidable package.

[Torias]

Jordi B wrote...

I always noticed that there was an army of moderators listed at the bottom of each page, but I think this is the first time I've actually seen one in the wild. Question for you: are you guys extremely lenient in the policy you mention here, or are you simply understaffed? I'm asking, because from a lot of the topics on these forums it would seem that there are no moderators enforcing rules at all (although to be fair, if they were removing posts, we would have no way to know). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you guys are using your spare time to make this a better community, it's just that it seems that there are still a lot of less than civilized (and spoilers containing) posts.

Well, they only just adding the feature to display the "moderator" badge. So they might just not have been noticable ;-)

Also, Dragon Age is still brand new... the forums are always a bit more turbulent during the period just after launch.

The people who are new to the community will learn that this is a slightly more polite and well organised community... it's just the adjustment period :-)

If you see anything particularly bad that you feel is disruptive to the forum community here, you can always use the "report post" button, or send a message to a moderator about it.

And yeah, I've been using the option to just delete the posts that are just insults directed at someone.

Spoiler threads are typically just "locked" (you'll see a padlock next to them... can act as a warning not to bother with the thread). Some people move them to the correct forum and send the original poster a message, some people delete the entire thread, some lock them to act as "skulls on pikes" so that other people can see that any thread about spoiler topics in this particular sub-forum will be locked.

Modifié par Torias, 25 novembre 2009 - 10:10 .

[Godeshus]

Seeing as you have your attention here, would it be possible to add a "spoilers" section under the report post option? I've inadvertently read about some stuff that I would have much rather learned in game in this forum a few times now.

[soteria]

Emryc wrote...

Ad hominem isn't so much a fallacy as just an insult. Same goes for Ad baculum, which is just a threat.

Logical fallacies tend to deal with flaws in logic and the structure of an argument. This is an internetforum. Logic does not exist in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.

No, it's a logical fallacy because the point of an ad hominem attack is to say, "You suck therefore your arguments are invalid."  The insult might even be true. 

[purplesunset]

Torias wrote...
 some lock them to act as "skulls on pikes" so that other people can see that any thread about spoiler topics in this particular sub-forum will be locked.

I love that imagery. There is a bleak barren desert ahead of you, and as far as the eye can see there lies a grotesque collection of skulls mounted on top of pikes. Who has caused such wanton destruction? Who had such complete disregard for the life of his fellow man? Ghenghis Khan? Hitler ?  Move over the Vlad the Impaler, there is a new kid in town! 

Look upon the works of the Bioware Moderators, ye Mighty, and despair.

[Godeshus]

What was his argument? I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I just didn't realize that he was arguing something. It was my impression that he was just bringing this behavior to our attention.

[Sarevok Anchev]

GraniteWardrobe wrote...

[*]Developers do not necessarily read forums, so criticism therein cannot be held to be anything them.[*]Developers do not get feedback on sequels in forums. They can't. Nobody posting on the forums has seen the sequels yet so they would be useless as a source of feedback.
[*]Yes, threads contain arguments and conversations. Is that not their purpose?
[*]The consequence of your statement is that trolls are obliged to post fallacies. They are not.
[*]Knowledge in itself does not make a thinker. Books contain knowledge but they do not think.

Sorry, I applaud your sentiments but do not judge your argument to be sound.

[*]

[*]
1+2:Dev's ARE reading the forums and collect critcs.You can see it in more then enough topics.
"Nobody posting on the forums has seen the sequels yet so they would be useless as a source of feedback"
Devs are collecting the critics of the gamers and by this they will have infos about what the gamers would like to be changed in future games. Theres more than enough games that show such changes and development.

3. Its not the problem of arguing and conversationg for the OP, but HOW most forumites do that.

4.Look at page 1: A troll got shot. BAM! 

5.Nope but you will learn by reflecting about the content of the book, by this process making the knowledge practical

[Creature 1]

Emryc wrote...

Ad hominem isn't so much a fallacy as just an insult. Same goes for Ad baculum, which is just a threat.

Logical fallacies tend to deal with flaws in logic and the structure of an argument. This is an internetforum. Logic does not exist in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Ad hominem is more than an insult, it's saying, "You're stupid, so nothing you ever could say could be of value, so I don't have to address your arguments themselves."  If you tell someone they're stupid but also tell them why, that's not ad hominem. 

And yes, there is a lot of stupidity on the internet. 

xkcd.com/386/

Modifié par Creature 1, 25 novembre 2009 - 12:19 .

