[FORUMS-RELATED] What is happening over here?

[Arlesienne]

As Lumina and EarthMate mentioned, it is not mutually-exclusive to engage in a discussion while remaining in a partner relationship with other interlocutors. More than that: the cannot be discussion without treating others like partners. There is no option to remove emotions out of the equation - they are an inherent part of communication. At the same time, we are - or so I hope - mature (my, we sign a form checking our age...) individuals who can disagree without losing their savoir-vivre. This is what I mean by the spirit we must not lose.

I am, unlike some implications I find personally offending, not raising this issue on a basis of any single thread. A decrease in manners is something I have been observing for a time, over very different topics. Sure, a bigger group of people means more problems as there can be the proverbial bad eggs in every community, but still... How can we even get expletives the system censors out? How can we say someone is "playing the game wrong"? How can we state we do not care for others' emotions in a discussion and argue with increasing violence to the point of moderators having to lock those threads?

Somebody break it down for me, I fail to wrap my head about it. I was raised with the funny thought we can have differences, but cannot hurt others. The world is a big bad place, but it is up to US to have standards.

As per how to engage in discussion, two words: Brown and Levinson. We developed complex codes of communications for a reason. But I will spare you the rest.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

12 minutes ago, Arlesienne said:

As Lumina and EarthMate mentioned, it is not mutually-exclusive to engage in a discussion while remaining in a partner relationship with other interlocutors. More than that: the cannot be discussion without treating others like partners. There is no option to remove emotions out of the equation - they are an inherent part of communication. At the same time, we are - or so I hope - mature (my, we sign a form checking our age...) individuals who can disagree without losing their savoir-vivre. This is what I mean by the spirit we must not lose.

I am, unlike some implications I find personally offending, not raising this issue on a basis of any single thread. A decrease in manners is something I have been observing for a time, over very different topics. Sure, a bigger group of people means more problems as there can be the proverbial bad eggs in every community, but still... How can we even get expletives the system censors out? How can we say someone is "playing the game wrong"? How can we state we do not care for others' emotions in a discussion and argue with increasing violence to the point of moderators having to lock those threads?

Somebody break it down for me, I fail to wrap my head about it. I was raised with the funny thought we can have differences, but cannot hurt others. The world is a big bad place, but it is up to US to have standards.

As per how to engage in discussion, two words: Brown and Levinson. We developed complex codes of communications for a reason. But I will spare you the rest.

1) No idea V('^')V

2) It's not more of "bad eggs", but that some people can respond in certain situations, like when they're simply shocked in disbelief in different ways (like, I exploded for instance, when I heard what Mikeadatrix said in their first post on Private property thread, which is where the whole flaming started) and in result act like "bad eggs". People can't be defined as good or bad; only their actions can be. "How can we state we do not care for others' emotions in a discussion and argue with increasing violence to the point of moderators having to lock those threads?" <= that right there never happened as a packed up statement. The first part happened in this thread, the second happened before that for another reason in a different thread, so, you're sort of exaggerating here. "How can we even get expletives the system censors out?" Idk, most of the time I just do, if it's like 4 characters long (it's then obvious shich one it is), but when it's longer, like 7 characters, I like to play a game of "guess that swear word" in my head, for fun  "How can we say someone is "playing the game wrong"?" Well, if I went over to your base and burnt down everything, would I be playing the game right?

3) "Somebody break it down for me, I fail to wrap my head about it. I was raised with the funny thought we can have differences, but cannot hurt others." Hate to break it to you, but the big world out there is an f-ed up place. MUCH more f-ed up than I've ever in my life have been! So, yeah, there are various reasons as to why someone might hurt emotionally or physically. Not that it's always justified, but there usually is a reason. "The world is a big bad place, but it is up to US to have standards." No idea what you mean by that.

4) "As per how to engage in discussion, two words: Brown and Levinson" Who? "We developed complex codes of communications for a reason. But I will spare you the rest." Eeeeeeee... okay...?

