The spread of Toxic Negativity in the B&C community

[Special Officer Doofy]

Except, Slave to Darkness's post was EXACTLY what Orange Knight is talking about.

 

Now, before I go into this, I will state outright: I believe RedComet's response to Slave to Darkness was absolutely wrong and should not have been posted.

 

Ok, with that out the way, lets get in to it:

 

Slave to Darkness posted in a thread discussing the announcement of the new Eldar vs Chaos box set. Their comment did not add anything to the discussion about the announcement of the new Eldar vs Chaos box set, it was just unnecessary negativity about a tangentially related aspect that was not constructive in any way whatsoever. All it did was add to the "air of negativity" that other users are describing.

 

All Slave to Darkness did was air out a grievance with GW about their way of speaking on social media that didn't need to be aired out. Yes RedComet was in the wrong, but Slave to Darkness was also in the wrong for posting an unnecessary, unconstructive negative comment.

But what I'm saying is only one is "toxic". I don't know or talk to either of these frater. I just happened to read the thread before hand. Both comments could come off as "unnecessary, unconstructive or negative". I won't argue that. But only one comment was directed at a fellow frater as an insult and "toxic". I don't mind negativity. We all obviously like 40k enough to join a forum about them. Everyone feels some form of entitlement to the game because of how much time and money we invest in them. That's why people are so critical of GW. If a stranger were to rip me off, I would be upset. If a family or friend were to rip me off, I would be even more upset because I care more about them and hold them to a higher standard. Complaining about GW or a decision they do is far less "toxic" than a direct attack/insult to a fellow frater for a difference in opinion.

[Schlitzaf]

You often go into various threads calling the Space Marine line is bloated due to Primaris adding additional wargear or weaponry which are nearly identical or the same weapon. And this is despite the fact that many times you get or got called out on that the various differing wargear or bolter weaponry which are similar but fundamentally different. Gives GW leverage to balance or edit units without causing cascading effects elsewhere. Their is discussion that could be had here. There could be talk. Incursor/Infilitrator Bolter differences I find incredibly silly.

 

I am making a statement based on fact: If Carbines/AutoboltRifle were not a seperate weapon GW simpky giving the ABR an extra attack. Would have required thinkjng how it affected the Reivar Datasheet. Additionally the Stalker, was made so armies more sedentary nature had a themetic bolter option. Should Reivars gotten buffed to 3A Bolter Weaponry. Maybe. But GW decide balance best served by not doing that. A decision only made plausible by not having then sams Assault Type Bolter Weapon.

 

And yes that post is explicitly talking about the designers. Its explicitly saying tbe designer who cooked up that weapon design is explicitly a druggie. And how it got past design stage could only possibly be approved by a druggie. Furthermore meaning the only way that design could be thought as a good design by someone else has to be also be explicitly a druggie. At which point you have to not just defend the balance, but reasonability, and proving tour not “I want OP toys”.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Schlitzaf

[RWJP]

 

But what I'm saying is only one is "toxic". I don't know or talk to either of these frater. I just happened to read the thread before hand. Both comments could come off as "unnecessary, unconstructive or negative". I won't argue that. But only one comment was directed at a fellow frater as an insult and "toxic". I don't mind negativity. We all obviously like 40k enough to join a forum about them. Everyone feels some form of entitlement to the game because of how much time and money we invest in them. That's why people are so critical of GW. If a stranger were to rip me off, I would be upset. If a family or friend were to rip me off, I would be even more upset because I care more about them and hold them to a higher standard. Complaining about GW or a decision they do is far less "toxic" than a direct attack/insult to a fellow frater for a difference in opinion.

 

We'll need to agree to disagree then. I believe both posts were toxic, for different reasons.

 

RedComet's post was toxic because it was directly attacking another frater.

 

Slave to Darkness's post was also toxic because it added unconstructive, unnecessary negativity to the thread in an irrelevant manner. It was also toxic, because it generated further toxicity in response.

