The spread of Toxic Negativity in the B&C community

[Monstra Sumus]

 

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.

 

 

I can hear the melta coming. 

 

This discussion has been fairly moderate until this. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to be...belligerent in such a fashion. This thread has been a great resource for people to air their building tensions in a somewhat healthy way. Then there is the above post. 

 

If you don't like it just leave. There is no need to announce your departure and no need to leave the soapbox behind. 

[Slave to Darkness]

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

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.

I can hear the melta coming.

 

This discussion has been fairly moderate until this. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to be...belligerent in such a fashion. This thread has been a great resource for people to air their building tensions in a somewhat healthy way. Then there is the above post.

 

If you don't like it just leave. There is no need to announce your departure and no need to leave the soapbox behind.

“If you don’t like it just leave.” Is exactly how you get an echo chamber.

 

One thing this thread should’ve shown us and encouraged us to do is moderate how we address one and other. I’m not in favour or against either of the positions just mentioned, both have made some excellent points but encouraging people to leave rather than at least trying to address their grievances benefits no one.

[Inquisitor lorr]

 

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.

Well, if you were trying to prove OP’s point, well done. That was mostly, if not entirely, unnecessary.

 

Separately, my view on this is that the arguments/examples in this thread have been taken to somewhat of an extreme by both sides and perhaps the OP’s use of ‘toxicity’ wasn’t helpful. However, on a simpler level, I agree with the OP - there has of late been, in my view, a growing sense of negativity in a lot of ‘general discussion’ threads (for want of a better phrase). It has certainly impacted on the time I spend here (which is mostly lurking). Whilst I understand the need to vent, I really think the “am I adding anything constructive test?” that others have mentioned should always be at the forefront of everyone’s minds (and not just on this forum!). Applying that sense check would probably filter out a lot of the negativity for negativity’s sake posts (and a lot of other posts which add little to what is a wonderful community and resource).

[Wulf Vengis]

I have stayed quiet because i recognize my "negativity" and where it is aimed but also why I am negative to the things i am.

 

I don't hate primaris, i generally love the look and scale of most primaris models. I hate how GW chose to release them both from a fluff standpoint and marketing/sales. But there's nothing that can be done about that aside from accept it and vent my frustrations when/where appropriate (my own plog threads). If i can form that venting into a constructive post i will But if i can't i try not to be too negative and just express my concerns.

 

Regarding Ayatollahs response: I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying get this closed back down or give a good example of "toxicity", but THAT post, whew boy. That was the best example of toxicity i have seen outside of one of those meltdowns you see on YouTube.

 

NOTE: I had more...but i have kids and they won't let keep the train on its thought rails and with this thread rapidly circling the drain I'll never get it remembered and typed before it locks for good.

 

BOTTOMLINE: Were all here to have a good time and as someone else said MOST of the negativity (that i see and yes occasionally take part in) comes from the NR&A section of the forum. You know, the place where people get the first taste of anything new. The place where people are going to post their initial reactions to new stuff. It can't be helped that there will inevitably negative comments, reactions and posts just add there will be positive ones. The fact we're seeing more negative comments isn't toxicity it's just the fanbase reacting to what they're seeing with the (long-reaching) memory of GWs prior actions tainting our view of the things shown.

Annnd train crash...

Blasted kids...

 

If is open layer I'll try and fix this in a future post.

[Khornestar]

 

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.

 

 

All you've done is make it obvious the only opinion you value is your own. Intentionally toxic, stated as such. But what do you care, right?

Edited January 1, 2022 by Khornestar

[Blindhamster]

So I wrote this when the post got closed the first time, was meant to post when it got reopened but sadly came down with the dreaded virus and spent all day in bed today… wasn’t going to post because the thread seemed to be going in a better direction, however looks like it devolved again with an excellent example of an unhelpful post… being confrontational isn’t helpful, being silenced isn’t either but being asked to try and articulate problems like a mature adult is..

 

 

honestly this thread just proves the point. Yet another thread devolved into arguing and poking at eachother. Whats even more insane is it somehow became about primaris /again/ even though that was merely one point in the OPs main post, its like people can't help themselves.

 

 

Toxic can mean a lot of things but to quote webmd "A toxic person is anyone whose behavior adds negativity and upset to your life."