[Joachim]

8 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

1) No idea V('^')V

2) It's not more of "bad eggs", but that some people can respond in certain situations, like when they're simply shocked in disbelief in different ways (like, I exploded for instance, when I heard what Mikeadatrix said in their first post on Private property thread, which is where the whole flaming started) and in result act like "bad eggs". People can't be defined as good or bad; only their actions can be. "How can we state we do not care for others' emotions in a discussion and argue with increasing violence to the point of moderators having to lock those threads?" <= that right there never happened as a packed up statement. The first part happened in this thread, the second happened before that for another reason in a different thread, so, you're sort of exaggerating here. "How can we even get expletives the system censors out?" Idk, most of the time I just do, if it's like 4 characters long (it's then obvious shich one it is), but when it's longer, like 7 characters, I like to play a game of "guess that swear word" in my head, for fun  "How can we say someone is "playing the game wrong"?" Well, if I went over to your base and burnt down everything, would I be playing the game right?

3) "Somebody break it down for me, I fail to wrap my head about it. I was raised with the funny thought we can have differences, but cannot hurt others." Hate to break it to you, but the big world out there is an f-ed up place. MUCH more f-ed up than I've ever in my life have been! So, yeah, there are various reasons as to why someone might hurt emotionally or physically. Not that it's always justified, but there usually is a reason. "The world is a big bad place, but it is up to US to have standards." No idea what you mean by that.

4) "As per how to engage in discussion, two words: Brown and Levinson" Who? "We developed complex codes of communications for a reason. But I will spare you the rest." Eeeeeeee... okay...?

I am trying to understand you. I really, really am. You come across as very young. Am I right about that?

Quote

So, yeah, there are various reasons as to why someone might hurt emotionally or physically. Not that it's always justified, but there usually is a reason.

What do you mean by that?

Quote

"The world is a big bad place, but it is up to US to have standards." No idea what you mean by that.

It means that the world is a dark place, but it is in our own hands to make the world a better place. Not only that, it is in our interest to do so.

Quote

"As per how to engage in discussion, two words: Brown and Levinson" Who?

They developed what is known as politeness theory.

[Arlesienne]

25 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

1) No idea V('^')V

2) It's not more of "bad eggs", but that some people can respond in certain situations, like when they're simply shocked in disbelief in different ways (like, I exploded for instance, when I heard what Mikeadatrix said in their first post on Private property thread, which is where the whole flaming started) and in result act like "bad eggs". People can't be defined as good or bad; only their actions can be. "How can we state we do not care for others' emotions in a discussion and argue with increasing violence to the point of moderators having to lock those threads?" <= that right there never happened as a packed up statement. The first part happened in this thread, the second happened before that for another reason in a different thread, so, you're sort of exaggerating here. "How can we even get expletives the system censors out?" Idk, most of the time I just do, if it's like 4 characters long (it's then obvious shich one it is), but when it's longer, like 7 characters, I like to play a game of "guess that swear word" in my head, for fun  "How can we say someone is "playing the game wrong"?" Well, if I went over to your base and burnt down everything, would I be playing the game right?

3) "Somebody break it down for me, I fail to wrap my head about it. I was raised with the funny thought we can have differences, but cannot hurt others." Hate to break it to you, but the big world out there is an f-ed up place. MUCH more f-ed up than I've ever in my life have been! So, yeah, there are various reasons as to why someone might hurt emotionally or physically. Not that it's always justified, but there usually is a reason. "The world is a big bad place, but it is up to US to have standards." No idea what you mean by that.

4) "As per how to engage in discussion, two words: Brown and Levinson" Who? "We developed complex codes of communications for a reason. But I will spare you the rest." Eeeeeeee... okay...?

1. Alas, poor Yorick.

2.1. But we are responsible for our actions. Ergo, if I feel offended by something someone said, I take a deep breath and then rephrase what I want to say until I know I can take responsibility for my words.

2.2. I have been there for longer than you have and sadly this did happen.

2.3. I would rather you desisted, but feel free to discard my humble plea. This goes to everyone whose posts get censored.