 

Complaining about GW and the things they do is fine, when it is relevant and constructive to do so. Complaining for the sake of complaining isn't and just adds to the general air of negativity that other people have described. As I said, I feel that is the root cause of the issue, people seem to be less able to differentiate between when it's relevant and appropriate to say something and when it isn't.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

And the next time before you post something about Primaris please think first if it’s really worth it. Thanks.

I'm sorry Schlitzaf, but this sort of thing is asking for a safe space. If it's part of the discussion, like what I said about having 6 different bolters being a terrible example of bloat caused by GW, then it's relevant.

 

The alternative is no one can say anything GW does is wrong regarding Primaris less it offends someone, which in turn means no one can say "drop Firstborn" less it offends someone, or more pertinent as many of the people posting here are doing this elsewhere...

 

No one can criticise GW for the new Rail Gun less it offends Tau players.

 

See how clamping down on speech is a problem?

 

The thing is you tend to say the same things quite often… we all know how you feel about them. Sure if it’s something new and on point then great but repetitious complaints isn’t healthy imo. Think about it… lol

[Captain Idaho]

@ Schlitzaf: or maybe the post wasn't about drugs really but was sarcastic?

 

And again, you've missed the point. There is discussion to be had about the bolters being bloat because people DONT agree. (If you think it's ever raised off topic then go report them)

 

What you're saying is the reason is finalised and any discussion around that doesn't match that finalised decision you made, well it's wrong and therefore Primaris bashing.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[phandaal]

 

 

But what I'm saying is only one is "toxic". I don't know or talk to either of these frater. I just happened to read the thread before hand. Both comments could come off as "unnecessary, unconstructive or negative". I won't argue that. But only one comment was directed at a fellow frater as an insult and "toxic". I don't mind negativity. We all obviously like 40k enough to join a forum about them. Everyone feels some form of entitlement to the game because of how much time and money we invest in them. That's why people are so critical of GW. If a stranger were to rip me off, I would be upset. If a family or friend were to rip me off, I would be even more upset because I care more about them and hold them to a higher standard. Complaining about GW or a decision they do is far less "toxic" than a direct attack/insult to a fellow frater for a difference in opinion.

 

We'll need to agree to disagree then. I believe both posts were toxic, for different reasons.

 

RedComet's post was toxic because it was directly attacking another frater.

 

Slave to Darkness's post was also toxic because it added unconstructive, unnecessary negativity to the thread in an irrelevant manner. It was also toxic, because it generated further toxicity in response.

 

Complaining about GW and the things they do is fine, when it is relevant and constructive to do so. Complaining for the sake of complaining isn't and just adds to the general air of negativity that other people have described. As I said, I feel that is the root cause of the issue, people seem to be less able to differentiate between when it's relevant and appropriate to say something and when it isn't.

Gonna pare things down a bit:

 

- Negative comment directed at Games Workshop

 

- Negative comment directed at another user

 

Not the same.

 

Yeah?

[Schlitzaf]

Or maybe the post wasn't about drugs really but was sarcastic?

And again, you've missed the point. There is discussion to be had about the bolters being bloat because people DONT agree. (If you think it's ever raised off topic then go report them)

What you're saying is the reason is finalised and any discussion around that doesn't match that finalised decision you made, well it's wrong and therefore Primaris bashing.

Or maybe I know the internet, yes its sarcastic. Its a comedic intent in same as “That is gay”. Sure that might be not an intended insult to gay people nor meant to cause emotional stress. But when that is the bile of converstation I see? And a moderator in the same topic posting nearby. Suddenly that bile is acceptable. And it feels ackward to disagree. Espacially when the posts get dogpiling supports. Call something overpowered, call it broken. Whatever.

 

Just because “its a joke” doesn’t mean something is acceptable.