 

it can also be classified as seen in this white paper: https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs224n/cs224n.1184/reports/6837517.pdf by being something that leads people to "stop expressiving their opinions out of fear of abuse/harassment"

 

 

Toxicity is a broad topic with a lot of things between, I don't personally think the majority of negativity on threads on B&C count as toxic - though there absolutely have been toxic individuals in the past and almost certainly currently on these forums. However it seems a bit like the issue recently where a CDPR dev opted to ignore the key point of a question and focus on choice of wording in the question to deflect from the issue. The OPs issue seemed to be more with the prevelant almost pervasive sense of negativity for negativities sake, the need to make the same negative comments about the same negative topics by the same individuals over and over again. It's not a nice environment and the B&C has for sure gotten worse for it lately. I think RWJP summed it up pretty well earlier.

 

 

There shouldn't be anything wrong with expressing on-topic negative views of an announcement/release/whatever, its a forum, a place by its very definition for discussion, but generally it is bad form to drone on and repeatedly make the same commentary in a non constructive manner in a forum (real world or online). And sliding off topic with tangenetally related negativity is even worse as it just adds to the negativity in a pervasive manner that as a result arguably does result in people feeling less inclined to take part in discussions or express further positive views due to fear of repeated negative comments from often the same frater (a viewpoint noted in this very thread by at least one individual).

 

 

Some of us have thick skin and either ignore it literally or figuratively or just partake less in the forum activities we used to like, others it has a larger impact on and its pretty poor form, especially from a mod of all things, to simply dismiss the fact that constant negativity might have a negative impact on some peoples already impacted mental health and wellbeing after a couple of tough years. We should all try to remember that and ideally try not to rile up people on topics we know are sensitive (no reason people that like primaris need to bring up a need to drop firstborn or visa versa for example, for now both are a thing and contrary to some opinions there is still no evidence either are going anywhere - which is good. Release timeframes for different factions are a touchy subject because marines make up such a huge part of the player base and GWs revenue they're always going to get more releases and its really naieve to expect otherwise, but its also 100% valid to be frustrated when your own faction feels left behind and not properly supported, just complaining about space marines isn't constructive or productive).

 

 

We can all take some good advice from a few frater here and perhaps consider what we're going to post before we post, consider if we can word it better and more constructively. I do think theres some wisdom in the words of Tagalong from Disneys Robin hood: "if you haven't got anything nice to say don't say anything at all." At least when it comes to our fellow frater (I.e. negativity aimed at frater should ideally be avoided).

 

 

So thanks for raising the issue OP and thanks for at least trying to listen to those that do, and thanks for trying to provid constructive feedback to those that did.

 

[Schlitzaf]

For what toxicity is, I need this falls to quote a very famous judge (in relation to a different but in some sense related topics):

“I know it when I see it”. And boy is that post a “I know it when I see it”. Like no one said you couldn’t disagree, infact many way this thread has broken down exactly in some ways the issue is. But dear that post just wow. (Referencing Alloy not Hamsters)

Edited January 1, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[The Neverborn]

 

Well, if you were trying to prove OP’s point, well done. That was mostly, if not entirely, unnecessary.

 

Separately, my view on this is that the arguments/examples in this thread have been taken to somewhat of an extreme by both sides and perhaps the OP’s use of ‘toxicity’ wasn’t helpful. However, on a simpler level, I agree with the OP - there has of late been, in my view, a growing sense of negativity in a lot of ‘general discussion’ threads (for want of a better phrase). It has certainly impacted on the time I spend here (which is mostly lurking). Whilst I understand the need to vent, I really think the “am I adding anything constructive test?” that others have mentioned should always be at the forefront of everyone’s minds (and not just on this forum!). Applying that sense check would probably filter out a lot of the negativity for negativity’s sake posts (and a lot of other posts which add little to what is a wonderful community and resource).

 

 

I had to check my memory, but yes you're probably correct that there has been a lot of negativity in the hobby.  It's likely there's just a lot of things to be negative about.

 

we did this thing at work green card, yellow card, red card and black card. I'lll try and dredge it up from my memory....

 

Green Cards see the best in everything and pursue their goals with great determination and enthusiasm. - But they are more likely to peruse things that are dead ends or in the long term are counter-effective. - They get frustrated with Black cards and Red cards.

 

Yellow cards "see both sides" of the argument, or simply aren't invested enough to care.While they can make good mediators they are the most likely to be swayed by "group think". - Candidly most people claim to be in this group but in my opinion aren't.