2.4. Griefing and different playstyles are two matters with nothing in common. It is like being flamed for not building megabases.

3.1. Simply saying the world is bad changes nothing. Each individual changes it a little, for better or worse. Besides I would have never lowered myself to consider if another, you or anyone else, to be wrong in the head.

3.2. Simply this: I strive not to do anything I would not appreciate being done to me. We have different standards, but we all need them, right?

4.1. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, the authors of the '87 politeness theory - in a nutshell, how we can effectively communicate without inadvertently offending others. If interested, see anything like http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2000/kitamura.pdf/.

4.2. If you would like me to elaborate on the theory, the pros of indirect speech and so on, I aim to please. I was good at it at the uni.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

15 minutes ago, Arlesienne said:

1. Alas, poor Yorick.

2.1. But we are responsible for our actions. Ergo, if I feel offended by something someone said, I take a deep breath and then rephrase what I want to say until I know I can take responsibility for my words.

2.2. I have been there for longer than you have and sadly this did happen.

2.3. I would rather you desisted, but feel free to discard my humble plea. This goes to everyone whose posts get censored.

2.4. Griefing and different playstyles are two matters with nothing in common. It is like being flamed for not building megabases.

3.1. Simply saying the world is bad changes nothing. Each individual changes it a little, for better or worse. Besides I would have never lowered myself to consider if another, you or anyone else, to be wrong in the head.

3.2. Simply this: I strive not to do anything I would not appreciate being done to me. We have different standards, but we all need them, right?

4.1. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, the authors of the '87 politeness theory - in a nutshell, how we can effectively communicate without inadvertently offending others. If interested, see anything like http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2000/kitamura.pdf/.

4.2. If you would like me to elaborate on the theory, the pros of indirect speech and so on, I aim to please. I was good at it at the uni.

2.2 Re-read what I said, pls; you mixed up two things that happened into one is what my point was.

2.3 No idea what you're talking about; I can't speak that language

2.4 Griefing is a problem because it interferes with other players' genuine gameplay. Same goes for private property; if I joined a game during summer, really needed resources to survive, found a base, opened the first chest I saw, picked out something burnable, like logs and put them in the endothermic fire so I don't die, just to realize it was a private base and then the base holder trying to actively kick me out with nothing, but a few logs in my inventory in the middle of the Summer, would that be just fine?

3.1 I don't understand your last sentence at all, so I can't comment on this point.

3.2 Well, same goes for me, so if I see it fine if someone says that my opinion is stupid, for instance, I would act the same way with others.

4.1 I'll look into that later, thanks.

4.2 Emmm, okay, sure, go ahead?

[Rellimarual]

Having been in conversations like this for decades, I admire the effort going into this discussion, but I think it's wasted. You won't get far telling some kid with minimal interpersonal skills who's convinced himself he's a fearless truth-teller that he needs to take it down a notch because he's getting on everyone's nerves. When someone only wants to engage on their own terms, it's best not to engage at all, if possible, until they learn by observation how considerate, respectful adults interact with each other.

Debates about communication style only tend to work on fairly self-aware people. Otherwise, you're just feeding the beast by making the unsocialized person feel important and controversial and therefore courageous. It's a bit like dealing with a tantruming child: you don't want to respond to the bad behavior at all because that just reinforces it. Instead, use positive reinforcement by rewarding mature behavior with attention and interaction while acting as if the poor behavior doesn't even exist. Besides, we're talking about forum posts here, not real-world annoyances that are a lot harder to just skip over if they're bringing you down.

[Arlesienne]

49 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

2.2 Re-read what I said, pls; you mixed up two things that happened into one is what my point was.

2.3 No idea what you're talking about; I can't speak that language

2.4 Griefing is a problem because it interferes with other players' genuine gameplay. Same goes for private property; if I joined a game during summer, really needed resources to survive, found a base, opened the first chest I saw, picked out something burnable, like logs and put them in the endothermic fire so I don't die, just to realize it was a private base and then the base holder trying to actively kick me out with nothing, but a few logs in my inventory in the middle of the Summer, would that be just fine?