 

And yes that is discussion to be had on bolter weaponry, go make a new thread explaining why redundant amount of bolter type weapons is redundant. You don’t need to add every Primaris, Rules update, or otherwise bemoaning your annoyance.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Schlitzaf

[RWJP]

 

 

But what I'm saying is only one is "toxic". I don't know or talk to either of these frater. I just happened to read the thread before hand. Both comments could come off as "unnecessary, unconstructive or negative". I won't argue that. But only one comment was directed at a fellow frater as an insult and "toxic". I don't mind negativity. We all obviously like 40k enough to join a forum about them. Everyone feels some form of entitlement to the game because of how much time and money we invest in them. That's why people are so critical of GW. If a stranger were to rip me off, I would be upset. If a family or friend were to rip me off, I would be even more upset because I care more about them and hold them to a higher standard. Complaining about GW or a decision they do is far less "toxic" than a direct attack/insult to a fellow frater for a difference in opinion.

We'll need to agree to disagree then. I believe both posts were toxic, for different reasons.

 

RedComet's post was toxic because it was directly attacking another frater.

 

Slave to Darkness's post was also toxic because it added unconstructive, unnecessary negativity to the thread in an irrelevant manner. It was also toxic, because it generated further toxicity in response.

 

Complaining about GW and the things they do is fine, when it is relevant and constructive to do so. Complaining for the sake of complaining isn't and just adds to the general air of negativity that other people have described. As I said, I feel that is the root cause of the issue, people seem to be less able to differentiate between when it's relevant and appropriate to say something and when it isn't.

Gonna pare things down a bit:

 

- Negative comment directed at Games Workshop

 

- Negative comment directed at another user

 

Not the same.

 

Yeah?

 

Ok, I think I will leave this here and make use of the block function that so many others in this thread have recommended. It's abundantly clear you are not reading what I am saying or willing to listen to my viewpoint. I have very clearly stated at least three times that I believe RedComet was in the wrong and that their comment was toxic.

 

What I am saying is that you and I have different views on what is and isn't toxic. And because you and I have different views on what is and isn't toxic, it's also very likely that many other people have a different definition of what is toxic to your definition.

 

While a comment directed at a company and a comment directed at a Frater may or may not be different doesn't suddenly magically mean that one can't be toxic.

 

I gave my reasoning and explanation of that in the comment you replied to. I suggest you go back and read it.

 

[Brother Tyler]

It's clearly time for us to take a break, breathe, and think about what people are saying.

 

Time out for now.

[Brother Tyler]

The diversity within the community is immense. We come from a wide range of nationalities, ethnicities, philosophies, social backgrounds, educational backgrounds, occupational backgrounds, etc. We don’t all see the world or the hobby in the same way, nor should we. Agreeing with others is not a requirement here, nor will it ever be because that would undermine the free and open discussion that is part and parcel of what occurs here. Disagreement is a natural part of free and open discussion and differing viewpoints. However, when disagreements happen, they should be respectful and constructive. Disagreement isn’t inherently negative.

 

The majority of discussion here is based on subjective issues and viewpoints. In cases of subjectivity there isn’t necessarily a “correct” conclusion that can be drawn – two opposing viewpoints can be equally valid. In such cases, we must allow opposing viewpoints to be stated without ridicule or dismissal. It is natural to want to defend our position, to counter a view with which we disagree, to attempt to persuade others to our way of thinking, to defend ourselves when we perceive that we are being attacked. Constructive and respectful behavior, however, demands that we similarly allow those with differing viewpoints to do the same. In the end, when we can’t agree on issues, we must strive to do so in a respectful manner.