 

Red cards will challenge and analyze everything, "if you're going to do X, you've now broken Y". These people are great for ensuring something works but too many of these and the project will never get started.They get frustrated with Green Cards

 

Black cards, Say no to everything, everything won't work to these people. These are the hardest people to get on side, they are useful however as they are the mostly likely to point out bad ideas with force. They get frustrated with Green Cards

 

As the blackest of black cards myself the negativity doesn't bother me, probably because i see it as even worse, I don't even see what's already been quoted as negativity, it's more a case of someone emphatically pointing out a problem with the subject using hyperbole and comedic exaggeration for effect. A green card however is more likely to see this as toxic... which leads me into my next point

 

"Toxicity" doesn't have an wildly accepted definition. The best one an earlier poster was able to come with is someone who is sexist, racists, homophobic et.al by this definition none of these cards are toxic. They will may however see each others behavior as "toxic" by their own undefined definitions.

 

TL:DR negativity != toxicity, unless that's what your personal definition is then well it sort of has to.   

 

Edit 2nd the below poster on lock this thread. it's going no where

Edited January 2, 2022 by Battle Brother Abderus

[Monstra Sumus]

 

 

 

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.

I can hear the melta coming.

 

This discussion has been fairly moderate until this. It is one thing to disagree and it is another to be...belligerent in such a fashion. This thread has been a great resource for people to air their building tensions in a somewhat healthy way. Then there is the above post.

 

If you don't like it just leave. There is no need to announce your departure and no need to leave the soapbox behind.

“If you don’t like it just leave.” Is exactly how you get an echo chamber.

 

One thing this thread should’ve shown us and encouraged us to do is moderate how we address one and other. I’m not in favour or against either of the positions just mentioned, both have made some excellent points but encouraging people to leave rather than at least trying to address their grievances benefits no one.

 

 

Whilst I would normally agree with you, the blatant combativeness of that post has absolutely nothing in constructive value to this discussion or atmosphere and all it does is further invite reason to lock this thread and censure any discussion of a similar nature from appearing. It is not creating an echo chamber to say "leave if you don't like it" when they clearly are interested in only their own viewpoint. The post could very well have addressed Tylers post in a constructive way whilst disagreeing with everything he said. It didn't. It was emotionally driven and venomous in its intent. Simply put, there was no need for it. If this kind of discussion makes a person feel that kind of vitriol then perhaps this isn't a good place for them to be and leaving would help. It does far more harm than good to allow blatantly nasty posts like that when everyone else is being, from what I see, very pleasant in their discourse. This whole thread is going lengths to prove we can have a discussion with opposing viewpoints. Objectively, that post is certainly enough to get a thread like this nuked because it was personal. 

 

In short, it was reactionary and exactly the kind of "post" the thread was initiated about. 

 

I personally do not want an echo chamber because differing opinion and critique is healthy. That was not. If the users opinion had been in favor of Tyler's post but used the same verbiage it would have been just as off putting for being sycophantic in nature. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by NomadPainting

[Scribe]

it can also be classified as seen in this white paper: https://web.stanford...rts/6837517.pdf by being something that leads people to "stop expressiving their opinions out of fear of abuse/harassment"

 

 

 

The irony, is that this cuts both ways. I take LONG breaks around here because certain segments of the population get to state things without consequence, when we could honestly police ourselves a bit if allowed to.

 

But we dont.

 

The mods keep things in the shape they want, and we march in line, or walk. Thats just the reality of it.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Scribe

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

To me it comes across as a classic troll in attempt to get the thread locked.

[Lord Blackwood]

 

it can also be classified as seen in this white paper: https://web.stanford...rts/6837517.pdf by being something that leads people to "stop expressiving their opinions out of fear of abuse/harassment"

 

 

 

The irony, is that this cuts both ways. I take LONG breaks around here because certain segments of the population get to state things without consequence, when we could honestly police ourselves a bit if allowed to.

 

But we dont.

 

The mods keep things in the shape they want, and we march in line, or walk. Thats just the reality of it.

 

If marching that line leads to constructive and meaningful conversation  then is that a bad thing?  

I dont really agree to have seen heavy handed moderation like yer implying. 

But I do know that some folks with very extreme positions sometimes have to take breaks because they make topics / start discussions that are difficult to keep constructive. 

Not saying thats you I dont know you from a hole in the ground nor your post history , just saying that is something I have seen with others.  