3.1 I don't understand your last sentence at all, so I can't comment on this point.

3.2 Well, same goes for me, so if I see it fine if someone says that my opinion is stupid, for instance, I would act the same way with others.

4.1 I'll look into that later, thanks.

4.2 Emmm, okay, sure, go ahead?

I beg your pardon, what language? I certainly did not intend it to be offensive. Explain what you do not understand please and I will do my best to clarify.

On 3.1, consider this: a griefer burns a base. The world you are currently experiencing is bad. Do you simply ignore it? Because I believe you try to do something positive about it, for instance gather evidence to report this individual to the admin. This is how we make the world better, bit by bit. Or do you disagree?

3.2: I'm afraid there are people who do not agree that, if someone treating us rudely in a discussion does not offend us, it justifies their actions (and I believe they are worth hearing out). Personally, a lot of things turn from frustration to bewilderment/amusement with time for me, but knowing it is just my luck, I prefer not to expose others to such stimuli. If you want an example: I adore ridiculing badly-written films. But I am aware of the fact most of my family members dislike me doing that. So I duly shut my mouth even though I would love nothing more than to ruthlessly deconstruct that Mary Sue played by this pretty starlet.

4.1: you're warmly welcome.

4.2: the theory evolves around the premises of communication without losing face. You can use various devices to get your statements across without making your interlocutor uncomfortable. It works a bit differently within different cultures, but the foundations are the same. Brown is an anthropological linguist, Levinson - a social scientist, so the theory is deeply rooted in Humanities. I worry I may bore people to death with it here. If a moderator thinks it is fine to elaborate, however, I can with pleasure. Otherwise any interested parties may want to send me a note: I can suggest further reading, even attach some articles. TL;DR: the Brown-Levinson politeness theory is essential in discussion.

9 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

Having been in conversations like this for decades, I admire the effort going into this discussion, but I think it's wasted. You won't get far telling some kid with minimal interpersonal skills who's convinced himself he's a fearless truth-teller that he needs to take it down a notch because he's getting on everyone's nerves. When someone only wants to engage on their own terms, it's best not to engage at all, if possible, until they learn by observation how considerate, respectful adults interact with each other.

Debates about communication style only tend to work on fairly self-aware people. Otherwise, you're just feeding the beast by making the unsocialized person feel important and controversial and therefore courageous. It's a bit like dealing with a tantruming child: you don't want to respond to the bad behavior at all because that just reinforces it. Instead, use positive reinforcement by rewarding mature behavior with attention and interaction while acting as if the poor behavior doesn't even exist. Besides, we're talking about forum posts here, not real-world annoyances that are a lot harder to just skip over if they're bringing you down.

Well, the thread is not vilifying anyone. This is not my intention. Maybe I am too old, but I have never quite got the "technology for the young you will not comprehend" thing many would treat me to.

[BluesyBuesy]

26 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

Having been in conversations like this for decades, I admire the effort going into this discussion, but I think it's wasted. You won't get far telling some kid with minimal interpersonal skills who's convinced himself he's a fearless truth-teller that he needs to take it down a notch because he's getting on everyone's nerves. When someone only wants to engage on their own terms, it's best not to engage at all, if possible, until they learn by observation how considerate, respectful adults interact with each other.

Debates about communication style only tend to work on fairly self-aware people. Otherwise, you're just feeding the beast by making the unsocialized person feel important and controversial and therefore courageous. It's a bit like dealing with a tantruming child: you don't want to respond to the bad behavior at all because that just reinforces it. Instead, use positive reinforcement by rewarding mature behavior with attention and interaction while acting as if the poor behavior doesn't even exist. Besides, we're talking about forum posts here, not real-world annoyances that are a lot harder to just skip over if they're bringing you down.

Bu-bu-but.. these children mature, young men you speak of are being the objective voices of reason in the hugbox that is the Klei forums where everyone else is wallowing in their irrationality and feelings. Don't you know that objectivity is derived from one's personal desires and opinions?! GEEZ!!! You people and your emotions getting in the way of clear thinking. Now if only Klei weren't composed of a bunch of lazy bums with bad ideas.