 

Oftentimes, members will make arguments that are poor. These may be based on false premises, poor argumentation, or simply poor articulation. Sometimes these poor arguments lack credibility and can be easily countered. At other times, poor argumentation or articulation may undermine an otherwise valid point. In these cases, it is important to help the member to clarify and correct, revising a poorly made (but valid) argument into a strongly made argument. This can be by clarifying and correcting specific points, reframing arguments, supporting conclusions, etc. Providing counterarguments is perfectly acceptable, and we would be remiss in our duties if we simply allowed incorrect information to pass without correction. When there is a core truth to an otherwise poorly worded argument, however, we should not lose sight of that core truth, nor should we allow it to be dismissed out of hand.

 

This discussion is an example of where we have failed both individually and collectively in living up to the standards of the community. A member took the time to post a thoughtful observation of an issue that has been bothering him and which he thinks is important enough to address with the community. Admittedly, there are some inadequacies to the arguments that the member makes. The crux of the argument, however, is valid. “Negativity” can be somewhat subjective, and “toxicity” even more so. It is eminently fair to provide counterarguments, but to deny that these problems exist or that we can’t do better is ludicrous.

 

Many of the countering replies in this discussion are fair and valid, but far too many attack what should not be attacked and defend what should not be defended. It is natural to believe that we are in the right; and when someone comes along and says otherwise, it is natural and instinctive to immediately defend our actions. Usually, however, it is better to sit back and consider whether or not there is any validity to the opposing viewpoint. More importantly, when someone identifies a perceived negative behavior and that we might complicit in that behavior, it is imperative that we step back. Rationalizing behavior that others call out, deflecting, casually dismissing arguments, etc. are negative behaviors that undermine our credibility.

 

We are all human, after all. As mere mortals, we are all prone to occasional failings and misunderstandings.

 

Being open to criticism, whether external or internal, is an essential element of emotional and intellectual maturity. Only through self-assessment can we improve ourselves, not only as individuals, but also as a community. This discussion, flawed though it is (and there are flaws on both sides of the debate), is a prime opportunity for self-assessment and improvement. We as a community need to support this effort and guide it toward a positive outcome. Correcting flaws in arguments is certainly part of that, but it is only a small part. It is far more important that we admit that there is a problem with negativity and toxicity and we both demonstrate ways in which we can correct our own failings as well as develop solutions to help the community to improve.

 

Some members will cling to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the negativity or toxicity (or that the quantity of these is not problematic), and they will defend their own negative and toxic behaviors. Worse, they’ll bring those negative and toxic behaviors to the discussion. Creating a “safe space” is a ridiculous notion and not on the table, but we can temper some of the more obvious negative and toxic behaviors. We won’t remove them entirely, but we can reduce them to ensure that the community remains aligned with the mission statement.

 

All of us can do better, and we owe it to the community to strive to be better.

[Slave to Darkness]

I did comment in another post yesterday, and Ill re iterate here, I am sorry if my posts have been negative here, didnt wanna bum anyone out. Im not going to hide behind my mental health or my personal issues I am dealing with even though some are hobby community related, I have been a bit of an ass especially in the news/Primaris threads and Im sorry guys. Im only human and the B&C is the only thing I have at the moment to take my mind off of everything, I didnt mean for some of the bad juju to rub off on my posts here. 

 

I would like to make a point though regarding Frater here and how they come across, just because they are a bit of a downer in the news sections doesnt mean they are like that everywhere, Im usually very positive in the Chaos threads, when the ETL kicks off I am always trying to keep the chaos team motivated and try to help them avoid burnout, Im semi active in the Guard section but I am still finding my feet with them so I avoid rules/tactics threads and I just update my army thread and give a 'well done' when the few Guard posters actually update. Im not trying to blow my own trumpet, just pointing out people dont always post the same kind of things across the whole forum. Ishagu is someone I usually sparked with over the Primaris/Firstborn debate to the point his attitude was 'Im right your wrong the future is now old man' but elsewhere here we got on like a house on fire, even the Smurf vs Word Bearers banter durin the ETL was good hearted between us, mention templates though and we would be at each others throat.

