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

[Anonymoose]

I want so badly to believe that "transform even the meta-discussion thread into repeating the same points on Garlean morality at each other" was a deliberate decision rooted in some kind of avante garde performance art.

[RyuDragnier]

Yeah, this really seems like a bad place to discuss that.

[MilkieTea]

I want so badly to believe that "transform even the meta-discussion thread into repeating the same points on Garlean morality at each other" was a deliberate decision rooted in some kind of avante garde performance art.

No, don't you get it?

Everytime Garlemald gets mentioned in passing, we have to then devolve into said discussion! It says it right here in Da Rules

[Rannie]

No, don't you get it?

Everytime Garlemald gets mentioned in passing, we have to then devolve into said discussion! It says it right here in Da Rules

You mean it's not Everytime Garlemald is mentioned a Vauthry gets his wings?

[MilkieTea]

You mean it's not Everytime Garlemald is mentioned a Vauthry gets his wings?

That's on the next page!



On the subject of this thread, however, I hope I've not engaged in bad faith arguments overmuch. I feel pretty strongly about a few things, and while I try retain a certain level of civility and good faith when I say things, I know I do tend to get a teeny bit hostile. Though there are definitely times where I point things out in a... less than productive manner ahah.

[Vyrerus]

apparently can't do anything to actively combat said toxicity. That's all.

I think you can, and have helped by responding. Sorry if I made you feel poorly or agitated by mentioning you by name. Certain posters live in my head rent free, and you are one of them (these are, mostly, people I like and enjoy and you fall into that camp, too).

I'm also glad you provide some more context for the forum past in mentioning that there has been carry over even prior to Shadowbringers. It helps paint the picture that I feel I need to see (or at least, very much desire to see).

While I doubt we can fix the forum completely, I think it helps that we're talking about it. At the very least we can air grievances, problems, and other such things. Openly, here. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[Theodric]

At the end of the day, it's just a video game. One many of us are varying degrees of passionate about, certainly, though I personally don't care for rivalries to form over something that is entirely fictional. As such, my stance has ever been to agree to disagree where common ground cannot be found. I don't care for endless arguments over morality and I'd like to think I've made it perfectly clear that if anyone has a problem with me, then they're very welcome to come and talk it out in a civil manner.

I like working out and discussing the 'how' and 'why' things happen in the way that they do in any given story or historical event, though my personal preferences drift towards characters and factions that have lofty stakes over those that have everything work out to their benefit most of the time.

One thing I noticed, however, was that some pretty spiteful and nasty accusations were aimed at anyone who ever dared to speak up in favour of the antagonists. This included death threats, homophobic comments and other unpleasant elements. Given that the offending posts were deleted, however, then such will have to be taken with a pinch of salt - though I'd like to think those who are being genuine and who have been around for a while will be aware of what I'm speaking of. Especially since some of the offending comments leaked into Reddit, Twitter and certain Discord servers.

The most fascinating thing I observed was that certain posters would repeatedly launch thinly veiled attacks and sometimes direct personal attacks at fans of the antagonists, implying all manner of horrible things about their person and real world morality. When finally those being assaulted had enough, even a minor quip in response would be treated as some deeply horrific crime and personal attack.

I will say that things have improved somewhat since then. Right around the same time that the game itself revealed that, yes, actually there was more to the Ascians and Garleans all along.

Ultimately any given individual is going to have their personal preferences and interests. I've never suggested that anyone has to like specific characters or factions. I only ask that the same courtesy is extended to others in turn.

In closing, I'd also note that the game attracts players from many different countries, cultures, backgrounds and belief systems. We all have different life experiences, so that is going to influence what we like and we don't like.

[WhiteArchmage]

That is, precisely, why I settled into lurking more than engaging. The discussions into Garlemald (and later into the Ascians) just devolved more and more into people wilfully ignoring plot points the game itself brings forward, reading the worst interpretation of some characters and ignoring the flaws on others (or not mentioning them originally and minimizing them when called out, argumenting that "both sides bad"). It gets repetitive, neither side will budge, and it bleeds into threads where it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. ...anything else I have to say about that particular subject runs the risk of being too vitriolic.

I'm sure I've done my fair share of the above and if I've been overly judgemental or vitriolic, I apologize. It does make the subforum decidedly... unenjoyable...

[Vyrerus]

I see the character debate with antagonists vs. protagonists much like I viewed Philosophy 101 in college back in... *checks calendar* *blinks* 2008. A lot of people won't engage with thought experiments that run counter to their own views, in this case, putting themselves into the villain's shoes. In Philosophy 101's case, any old idea that possibly ran counter to religious belief.

But then, of course, there are people who only put themselves into the antagonist's shoes as more or less a reaction, but also because it's more entertaining for them that way.

What I would posit though, is that these kinds of discussions may not even truly belong in the Lore forum, because while they do grasp a good deal of the lore due to the story being composed by the lore, there generally isn't a revelation or new lore gleaned from such discussions (or it's so new that we've all overanalyzed it as it came out).

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them here, but I feel as though the Lore forum itself could benefit from a subsection or a thread entirely devoted to characterization and plot element discussion. Maybe that's already occurring through multiple threads and the idea wouldn't help, heh.

Perhaps I've not articulated my thoughts very well; it's just a feeling I have.

Though I suppose it might also just be the growing pains that fluctuate around an ever more complex story where we have fewer details and deep dive things to learn with each passing year, that went from a fairly simple plot to a far more colored and complex one.

[YianKutku]

The most fascinating thing I observed was that certain posters would repeatedly launch thinly veiled attacks and sometimes direct personal attacks at fans of the antagonists, implying all manner of horrible things about their person and real world morality. When finally those being assaulted had enough, even a minor quip in response would be treated as some deeply horrific crime and personal attack.

I want to highlight this as exactly the sort of rhetoric that is causing a negative downturn in the quality of discussion on the lore forums. This is an accusation of the people behind the posts, rather than a disagreement with the posts itself.

The phrase "certain posters" is the poisonous part, because it directly refers to the poster rather than the post (ie an ad hominem), and does it in a weasel-wording way where nobody is sure whether it's referring to them, and the person who wrote "certain posters" is able to neatly avoid answering any responses due to being able to go "but I wasn't referring to you, of course". It's the same type of argumentation tactic of going "some say" or "it is said", positing a nebulous antagonistic "other" whose membership is implied, but never stated.

Name the people you are talking about. Be specific. Let them respond to the accusation. Provide a strong case, with evidence, of what you are accusing them of. If actually naming the posters who you are referring to is against the rules of the venue, then don't make that argument in the first place.