*special note: These are merely my objective conclusions. If your feelings got hurt, I'm sorry for your misinterpretation; don't be mean to me because of it. :'/

 

[Rellimarual]

27 minutes ago, Arlesienne said:

Well, the thread is not vilifying anyone. This is not my intention. Maybe I am too old, but I have never quite got the "technology for the young you will not comprehend" thing many would treat me to.

 

 

 

No, you're certainly not vilifying anyone. You're trying to explain how reciprocal, considerate conversation works. But I think you're trying to explain it to persons who probably can't understand or accept that sort of explanation, and so I think you might have better results if you don't respond to or engage with the behavior that bothers you. Instead, respond positively to behavior that's going in the right direction: Positive reinforcement. 

[Rellimarual]

16 minutes ago, BluesyBuesy said:

Bu-bu-but.. these children mature, young men you speak of are being the objective voices of reason in the hugbox that is the Klei forums where everyone else is wallowing in their irrationality and feelings. Don't you know that objectivity is derived from one's personal desires and opinions?! GEEZ!!! You people and your emotions getting in the way of clear thinking. Now if only Klei weren't composed of a bunch of lazy bums with bad ideas.

*special note: These are merely my objective conclusions. If your feelings got hurt, I'm sorry for your misinterpretation; don't be mean to me because of it. :'/

 

The truly funny thing is, there's no reason to be in a forum if you don't want to interact with other people because it gratifies some need that is emotional. 

[Arlesienne]

12 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

No, you're certainly not vilifying anyone. You're trying to explain how reciprocal, considerate conversation works. But I think you're trying to explain it to persons who probably can't understand or accept that sort of explanation, and so I think you might have better results if you don't respond to or engage with the behavior that bothers you. Instead, respond positively to behavior that's going in the right direction: Positive reinforcement. 

I try to use positive reinforcement. It still backfires at me (being called out too old or soft, anong others). Judging by the poll, I am not the only person who feels we are going through a hard time, polite discussion-wise, forums-wide.

9 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

The truly funny thing is, there's no reason to be in a forum if you don't want to interact with other people because it gratifies some need that is emotional. 

Ditto...

[BluesyBuesy]

23 minutes ago, Arlesienne said:

Judging by the poll, I am not the only person who feels we are going through a hard time, polite discussion-wise, forums-wide.

Well, the poll is kind of leading people to choose the first option by the way you stated the second one. I also think that people tend to give the past a rosy tint. But that's just a squabble. I think general reminders and encouragement to be polite and considerate are never a waste. Like @Rellimarual points out though, trying to change individuals is often a futile endeavor. 

[Arlesienne]

How should the responses be stated to be clearer? Making polls is always hard. I could use some help.

[minespatch]

I'm kind of shocked by the 15 who voted that this forum has problems. So far I've been having a breeze, making friends, and having interesting discussions. The negative votes make me feel like I'm on a different board.

[Arlesienne]

9 minutes ago, minespatch said:

I'm kind of shocked by the 15 who voted that this forum has problems. So far I've been having a breeze, making friends, and having interesting discussions. The negative votes make me feel like I'm on a different board.

Ahhh, you cheeky Chris :D! Thanks. I would rather see no affirmative votes, BUT...

[BluesyBuesy]

18 minutes ago, Arlesienne said:

How should the responses be stated to be clearer? Making polls is always hard. I could use some help.

"No, things are roughly the same as they've always been, " might be more fair. You've made the baseline perfection, but nothing is ever perfect. Like I said, just a squabble. Your message is what's most important. 

[Mueck]

Lately I feel the overall tone of communication in these forums is really lacking. I don't post that often anymore. Recently I voiced my opinion in a different thread and got some pretty unfriendly responses. One of these posts, that caused me to hide my original post, was even liked by a moderator...