There has been people in this very thread that I have clashed with but I love their army logs and would love to play against them some time, the news and rumors section is a small part of the B&C, and peoples attitudes here are not representative of them as a hobbyist, just consumers who are happy or sad with a company, end of the day we have put a lot of time and money into this, and when people feel like a company is pissing us about people like to vent, no different to religious or political opinions that everybody is fighting so hard for these days, someone upsets us we let people know, people have a right to rant, but I agree that we could think about how we structure our posts. Many people used an interaction between myself and Redcomet as correct and toxic behaviour, we were both right and both wrong there, I was miserable and insulted a company and others said he then insulted me, or you could say I was being a misery as usual and could have worded my post a bit better than I did and he called me out for it as he should have. Again that interaction could be taken 2 ways because of peoples opinions on who was right or wrong, he could have worded his answer a bit less insulting but I could have said something other than GW bad... 

Were better than this guys, each and every one of you weirdos are like some weird dysfunctional family, and think about the poor mods having to deal with this :lol:

 

I think that makes sense, I hope so, I have not long woken up with back ache and the painkillers have not kicked in yet so my train of thought is a bit skatty atm.

 

Basically, I recognise my failing and will be sure to correct it.

 

 

Next ETL I bet team Chaos paint more than every Primaris collector combined :D 

[phandaal]

Anyone else who wants to be right all the time can always just agree with me, but failing that we could probably all remember to "hunt the good stuff" a little more in addition to commenting on what we do or do not like.

 

Also please keep in mind that criticism of Games Workshop is not criticism of anyone here, nor is praise of something we may dislike a comment on our own tastes.

 

This is still the best 40k forum I have found. Thank you all for giving me a nice place to shoot the :cuss about my hobby.

[Doghouse]

In fact, I want to voice my absolute displeasure at the advice that came my way from multiple users on this forum, in this very topic:

 

"Use the block button if you disagree with someone's views"

 

What a terrible thing to say. Different opinions hold the best potential for interesting discourse. Blocking users should only be for those that are abusive. This isn't an invitation for the toxic negativity I want us to tackle, because repeated, negative complaining is not constructive nor is it a discussion.

 

 

 

Speaking as one of the five or six that suggested using the block button I really do not appreciate you twisting my words like that. If you cannot get through your argument to the other party and the other party is causing you distress then blocking is a valid suggestion and everyone saying it was trying to be helpful.

 

No one is talking about censoring opposing viewpoints, we're offering a valid suggestion and to imply otherwise is not only not fair it comes across as being disingenuous.

[jaxom]

Quote

Captain Idaho, on 30 Dec 2021 - 09:26 AM, said:
@ jaxom

Interesting points there. One thing I noticed in the last one you raised is the perceived negativity is because people often feel like they're being attacked?
*SNIP*

What other solutions can people think of to slow down a topic you might feel upset by?

I actually think disengaging with something you didn't find constructive but Re-engage with posts that are, is a fine way to encourage better posting habits (turns out I am a better mod that people might give credit for eh  )

 

 

Quote

Schlitzaf, on 30 Dec 2021 - 09:58 AM, said:

*SNIP*

For example “smoking crack” example given Idaho. Let us say we genuinely disagree. I’ll use latest Hammerhead. If you look at the math, did you realize that essentially depending on what gou are shooting or wounding (depending if we assume 3+ or 4+ base to hit) you are looking at 60-75% kill chance vs 10W T7 unit? If its T8 goes 50-60%. That is actually somewhat unreliable. Meaning looking at 2 Hammerheads for reliability. A Hammerhead likely a standard T7 10-12W 3+ chassis. Meaning most armies can drop one of those a turn easy. So you likely want 3.

But I have to be a “crackhead” to think that is reasonable.

