Lore Forum Decorum - Just What is Meant by Good/Bad Faith?

[kaynide]

In my experience it's nobody specific, but we all do put a lot of stock into very niche things to justify our lore theory as being the "correct" one when we really should just be considering this as a chat around the fire.

I am guilty of this as well- it's important to talk about your ideas, but to be very comfortable with the understanding that it's not gospel..and also accept the opposite: Just because someone says something in conflict with your ideas, doesn't mean they are attacking your ideas, nor that they are set in that opinion. Often it's just spitting ideas.

I would offer people (myself included) a simple mantra: "I have nothing of value to add to this line of thought", and then, just post nothing. No need to get in a last word, even if it's just a snippy "Well we just have to agree to disagree".

I would also offer that it might need to be said: This is text, and text is often read incorrectly to be aggressive or negative. As you said, assume people are writing in good faith and if you feel someone's digging at you.. assume they're probably not.

[RyuDragnier]

I apologize if I've ever been part of the problem. I have noticed a lot of people since ShB who disregarded opinions of others, would twist everything around to make their argument no matter how weird the twisting, and as of EW, people who seem to disregard previous events in game just to throw out of canon something they don't like. It's kind of infuriating to say the least.

[Rulakir]

I'm relatively new here, so I don't know what discussions were like past a couple weeks before 6.0. My POV is I think the EW storyline was divisive, both thematically and morally. Therein lies the problem, because each person has their own set of values and experiences where they'll agree or disagree with the narrative presented and choices made. This can lead to people feeling like they're being personally attacked if someone criticizes a story point or character that resonated with them.

I know that my writing style can come off harsh, but if it needs to be said I don't harbor any animosity towards anyone. I do get a bit annoyed when people insist there's something in the game that isn't and present their headcanon as fact, but I try to stop responding to those types.

[Vyrerus]

The first step is making us aware of the problem, and it has been taken. I don't think we're a bad sort, but we've been ignorant of a past where things were different. A little more welcoming could go a long way.

I know we argue like lawyers, at least in a few people's eyes. Hehe. I think there's also been some point where the plot got away from us, and we don't discuss lore so much as we just discuss characters. Which, I mean, is somewhat understandable. The game's been around a long time, and there's a limit to how many novel points in the lore we can find and discuss.

Anyway, I appreciate all of these responses. I'd like to make the forum more welcoming. I look forward to further responses and ideas here.

[Rannie]

I'd like to say that I object to being even remotely compared to the hideous and disgusting creature known as a Lawyer. *shudders* I may need to bathe after reading that comment. =P

Serious note though. I know I'm stubborn pig headed forceful and... a woman so... uhm yeah sorry for being all of that if I have. I know I can get over bearing at times with my arguments.

[vormela]

Thought about it some more. My personality does better with the level of formalism a forum/message board/listserv offers and I am from that antiquated time period so have grown up on them. I don't do well with Discord and make an (kupo) of myself there.

Maybe some of the problem is the format and tone people take. I was an active member of a mental health forum from about 2000-2010 and we had all kinds of drama but it didn't ever approach this level of vitriol. I know it isn't just me reading into it too much. If you think you've been rude just don't do it again. You are fine. I guess we all have to be more empathetic about who is reading and also recognize that it is a forum without the casualness of a discord (like I said, I still haven't figured out the levels of casualness appropriate for discord and it is not my favorite).

For those concerned about the lore and upholding what is actually the lore, maybe if you just remind us you have been playing for several years that would be helpful. New people like me have no idea what happened before probably 2020 (ESO guild members were talking hushedly and in code about Shadowbringers' release...the MVPs that they have always been haha). I am aware of my noobness and try to mention it as often as possible just so no one takes me too seriously or feels like I am trying to argue. Sometimes observations (especially by new people) are enough to inspire conversations about lore. Instead of seeing it as an attack, it can be seen as an opportunity.

I definitely don't for an instant blame the new wave chaff that is insinuated to be WoW people because a lot of the lore people from Pyromancer or Accolonn's channels would be great assets to the conversation either here or in discords. They are there already I'm sure. It would be sad if people like them felt like the official place to discuss lore was too toxic to post in.

I love lore discussions and wanted this board to be like a more elder-friendly option or a little more structured than discord when I joined I guess. But instead it has felt a little like anarchy! Maybe we need a strong ruler to rid us of these eikons and lead the weak to victory! *looks around for someone to nominate*

[Cilia]

I was away for Christmas, but given I'm being directly implicated I feel I have to respond. Pray forgive my lateness.

When I say "arguing in bad faith," what I mean is arguing with no intention of compromise or understanding - going in with a hard-set belief that can't be shaken, even if your stance is shown to be built on unsound reasoning, soundly reasoned arguments are made against it, and even hard evidence discrediting that stance is shown; e.g. Varis argues against the Eorzean Alliance in bad faith, having come in with no intention of compromise or understanding. I always approach discussion with an open mind, even if I don't agree with a given stance, and strive to remain civil and polite (though I admit I don't always succeed).

Much of my bitter attitude traces back to one of the many ad nauseam debates around Garlemald years ago, wherein it was asserted that the Empire's belligerent stance against Eorzea was their own fault for not attempting to treat with them; this was pointed out as being both victim blaming and untrue, only for the victim blaming to get the "agree to disagree" platitude and Lolorito's attempts to reach out to the Empire through his merchant network deemed "not necessarily canon." Since then I can't assume the pro-Garlemald camp is really arguing in good faith, and (to little surprise) that cross-section of the fanbase latched onto the Ascians' plans as being right with the reveals of Shadowbringers, so much of my discontent carried over.

For what it's worth I recognize I can be a part of the problem, and that's why I've decided to step back and cease engaging in ad nauseam arguments surrounding the same tired points. I don't have the patience to deal with those, college essay-length walls of text, or diced up arguments anymore. Further calling people out in their unsavory behavior (name calling, personal attacks, etc.) is often labelled and dismissed as "tone policing" and/or "concern trolling," so I don't even see the point in trying to do that much. I just say my piece, maybe make a post or two arguing, and move on.

I have strongly-held opinions on the story, its direction, and its presentation; others have opinions to the contrary that are just as strongly-held, and these differences just can't be reconciled. So I've decreased my engagement, since I'm tired of those ad nauseam arguments, don't want to contribute to the environment's toxicity, and apparently can't do anything to actively combat said toxicity. That's all.

[Veloran]

e.g. Varis argues against the Eorzean Alliance in bad faith, having come in with no intention of compromise or understanding.

Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but I have to point out that the Alliance initiated talks in bad faith, purely in an attempt to delay the Empire while they shored up their defenses. That, and any compromise they were hoping to agree to would have been, from their perspective, an absolute win given the Garleans' objectives.

[Iscah]

Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but I have to point out that the Alliance initiated talks in bad faith, purely in an attempt to delay the Empire while they shored up their defenses. That, and any compromise they were hoping to agree to would have been, from their perspective, an absolute win given the Garleans' objectives.

They were the defending force trying to halt an army from invading their lands, which immediately makes it a different situation to an argument for argument's sake – and I think they would have been quite glad if they could convince the Garleans to leave without fighting; they just didn't believe it was likely to succeed.

[Veloran]

They were the defending force trying to halt an army from invading their lands, which immediately makes it a different situation to an argument for argument's sake – and I think they would have been quite glad if they could convince the Garleans to leave without fighting; they just didn't believe it was likely to succeed.

From the Garlean's perspective they were foreign supporters of an insurrection within an imperial province that had killed it's appointed governor. I'm just saying that from the beginning neither side was acting in "good faith" with the meeting.