[An Artifact]

Before voting, I'd like everyone to take a step back, breathe in and out deeply and put whatever issues you might have with these forums into the larger context. Been on 4chan, like, ever? If not, never go there, it's awful. Or looked at any youtube comment section for some big youtube channel? People are massive dicks to each other on the internet, sadly that's just an all-encompassing truth. I think the main reasons are that 1) You're anonymous and can get away with saying things you couldn't simply say to somebody#s face irl, and 2) a lot of people using the internet are still pretty young, and thus don't quite grasp the concept of civil interaction. I'm not gonna demonize anyone for it, I've been a teenager once too, I did and said stupid things and am continuing to do so to this day, even. I regret a lot of it, and chances are these people will regret their behaviour too a few years down the line.

If anything, these forums right 'ere are one of the most pleasant and civil places I've come across; then again, I only browse some parts of it, so my experience may vary to yours. Personally, I've witnessed no decline in quality; take that for what it's worth. And also, in my experience, some people confuse honest and fair criticism for being rude; bringing constructive criticism to the table is one of the main purposes of forums like this one. Problems with games aren't going to point themselves out, that's the community's job. And I doubt Klei's games would be as great as they are without that input. 

Right, enough disjointed gassing from me. Hope you all have a fantastic day. :]

[Arlesienne]

31 minutes ago, BluesyBuesy said:

"No, things are roughly the same as they've always been, " might be more fair. You've made the baseline perfection, but nothing is ever perfect. Like I said, just a squabble. Your message is what's most important. 

Is it possible and/or fair to edit the poll? I like your proposal and wish I had had you on board when making the thread.

15 minutes ago, Mueck said:

Lately I feel the overall tone of communication in these forums is really lacking. I don't post that often anymore. Recently I voiced my opinion in a different thread and got some pretty unfriendly responses. One of these posts, that caused me to hide my original post, was even liked by a moderator...

Sorry to hear that. I am concerned about how some posts get unnecessarily mean. We can have constructive criticism without being rude and unfriendly towards each other. That's the ideal at least.

13 minutes ago, MeingroessterFan said:

Before voting, I'd like everyone to take a step back, breathe in and out deeply and put whatever issues you might have with these forums into the larger context. Been on 4chan, like, ever? If not, never go there, it's awful. Or looked at any youtube comment section for some big youtube channel? People are massive dicks to each other on the internet, sadly that's just an all-encompassing truth. I think the main reasons are that 1) You're anonymous and can get away with saying things you couldn't simply say to somebody#s face irl, and 2) a lot of people using the internet are still pretty young, and thus don't quite grasp the concept of civil interaction. I'm not gonna demonize anyone for it, I've been a teenager once too, I did and said stupid things and am continuing to do so to this day, even. I regret a lot of it, and chances are these people will regret their behaviour too a few years down the line.

If anything, these forums right 'ere are one of the most pleasant and civil places I've come across; then again, I only browse some parts of it, so my experience may vary to yours. Personally, I've witnessed no decline in quality; take that for what it's worth. And also, in my experience, some people confuse honest and fair criticism for being rude; bringing constructive criticism to the table is one of the main purposes of forums like this one. Problems with games aren't going to point themselves out, that's the community's job. And I doubt Klei's games would be as great as they are without that input. 

Right, enough disjointed gassing from me. Hope you all have a fantastic day. :]

4Chan has a different customer base, I believe. The games are aimed at the more mature portion of the public, I feel, hence why the sudden increase in unnecessarily hostile posts both confuses and worries me. I admit they are largely made in General Discussion, then Feedback. Not sure what causes this. Take an innocent thing like skins from a few months ago. One troll suggested to turn them into purchasables, to some point, people were politely exchanging thoughts on this, then all hell broke loose. Some rude individuals were harassing nobody else but JoeW. Basically full-scale libel, including intimate life. And then we have posts which escalate into verbal fights devoid of the culture of discussion. Meanwhile - though I do not visit those areas on a regular basis - the singleplayer boards seem fairly "docile".

Nobody sane would ask people to have one opinion. But I think we can and ought to ask everybody to keep their wits about so that we have constructive criticism in a civil discussion rather than "Wut!!! You play the game wrong! How can anyone be that stupid not to get I'm The Only Sane Man!!!"...