*SNIP*

Sorry I tangent: I feel those argueing or saying “Not Safe Space” are missing the point. The incredible amount of negativity, and at times True Fans (see converter discussions) is very offputing. And are trying to avoid the bush instead of engaging the bush. My 0.2 cents (maybe final post on this thread)

One of the harder things for some of my students to differentiate was the difference between a safe space and a civil space (in part because mass media has been using the two interchangeably and they're not). A safe space is a mutually agreed upon area, discussion, or group where vulnerability is recognized, respected, and protected; it's about the relationship between actors, not the acts. A civil space is an area, discussion, or group where the goal is not necessarily to reach a conclusion, but to give voice to a variety of different views while maintaining separation of the views and the people. This gives rise to a modified form of unconditional positive regard: one can accept the person and assume they are acting with positive intent because the view is its own actionable portion for discourse. Psychologist Kenneth J. Gergen called civil discourse, "the language of dispassionate objectivity," because it requires an appreciation for all participants's experiences and an awareness that experience shapes perspective.


A key part of civil discourse is separating experience from conclusion and that is partly on the speaker. The conclusion has to be actionable, so it can be engaged with separate from the experience (while acknowledging the experience):

• The original "GW designers are on crack" comment: - Nothing to engage with other than the poster thinks the design is dumb.
• The discussion-positive post - Experience informed opinion that non-interactivity (opponent does something and there's nothing to stop the process) is hated. Concluded the rule design is a similar issue because it doesn't realistically allow any save and wounds many things on a low roll.
• First part of Schlitzaf's post - Experience informed opinion that it's the statistical effectiveness that we should be looking at. Concluded that, given its likely targets, it's not as worrisome.

I can appreciate the experiences of the contributors and separately agree, disagree, or ponder the conclusions they've made. I can't do that with the "crack comment."

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Excellent points made by Brother Tyler ! Especially regarding what is and what is not a safe place.

[Marshal Rohr]

The BnC is by far, the BEST 40K forum on the internet hands down. I’ve been here since I was a teenager and it’s the only website I check as frequently as social media. Do topics get hot or devolve into arguing? Sure. That’s the nature of the beast, but the mods and admins have a pretty firm grip on it which is what keep everything above board. Is it annoying to have the same arguments over and over again? Sure. That’s everything though, not just our miniatures. Toxicity is like spice, everyone has their own subjective threshold, but I’d much rather come here and skim past some arguments than be inundated with memes on Reddit or be subjected to dissertations on why painting X faction is violence on Twitter. This place is an institution.

[Slave to Darkness]

As for advising to block people myself, I meant that as an extreme measure, not if someones opinion differs but if they really get under your skin. I have only blocked a few users here, and most of those are users that have tried using the hobby as a springboard to shoehorn in their real life beliefs (blocked regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, Im here for toy soldiers not politics), and one user whos whole attitude was he is right, everyones wrong and ends every post with the rolling eyes emoji like he is better than every one here. Funny though all the people I have blocked have not really been active with posting their minis or anything, so really I wont miss out on anything elsewhere on the boards. The Jeske being the biggest offender in my eyes, I am only naming him publicly as he is no longer a member, but every interaction with him was 'dont use that squad, its sub par you NEED to play this way or your crap at the game, your not doing warhammer right your stupid,  your free hands crap this is good freehand *shows picture of GD winners mini* oh I dont play GW is to Capitalist for me and a rip off but Ill advise you instead. That attitude really made me want to quit, no matter what I shared I had actual toxic people :cussting on me, if it wasnt for Forte, Apologist, Doghouse, Kierdale, Squigsquasher and a few others I think I would have left not long after joining because of it.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’ve blocked around 10 users here… they just had a habit of nasty replies borderline ad hominem and it’s one less thing to deal with now.

[Slave to Darkness]

I’ve blocked around 10 users here… they just had a habit of nasty replies borderline ad hominem and it’s one less thing to deal with now.