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Lord Blackwood

[Slave to Darkness]

I just wanna say one thing on the 'if you dont like it = echo chamber' someone above mentioned, whilst true, that IS a stance GW have and have made it public... Warhammer is for everyone, if you dont like that then leave... 

 

Always hated that saying, makes for a non inclusive hobby, people use that as an excuse to attack other hobby goers and I have seen that used as an excuse to push others out of the community. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

Most people persuade and are persuaded by rhetorical argumentation, that by emotion, instead of dialectic argumentation. This has been observed since at least Aristotle. So the forum is always at an uphill battle attempting for dialectic argumentation by virtue of human nature, although that is a noble and proper goal to achieve for quality of the posts here. Edited January 2, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[phandaal]

Honestly, 99.9% of the people in this thread are being normal, and to me that shows this forum really is not in a bad place. That post up above is not indicative of anything but the single individual who posted it.

[Khornestar]

 

it can also be classified as seen in this white paper: https://web.stanford...rts/6837517.pdf by being something that leads people to "stop expressiving their opinions out of fear of abuse/harassment"

 

 

 

The irony, is that this cuts both ways. I take LONG breaks around here because certain segments of the population get to state things without consequence, when we could honestly police ourselves a bit if allowed to.

 

But we dont.

 

The mods keep things in the shape they want, and we march in line, or walk. Thats just the reality of it.

 

 

 

If we can get past a possible, "Of course they'd say that," attitude, every report - even those made by frater concerning moderators - is taken seriously and discussed. If you see an issue, report it. To say "without consequence" speaks of ignorance for how reports are handled behind the scenes, which is understandable, and not intended as any sort of insult. Perception matters too. If you feel this way, there might be stuff worth talking about to see if we can all do better.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Khornestar

[Noserenda]

Just a quick note, long posts can certainly have their place but please don't needlessly quote them in their entirety, I think I sprained a finger scrolling on mobile...

[Scribe]

 

 

it can also be classified as seen in this white paper: https://web.stanford...rts/6837517.pdf by being something that leads people to "stop expressiving their opinions out of fear of abuse/harassment"

 

 

 

The irony, is that this cuts both ways. I take LONG breaks around here because certain segments of the population get to state things without consequence, when we could honestly police ourselves a bit if allowed to.

 

But we dont.

 

The mods keep things in the shape they want, and we march in line, or walk. Thats just the reality of it.

 

 

 

If we can get past a possible, "Of course they'd say that," attitude, every report - even those made by frater concerning moderators - is taken seriously and discussed. If you see an issue, report it. To say "without consequence" speaks of ignorance for how reports are handled behind the scenes, which is understandable, and not intended as any sort of insult. Perception matters too. If you feel this way, there might be stuff worth talking about to see if we can all do better.

 

 

Appreciated, but its not worth the further discussion. I had some threads, posts, and PM's a year ago or so on it, and its fine. I understand how things are.

[Stofficus]

So I'm  a bit late to the party, but after going through all 7 pages here, there's one angle that I can see was just lightly touched on I'd like to elaborate on; an important need for self-reflection. Brother Tyler in particular made a point of highlighting how depending on how people's parts of the hobby are neglected or well supported will colour their interaction with the broader community - and that bares especial mention on top of, you know, gestures broadly at 2020, 2021 and whateverthehell 2022 has in store. 

 

So, because I enjoy amateur psychoanalysis, allow me to throw myself up on the alter of introspection for public amusement: 

 

- I play three factions: Imperial Guard, Iron Warriors and, over in 30k, Loyalist Emperor's Children. 

- I work in a high-stress field which has been an absolutely unmitigated nightmare for years without pause now

- My local game group is in similar professional fields, and is dominated by some of the less popular armies: Necrons, GSC, Tau, Tyranids

- My other hobbies are either impaired because of covid (fencing) or are in an absolutely deplorable state as an industry (video games)

 

So package all that up, and I'm a pretty miserable pain in the butt when yet another Primaris release comes out, or some non-codex book comes out in a climate of intense logistical delays, no doubt further delaying giving me enjoyable 9th edition armies to play. 

 

But that's something I try to be cognizant of, and sometimes I do better than others. At the same time though, people who can't see through their own bias tend to be a source of profound irritation for me - and that bias isn't just negativity, but positivity too. Add in that cultural nuance too that Brother Tyler highlighted (for instance, as someone who's mother tongue is French, let me tell you, English is really missing out by not having a conjugation specifically for opinion) and we're always going to be at risk in getting each other riled up. 