[Joachim]

I personally don't see any problem with the forum as a whole.

[JoeW]

Moving this to off-topic. 

But, I have to point out. 

So much of what the reader can take out of what you read in text comes from the reader. And, your interpretation of what you read can affect what you write afterwards, spiraling into a heated discussion. 

Because people start to know each other and form opinions about each other, things start to feel "changed" because you start putting your opinions about those people into what you are reading. Also, it's summer. So we get a little more noise from younger posters who aren't as careful with their words. (Of which some of you were when you started here). 

This is probably the 4th generation of "Omg the forums" threads we have had so far. And I am pretty confident in my opinion that our forums are generally better than just about anywhere else of our size. We get somewhere around 20k unique people a day or something during quiet times of the year like now. 

I just ask that we all try to follow the rules and when somebody doesn't report it. =)

[An Artifact]

23 minutes ago, JoeW said:

Some very dapper words that I took out of this quote to save space.

You got it, chief.

[Arlesienne]

Quote

I am pretty confident in my opinion that our forums are generally better than just about anywhere else of our size. We get somewhere around 20k unique people a day or something during quiet times of the year like now.

I just ask that we all try to follow the rules and when somebody doesn't report it. =)

Definitely. We do need to make use of reporting tools rather than engage in heated arguments, methinks.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

14 hours ago, BluesyBuesy said:

Bu-bu-but.. these children mature, young men you speak of are being the objective voices of reason in the hugbox that is the Klei forums where everyone else is wallowing in their irrationality and feelings. Don't you know that objectivity is derived from one's personal desires and opinions?! GEEZ!!! You people and your emotions getting in the way of clear thinking. Now if only Klei weren't composed of a bunch of lazy bums with bad ideas.

*special note: These are merely my objective conclusions. If your feelings got hurt, I'm sorry for your misinterpretation; don't be mean to me because of it. :'/

 

*applauds sarcastically* way to not base that on anybody specific. This whole thing comes from the fact that others consider what I see from private property not as objective conclusion, but as mere opinion. And because people want their private property, no matter what, me being against it, no matter what I say is still just going to make it opinion; because people WANT it to be opinion, so it becomes it. Well, if my "opinion" on private property is something that will prevent people from being killed in the game due to other players' fault, stop land fill and make one's unused, abandoned stuff used by others, where as vice versa it will keep and create these problems, then how is it opinion?

So, apparently, I'm a 12-year old pre-teen, who shouts his guts out with every single post he makes... let me just go to my local authorities to change my birth certificate to say I was born in 2004, now shall I?

And I never said Klei were lazy. Their ideas are not bad and for the most part I have seen the content being belissimo, though on thing that could be improved one is that their approaches to balance could be better; I mean come on, fighting giants can easily become just a casual stroll around your house, or even more accurately like beating up a pinata that is somehow aggressive, but you don't fight it with your eyes closed... though I'm sure many of us could more or less (Deerclops, I'm looking at you).

15 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

Having been in conversations like this for decades, I admire the effort going into this discussion, but I think it's wasted. You won't get far telling some kid with minimal interpersonal skills who's convinced himself he's a fearless truth-teller that he needs to take it down a notch because he's getting on everyone's nerves. When someone only wants to engage on their own terms, it's best not to engage at all, if possible, until they learn by observation how considerate, respectful adults interact with each other.

Debates about communication style only tend to work on fairly self-aware people. Otherwise, you're just feeding the beast by making the unsocialized person feel important and controversial and therefore courageous. It's a bit like dealing with a tantruming child: you don't want to respond to the bad behavior at all because that just reinforces it. Instead, use positive reinforcement by rewarding mature behavior with attention and interaction while acting as if the poor behavior doesn't even exist. Besides, we're talking about forum posts here, not real-world annoyances that are a lot harder to just skip over if they're bringing you down.