Hell we have disagreed on a fair few things before, but I'd never block you for it because you do talk a lot of sense, and you have made great posts on unrelated things elsewhere here. I couldnt block you because you add to the community experience for me here and I value your opinion even if I dont agree, because to use your point, you dont just reply the same thing over and over.  :) 

 

I think a lot of us here need to think before typing, Im just as guilty, thats why the past few days I have tried wording my negative comments with a spin, this is meh but that I dont mind, or if others are negative over a new release Ill ask them if theres anything they DO like about it.

 

Ill admit something now, I hate Primaris and the way GW introduced them, but that Ancient mini, thats nice, and the Black Templars, :cuss me those look amazing!!! But I didnt have internet when they dropped so no one saw me loose my mind over an actual Primaris release, still wont buy them though, too expensive and they will be out of scale with the rest of my collection, but I think they are the best Marine sculpts GW have done since Primaris were a thing. 

[The Neverborn]

I've not blocked anyone.

 

Maybe some people have blocked me, but i'd be more concerned about living in an unbeknownst echo chamber than dealing with an Ad hominem, Tree-man etc. etc.

 

It's not a guarantee that if someone is using one of these their point is incorrect.

 

Is it an  Ad hominem to say someone who is using an Ad hominem is incorrect?

 

Don't actually discuss that.

 

Back to the thread.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Battle Brother Abderus

[Slave to Darkness]

 

 

Don't actually discuss that.

 

Back to the thread.

:lol: 

 

That actually made me laugh... Ahh I needed that. :) 

[Domhnall]

I do agree with the general idea that there can be a bit too much negativity on the forum at time, and usually regarding the same topics.

Now, negative comments that are constructive and relative to the post are perfectly fine. We dont want to have a Forum of back slapping, self congratulatory, GW fan Bois, because not everybody is going to like everything GW does. That's fine. It's when people then start sniping at each other because they had free will and liked a thing GW did (or didn't like it, I've seen both). That's not cool.

We can also take comments a bit too personally at times, seeing an attack where there wasn't one (I'm also guilty of this!), which also kicks things off.

 

We're an online forum of strangers, so let's be civil about our disagreements so we can remain above the riff raff of other Internet forums :-D

 

* Edit

One thing I have found useful when I've been in a 'discussion' with someone, is asking or trying to get clarification on a certain point that they have. Understanding a view they have can help the conversation stay civil, in that you may still disagree, but at least you know that neither of you is necessarily wrong (or even find that you yourself has been unreasonable).

Edited January 1, 2022 by Domhnall

[Brother Lunkhead]

I can't really block anyone. I'm not allowed to.....   

[Scribe]

I cant actually go into the benefits of the Block, without simply spreading negativity. ;)

 

New year and all that, so lets rejoice and just be cool. Thats my mantra (for the next few hours).

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

The diversity within the community is immense. We come from a wide range of nationalities, ethnicities, philosophies, social backgrounds, educational backgrounds, occupational backgrounds, etc. We don’t all see the world or the hobby in the same way, nor should we. Agreeing with others is not a requirement here, nor will it ever be because that would undermine the free and open discussion that is part and parcel of what occurs here. Disagreement is a natural part of free and open discussion and differing viewpoints. However, when disagreements happen, they should be respectful and constructive. Disagreement isn’t inherently negative.

 

The majority of discussion here is based on subjective issues and viewpoints. In cases of subjectivity there isn’t necessarily a “correct” conclusion that can be drawn – two opposing viewpoints can be equally valid. In such cases, we must allow opposing viewpoints to be stated without ridicule or dismissal. It is natural to want to defend our position, to counter a view with which we disagree, to attempt to persuade others to our way of thinking, to defend ourselves when we perceive that we are being attacked. Constructive and respectful behavior, however, demands that we similarly allow those with differing viewpoints to do the same. In the end, when we can’t agree on issues, we must strive to do so in a respectful manner.