 

That being said, one thing which has been bothering me for the last few years is actually the inability to have a constructive conversation about what GW could do in favour of the rather aggressive Primaris release cycle, or the supplementary campaign books being release before the codex they're intend for is released, or the dumpster fire that was when FW introduced insane, arbitrary regionalized pricing, or the abandonment of the 30k rules system to instead gush over the most recent Primaris "equal-attention cupcake" release is something that encourages me to simply not engage. I admit, my posts on those news threads aren't always the most constructive (but I do at least try to make them funny), but the response - and this very thread are a part of that - tends to be a significant bloc of people claiming I'm unreasonable for not being a big fan of some, in my opinion, concerning trends. 

 

Toxicity in an internet community is dismissive one-liners, expression of opinion as fact to try and silence dissenters, and the forming of echo chambers. Saying that maybe the Guard ought to get an update before the marine supplements, or questioning the value of the new "Seasons" isn't toxicity. 

 

Sometimes you need to vent, sometimes a community needs to have a little well-fenced in e-riot to at least see they aren't alone in their frustration, and then move on to a more beneficial avenue. The mods here do a pretty good job trying to maintain that, and I trust their ability to maintain the right lines in the sand between subjects and preserve constructive conversation. 

[Slave to Darkness]

Lets just meet up at warhammer world and hash it out over a game like real men... 

[Azekai]

Honestly, 99.9% of the people in this thread are being normal, and to me that shows this forum really is not in a bad place.

Honestly, this has been my big take-away from this thread. On the whole, I think there has been some real wisdom posted in these pages, something that feels rare (my other hobby site is, uh, FB, I see lots of pretty minis there and that is about the best I can say for it). Looking past things like the general skub-y-ness of primaris, l have gotten a better sense of where my fellow frater are coming from. It has made me appreciate the effort people put into their long form posts.

 

This really is a pretty great forum.

 

Also, this is an interesting thread; Having this sort of meta discussion seems healthy, a way to discuss contentious issues/negativity thoughtfully. For the most part, I feel like this has been successful.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

One way to improve this situation is to report posts. The mod team can look at them and contact the member for a chat.

Sometimes people may not realise that they may be bothering/disturbing others with their behavior so if the mod team can contact people directly and have a chat that can be a good way to improve the perceived situation.

 

If we all are polite and considerate we can get our opinions across be they positive or negative! Give some respect and earn it back... That simple!

[Brother Tyler]

I will commonly review posts that I’ve made in order to determine where they may be improved upon in order to make my points better or to prevent/minimize misunderstandings, either through editing or through clarifying replies. I was reviewing my previous reply yesterday and found a couple of areas where I thought it could be improved. Naturally, I was curious to see if any responses included content that represented a misunderstanding of what I said (or was trying to say); and I saw this one:

 

 

(Edited for the sake of brevity)

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.

 

Clearly at least one person grossly misunderstood my post, either through my own fault or from limitations on their end. My previous post was relatively long, but not nearly as long as it would have been had I provided much more detail. I figured most members would understand the basic points and apply critical thinking, so I could afford to leave details out in the interest of brevity. As a result I didn’t provide the in-depth explanation that this member (and perhaps others) needed to understand what I was saying. It is only fair, therefore, to attempt to provide more clarity, and also to seek to understand where the other member is coming from. Sometimes re-framing arguments or expanding upon them helps to correct misunderstandings, whether by making them more comprehensible to the reader or by instigating lines of thought that they may not have considered previously. The member’s response included the areas where I found my previous post lacking, and a few others, so I’ll provide those expansions/clarifications as point-by-point replies to the member’s post.

 

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

My interpretation of that response is that you disagree with everything I said in my previous post. That would be extremely foolish, though, since many of my points were irrefutable, so I’m going to assume that you’ve defined the scope of our disagreement based on the subsequent elements of your reply.

 

And I will not elaborate further…

And yet you do. Fortunately, your elaboration helps me to understand the specific points of disagreement/misunderstanding (more the latter, I think).

 

…you do not elaborate why "negativity" and "toxicity" are problematic, but take it for granted as some sort of dogma.