[Allen63]

Hey, Ad Hominim can't be all bad -- its the principal argument used by "global warming believers" to discredit credible counter arguments :innocent: And, it works

Anyhow, I agree with the OP. Straw Man and Ad Hominum stifle the possibilities for mutual understanding, mutual agreement, and progress. Unfortunately, these  falacies are commonplace thoughout all "civilized discourse". And, Human Society pays a great price.

[LovelyMover]

To take a quote from RvB the best way to prepare for the internet is to go to your local middle school chess club then hand out crystal meth & guns.



Its an oldie but remains horribly true. Everyone should be forced to view it occasionally just to reflect on their behaviour.

[Blank Syndrome]

Oh dear sweet lord, no. There is nothing worse than a quasi-intellectual who's recently discovered logical fallacies. They'll usually shriek their favorite one whenever a dissenting opinion rears its head instead of presenting an actual argument, since it's so much easier to type one to four words in a dismissive manner than to manually deconstruct the opposing viewpoint.

[VanDraegon]

MachDelta wrote...

Go go gadget Flame Warriors!

lol, i love that site. Spend a long time rereading whenever a link to it comes up.

[Dr. Explosion]

GraniteWardrobe wrote...

darrenecm wrote...

Constuctive criticism in official forums is a hugely valuable thing to a software developer. It's here that they get feedback on areas that they can possibly improve in sequels. However, anyone who is familiar with forums soon finds that a lot of threads can quickly devolve into mindless rants with worthless arguments being thrown about and  conversations quickly deviating from topic.

I reccomend everyone point their browsers to the link below and learn about Logicial Fallacies.

www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Any worthwhile argument or counter-argument needs to avoid every one of these logical fallacies if you are to be taken seriously and not some juvinile-minded, socially inept forum troll. Knowledge of these fallacies will improve your ability to argue and criticise in a constructive way and make you a better critical thinker rather than a wooly-minded muppet

I personally think the most common logical fallacies found in forums are the Straw Man and the Ad Hominim. Ad Hominim in particular will be seen most in flame war threads.

I don't agree with you because what you have posted does not stand up to rational analysis. To see why, let's remove all the unsupported, judgemental adjectives and phrases from your assertion and see if what is left makes sense:

Criticism in .. forums is a .. thing to a .. developer. It's here that they get feedback on areas .. in sequels. Threads can .. devolve into .. arguments .. and conversations.

Any .. argument .. needs to avoid .. fallacies if you are to be .. not .. troll. Knowledge .. will improve your ability to argue and criticise .. and make you a .. thinker rather than a .. muppet.

[*]Developers do not necessarily read forums, so criticism therein cannot be held to be anything them.

I'll agree that devs don't necessarily read forums but you unless you're new here, you should know that BioWare employees do read these forums. And as someone that hopes to be a writer, I know that that constuctive criticism is valuable in improving your work and I will infer that BioWare's devs share this view (since I'm sure I've heard one of them say as much)

[*]Developers do not get feedback on sequels in forums. They can't. Nobody posting on the forums has seen the sequels yet so they would be useless as a source of feedback.

I can't decide if you're intentionally misinterpreting this or if it is an honest mistake; I'm going to assume the latter. I believe that darrenecm was saying that criticism of current games will help in the future development of sequels

[*]Yes, threads contain arguments and conversations. Is that not their purpose?

The original point was obvious; you are simply being obtuse

[*]The consequence of your statement is that trolls are obliged to post fallacies. They are not.

No, the consequence of your modification of the original statement is that trolls are obliged to post fallacies. Looking at your post, I'm inclined to believe that they are

[*]Knowledge in itself does not make a thinker. Books contain knowledge but they do not think.

But without knowledge there can be no thought. Once again, the original point was obvious

This is one of the best examples of a Strawman argument I have ever seen; you literally cut up the original post to make it easier for you refute,and you totally ignore/miss what darrenecm's whole point was. I judge your whole post to be invalid

Modifié par Conall Cameron, 25 novembre 2009 - 07:58 .

[Sarevok Anchev]

GraniteWardrobe wrote...

darrenecm wrote...
...
Any worthwhile argument or
counter-argument needs to avoid every one of these logical fallacies if
you are to be taken seriously and not some juvinile-minded, socially
inept forum troll.
...

GraniteWardrobe wrote...
...

The consequence of your statement is that trolls are obliged to post fallacies. They are not.
...

Sarevok Anchev wrote...
...
Look at page 1: A troll got shot. BAM! 
...

*sigh* Why do I find this thread logically unconvincing?

Was the troll shot for presenting a fallacious argument? No. It was for expressing an unfavourable opinion.

And this was precisely my point: fallacies are not a necessary characteristic of trolls. You won't stop trolling by banning fallacies. There are plenty of people who post fallacies without realising it, without being trolls. And there are plenty of trolls who are trolls without posting fallacies. The two are not logically connected at all.