 

Oftentimes, members will make arguments that are poor. These may be based on false premises, poor argumentation, or simply poor articulation. Sometimes these poor arguments lack credibility and can be easily countered. At other times, poor argumentation or articulation may undermine an otherwise valid point. In these cases, it is important to help the member to clarify and correct, revising a poorly made (but valid) argument into a strongly made argument. This can be by clarifying and correcting specific points, reframing arguments, supporting conclusions, etc. Providing counterarguments is perfectly acceptable, and we would be remiss in our duties if we simply allowed incorrect information to pass without correction. When there is a core truth to an otherwise poorly worded argument, however, we should not lose sight of that core truth, nor should we allow it to be dismissed out of hand.

 

This discussion is an example of where we have failed both individually and collectively in living up to the standards of the community. A member took the time to post a thoughtful observation of an issue that has been bothering him and which he thinks is important enough to address with the community. Admittedly, there are some inadequacies to the arguments that the member makes. The crux of the argument, however, is valid. “Negativity” can be somewhat subjective, and “toxicity” even more so. It is eminently fair to provide counterarguments, but to deny that these problems exist or that we can’t do better is ludicrous.

 

Many of the countering replies in this discussion are fair and valid, but far too many attack what should not be attacked and defend what should not be defended. It is natural to believe that we are in the right; and when someone comes along and says otherwise, it is natural and instinctive to immediately defend our actions. Usually, however, it is better to sit back and consider whether or not there is any validity to the opposing viewpoint. More importantly, when someone identifies a perceived negative behavior and that we might complicit in that behavior, it is imperative that we step back. Rationalizing behavior that others call out, deflecting, casually dismissing arguments, etc. are negative behaviors that undermine our credibility.

 

We are all human, after all. As mere mortals, we are all prone to occasional failings and misunderstandings.

 

Being open to criticism, whether external or internal, is an essential element of emotional and intellectual maturity. Only through self-assessment can we improve ourselves, not only as individuals, but also as a community. This discussion, flawed though it is (and there are flaws on both sides of the debate), is a prime opportunity for self-assessment and improvement. We as a community need to support this effort and guide it toward a positive outcome. Correcting flaws in arguments is certainly part of that, but it is only a small part. It is far more important that we admit that there is a problem with negativity and toxicity and we both demonstrate ways in which we can correct our own failings as well as develop solutions to help the community to improve.

 

Some members will cling to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the negativity or toxicity (or that the quantity of these is not problematic), and they will defend their own negative and toxic behaviors. Worse, they’ll bring those negative and toxic behaviors to the discussion. Creating a “safe space” is a ridiculous notion and not on the table, but we can temper some of the more obvious negative and toxic behaviors. We won’t remove them entirely, but we can reduce them to ensure that the community remains aligned with the mission statement.

 

All of us can do better, and we owe it to the community to strive to be better.

 

I will answer in the most negative and toxic way I can: no.

 

And I will not elaborate further, just like you do not elaborate why "negativity" and "toxicity" are problematic, but take it for granted as some sort of dogma. Just like you announce from the hights of your moral supremacy that by denying validity of OP's points "we have failed both individually and collectively".  Not only that, but you do not provide us with any definition of these terms, admitting yourself that they are subjective. Therefore, I don't even know what are you talking about, when you expect me to condemn "negativity" and "toxicity". Instead you drown these undefined terms in the sauce of patronising moralism and truisms about proper discussion, in an attempt to mask how hollow the main point of your "argument" is. I put argument in quotation marks, because you do not argue anything, - you preach to us some sort of Revealed Truth.

You claim that "creating a “safe space” is a ridiculous notion and not on the table" and yet the only advice you give is "when someone identifies a perceived negative behavior and that we might complicit in that behavior, it is imperative that we step back". So  when someone throws in my face accusation of toxicity you want me just to agree with him? And if I contest this accusation, it is "negative behavior"? What kind of twisted logic is this? This is how this forum is moderated?

 

My comment is confrontational, unconstructive, rude and toxic, but  yours is an applause seeking blob of buzzwords. Enjoy your likes.