In this I was relying upon common and intuitive understanding of where negativity and toxicity can be problematic. My first reply in this discussion made it clear that negativity isn’t inherently problematic when it is relevant and constructive. Toxicity, whether positive or negative, is inherently problematic. Other members have elaborated on these points throughout the discussion and I figured that those other descriptions were more than sufficient and didn’t require repetition in my post.

 

Something that does bear repeating is that “negativity” and “toxicity” are subjective. Each of us has different thresholds at which we are bothered by negativity and consider it to be toxic (along with toxic positivity). Some of us have very high thresholds while others have very low thresholds. For example, I can read a post that I consider to be ignorant or wasteful and just ignore it for a few hours, days, or even forever (as long as it doesn’t violate the forum rules). Similarly, the diversity in the membership means that there will be different behaviors that might be perceived as negative/toxic, even if they are not intended in those ways. If we were to try to establish limits in terms of board policy, we would have to determine where we would want to draw those lines. Would we set them for those members with the lowest thresholds? The highest thresholds? Somewhere in the middle? Each of these options presents its own risks. Members, too, must assess whether or not something they perceive as negative/toxic behavior would be perceived similarly by the majority of other members. Even then, is the perceived negative/toxic behavior truly harmful? Sometimes, perceived negative/toxic behavior can be brushed aside as a gadfly. Often, however, it’s better to respond in a constructive manner.

 

…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".

Actually, I never said that at all. As I clearly indicated in both of my previous posts (not counting the post in which I temporarily locked the topic), it is perfectly valid and reasonable to debate the validity of arguments. Where we failed was in how we debated; and this applied to members on both sides of the argument.

 

Not only that, but you do not provide us with any definition of these terms, admitting yourself that they are subjective.

It would be presumptuous of me to decree a definition for things for which society can’t agree upon a definition, especially when they are so subjective and we are discussing them in terms of their applicability to social media and not the basic dictionary definitions for these terms. If I were to try to present definitions for either, someone would argue against those definitions and the discussion would become unnecessarily messier. Broadly speaking, there is some level of agreement, even if only at the intuitive level, on what each of these are, as the other responses in this discussion have shown. If it makes you feel better, though, we can try to come up with definitions for each. That would be a collective effort, however, and it would probably be contentious. There is a large body of research in the field of digital literacy, civil discourse, and logical argumentation. You’re likely to find definitions that you can accept by consulting those areas. If you want to get the ball rolling with identifying definitions, I’m sure the rest of us would be happy to discuss your suggestions in order to eventually develop consensus definitions.

 

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 clearly missed when I said that negativity wasn’t inherently bad. Similarly, I never said to condemn either. My points were about controlling our own behaviors (ensuring that anything “negative” was constructive and relevant, and minimizing our own behaviors that might be perceived as “toxic”) and in coping with the perceived negative/toxic behaviors of others (not responding in kind or escalating, instead remaining constructive and seeking to clarify and understand). As for whether or not this is some sort of “Revealed Truth,” as I stated previously, there is a tremendous body of research and information on this from the fields of digital literacy, civil discourse, and logical argumentation (not to mention a number of philosophies, not least of which is that of Stoicism). I have, as a layman, simply summarized points that numerous other people understand and have promulgated.

 

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".

Addressing the argument about a safe space was necessary because it had been brought up previously in the discussion. While the OP didn’t suggest a safe space, some members appear to have thought that was an implicit part of the suggestion. As I said in my first post, having a forum for open discussion precludes any kind of “safe space,” and I dismissed the non-existent arguments for a safe space as well as the distracting arguments against those non-existent arguments.

 

As far as taking a step back is concerned, this means to step back and take stock before participating further. Occasionally, we see posts that evoke emotional responses. This can stem from perceiving a post as ignorant or inflammatory or inconsiderate or any number of other characteristics. Pride, too, can be a source of negative emotion. For many of us, accusations of poor behavior sting our pride and we feel compelled to immediately defend ourselves. Such prideful defenses more often than not lead to anger, originating in an area of emotional immaturity. Emotions are not inherently bad; indeed, there are many good emotions. However, some emotions can lead to negative behaviors, anger being foremost. When we see posts that evoke anger, we have a tendency to invest that anger in our replies, especially when we do so in the heat of the moment; and these tend to be combative and counter-productive. This becomes a cycle of escalation. Instead of having a rational and constructive discussion, we simply have a heated argument. By taking a step back and reining our emotions in, we also have more time to reflect on what the other person is saying, perhaps coming to a better understanding. We can then provide a more measured response and we are more likely to have a rational and constructive discussion. We can still debate points, but we do so without the negative emotions. Obviously, this is much more effective when everyone involved in the discussion is doing their best to exercise self-control. In a community as large and diverse as ours, there will always be some members who continue to act without self-control, and these will tend to create much more friction and toxicity than others.