I'm not supporting trolling and I'm not supporting fallacies, just pointing out that connecting the two with the line of reasoning "fallacies are trolling; trolling is bad; therefore fallacies are bad" is itself fallacious.

Oh well, I've had my say.

Gosh! He was only literally shot[shot= actively denunciated]
The thing was the "troll"(lookup "Firewarriors", so u can see that this naming isnt fitting for him)
show by his reaction and word usage evidently what the OP just said right before him.
No more, no less

[MerinTB]

Yay, OP!



I fully endorse this thread topic.



Just because many internet forums are unruly and unintelligible and illogical does not mean they all need be.



And while some will ignore the list of logical fallacies or any attempt at learning to think critically, putting the information out there will at least help others know where you are coming from and it also may well educate a few people on how to better argue their points.



Remember - even if you avoid logical fallacies, even if your argument is logical and sound, it doesn't mean you are right.

[Sibelius1]

Rainen89 wrote...

Honestly, if people could just get away from the :you disagree with me and therefore r dumbz" mantra I think we'd be set.

Agreed, there is no excuse for that really.

To be fair, people do make inflammatory threads and posts, and some do so specifically to get these reactions.
Even the worst of these should be responded to intelligently and in good humour though, to do otherwise is to go down to their level.

There is another problem though, and that is the rabid, foaming at the mouth fanboyism that is prevalent on these boards. One little complaint or negative thought is met with a barrage of "This isn't the game for you", or "This is how Bioware have made the game accept it, or get out".

I was active on another thread today that tore into someone who done a negative user review on Gamespot calling him mentally retarded and a console mouth breather. On this thread it became apparent to me that certain people have no respect for others' opinions. Incidentally the thread was locked by a dev because of the abusive nature of the posts, so that is a positive thing.

To me it doesn't matter how ridiculous  someone's opinion is, it is their opinion and should be respected regardless. Message boards are designed to be a forum for discussion and debate, why even participate in a discussion if you have no intention of taking anything anyone else has to say on board and just resort to calling them retarded? By all means disagree, but do so respectfully. To resort to namecalling and abuse is just sad.

[Laurelinde]

Whilst I agree that personal attacks, etc. are inappropriate, this isn't a debating team and it's...unrealistic, at best, to expect everyone to be a fantastic arguer. I will never be a good arguer because I tend to get too emotional. I don't think that should mean I'm never allowed to have, or state, my opinion, however, as long as I do it respectfully.

[MerinTB]

Sibelius1 wrote...

Rainen89 wrote...

Honestly, if people could just get away from the :you disagree with me and therefore r dumbz" mantra I think we'd be set.

Agreed, there is no excuse for that really.

To be fair, people do make inflammatory threads and posts, and some do so specifically to get these reactions.
Even the worst of these should be responded to intelligently and in good humour though, to do otherwise is to go down to their level.

There is another problem though, and that is the rabid, foaming at the mouth fanboyism that is prevalent on these boards. One little complaint or negative thought is met with a barrage of "This isn't the game for you", or "This is how Bioware have made the game accept it, or get out".

I was active on another thread today that tore into someone who done a negative user review on Gamespot calling him mentally retarded and a console mouth breather. On this thread it became apparent to me that certain people have no respect for others' opinions. Incidentally the thread was locked by a dev because of the abusive nature of the posts, so that is a positive thing.

To me it doesn't matter how ridiculous  someone's opinion is, it is their opinion and should be respected regardless. Message boards are designed to be a forum for discussion and debate, why even participate in a discussion if you have no intention of taking anything anyone else has to say on board and just resort to calling them retarded? By all means disagree, but do so respectfully. To resort to namecalling and abuse is just sad.

While I agree that attacking someone for disagreeing with you is bad -
i.e. one person says "I am not having fun in this game.  It is too hard for me." and another responds "That's cause you suck." - yes, the latter person is obviously in the wrong.

That said, "foaming at the mouth fanboyism" is an excellent example of an inflammatory post.  You are making an ad hominem attack, and the point of it is to poison the well.  You are name-calling, stereo-typing a bunch of people under one banner, and then attempting to dismiss their views via said label.

In effect, everytime someone who defends Bioware or DAO is called a "fanboy" or, my favorite (read as sarcasm) derivative of such, "fanboi" - it is much an attempt to dismiss them rudely and unfairly as it is to says "That's cause you suck."

So while you are right that people with legitimate complaints who state them clearly and without inflammatory remarks don't deserve the "get out!" response - labeling those who disagree with the complaints as "fanboys" is equally wrong.