14 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

No, you're certainly not vilifying anyone. You're trying to explain how reciprocal, considerate conversation works. But I think you're trying to explain it to persons who probably can't understand or accept that sort of explanation, and so I think you might have better results if you don't respond to or engage with the behavior that bothers you. Instead, respond positively to behavior that's going in the right direction: Positive reinforcement. 

You're assuming I don't learn, like at all. Thanks for the slander. No, but sincerely; thank you! I needed that (jk). I was about to get into Arseliene's recommendation of politeness theory and beforehand read every single post of this thread from my very last post here before responding and then thought about how I could construct my post so it isn't taken the wrong way. Would you not consider that as progress?

14 hours ago, Rellimarual said:

The truly funny thing is, there's no reason to be in a forum if you don't want to interact with other people because it gratifies some need that is emotional. 

To that I would agree, though I don't think it's a good idea to depend on the forums as your go-to place of coziness.

15 hours ago, Arlesienne said:

I beg your pardon, what language? I certainly did not intend it to be offensive. Explain what you do not understand please and I will do my best to clarify.

On 3.1, consider this: a griefer burns a base. The world you are currently experiencing is bad. Do you simply ignore it? Because I believe you try to do something positive about it, for instance gather evidence to report this individual to the admin. This is how we make the world better, bit by bit. Or do you disagree?

3.2: I'm afraid there are people who do not agree that, if someone treating us rudely in a discussion does not offend us, it justifies their actions (and I believe they are worth hearing out). Personally, a lot of things turn from frustration to bewilderment/amusement with time for me, but knowing it is just my luck, I prefer not to expose others to such stimuli. If you want an example: I adore ridiculing badly-written films. But I am aware of the fact most of my family members dislike me doing that. So I duly shut my mouth even though I would love nothing more than to ruthlessly deconstruct that Mary Sue played by this pretty starlet.

4.1: you're warmly welcome.

4.2: the theory evolves around the premises of communication without losing face. You can use various devices to get your statements across without making your interlocutor uncomfortable. It works a bit differently within different cultures, but the foundations are the same. Brown is an anthropological linguist, Levinson - a social scientist, so the theory is deeply rooted in Humanities. I worry I may bore people to death with it here. If a moderator thinks it is fine to elaborate, however, I can with pleasure. Otherwise any interested parties may want to send me a note: I can suggest further reading, even attach some articles. TL;DR: the Brown-Levinson politeness theory is essential in discussion.

What? Offensive? To me? You must be joking xD You might make Joe cry for being rude to me, but certainly not me myself. What I meant is that you're using obscure words and phrase some things in a way that just makes me go back to and re-read what you've written multiple times and still not understand what you mean; basically makes no sense to me, so I then need to ask you to reiterate, which I do, although I'd prefer if a topic doesn't get filled with "What? What? What? What?" posts.

3.1 You're not really going to make the world a better place, but you will certainly be making an attempt at making the game a better place, I'd say. 

3.2 Mkay, I understand. Although, one problem that kind of coincides with a lot of rules on bad behaviour pretty much everywhere on the internet is that being banned is basically a curse; you cannot speak at all even much later on due to your past mistakes. You come 2 years later, you come 10 years later; you'll STILL be banned for your mistakes and quite often, there is no way of redemption. The curse of the ban is permanent. I am not sure what could be done with this though, but the thing is people change and banning people forever would be like assuming they're a bad egg that will stay a bad egg till the end of their days. <= I honestly did not anticipate me getting so deep into this, what the heck?

4.2 I'm quite intrigued, actually, so if you don't want to post about it in this topic, perhaps you could elaborate in a PM for me. I'm quite often interested into various sciency topics, especially space  though other subjects are quite intriguing as well, be it about how we and other things behave in various different ways, what discoveries we've made or how something works at a molecular level. Sometimes I research things myself that comes out of my weird curiosity, sometimes I just stumble upon a SciShow or a Vsauce video that has an interesting subject at hand.

Also, what do you have to say on my first and second points? N-nothing?

[Asparagus]

...

Oh... There's a poll?

I automatically scroll down to the first post...

...

<.<

>.>

<.<

O__O

*doesn't vote*