 

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?

Clearly you ignored all of the points where I said that you can debate issues, especially to defend yourself. You can (and should) defend yourself against accusations, but only after you’ve taken the time to consider if there might be any validity to those accusations. We are often blind to our own shortcomings and the unintended consequences of our actions, so it can be a shock for someone to tell us that we’re doing something that they see as negative. Is it so hard to think that maybe, just maybe, there’s an iota of truth to someone saying that we can improve?

 

Also, to think that an accusation of toxic behavior, whether specifically leveled at you or as a more general description of a behavior that you know/think applies to you, is having that accusation thrown in your face is more an indicator of your perceptions and personality than an accurate description of the accusation. To be fair, some such instances might be as you describe. Others, though, are simply descriptions. This is a discussion forum based on text, with participants spread across the globe and multiple time zones. It is amazingly easy to misinterpret pure text, and too often we project our own negative emotions and attitudes on something that might have been intended in a much more benign way. We have the luxury of time in comporting ourselves and composing our replies. If you think that something is being thrown in your face and feel compelled to act, you are most likely acting from pride and anger and need to step back and get yourself under control before acting.

 

This is how this forum is moderated?

Certainly. That is how it has been moderated since the ezBoard days (over 21 years ago). We’ve tried our best to continually improve over time (we’ve never been perfect, and I doubt we’ll ever be perfect, but we’ll keep trying to get better). This discussion is a great opportunity for us to collectively find ways in which we can improve as a community.

 

My comment is confrontational, unconstructive, rude and toxic…

On this we agree.

 

…but [your reply] is an applause seeking blob of buzzwords. Enjoy your likes.

I don’t do things for likes or for applause. In fact, there are plenty of times where I’ve explicitly asked people to not give likes to posts of mine. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy the likes, but they are never my motive in making posts. Instead, I’ve sought to understand both (all?) sides of the debate and present things that we can all think about in terms of controlling our own behaviors and understanding and dealing with the behaviors of others. My motive here has been to help the community to remain strong, vibrant, and constructive – adhering to our mission statement. While every member of the community should be concerned with these goals, it is especially incumbent upon the administrators and moderators to cultivate this type of environment. I would be failing in my duties were I to ignore toxicity, even worse if I were to tacitly approve or participate in toxic behaviors.

 

Since you’re so concerned about the likes, though, I’ve reset my count to zero.

 

If there are any other areas where you (or anyone else) would like more clarity in order to better understand (and participate in) this discussion so that we can remain constructive, I’ll be happy to provide what you need. @WrathOfTheLion brought up dialectic argumentation (here) and I agree that might be a beneficial method for working through areas in which you are having difficulty understanding the issue and the arguments that I have made, and also for me to gain an understanding of your position.

[BrainFireBob]

 

 

 

 

...

and again, the block function is still handy, is the Jeske still here??

 

 

...

 

Back to the discussion at hand, I think part of the problem is expressing negative opinions is being tarred as toxic. What does toxic even mean? It seems like a weasel word. It may be construed as toxic = abuse, but it more often seems to be used to describe 'thing I don't like' = toxic. There is a lack of precision in the language that seems intentionally vague. I think most of us can agree the criticisms leveled at GW on this august forum rarely, if ever, meet the definition of abuse... but the bar for 'toxicity' seems far more nebulous, and I am not a fan of that.

 

Crapping on people's parades isn't cool, but I feel like there is a fair amount of legit things GW has done to grouse about, especially recently.

There's a confounding factor, in my opinion. There are people, it seems to me, who believe every post should be structured as a first post in the community, with all relevant disclaimers used everytime without benefit of the doubt being extended.

 

I couldn't count how many times I've seen a poster respond to another with what I can only characterize as "you're one of those people based purely on this sample size of one."

 

That's a rising trend I see across the Net, and I don't like it. The mods here do a stupendous job, bluntly.

 

Also, sidebar, no content in WD is "free," you paid for it with the magazine.