Yet another SMN thread: SMN is the only job that doesn't have a gauge/proc management

[Aravell]

In any case, if you don't care to understand the other side, you could just say so. I'm not going to continue this exercise when the only replies have been either ignoring it or being...uncouth about it.

I was wrong about you. I thought you wanted to debate, but you actually don't. When I challenge your ideas, you claim I attack you, this happened last time too. You say you understand what I'm saying, yet you misrepresent what I say. I'm not obligated to represent your side when you don't even deign to represent my side properly. I'm also not Deo, there is no "my side" and "your side". You claim that you agree that everyone is different, yet you're lumping me in with "the other side". I disagree with Deo and Skiros on some of the points they make, I don't agree with them completely, I also agree with some of your points, but I don't fully agree with you either. You're not accepting that there's more than 2 sides to this argument, and that means it's impossible to debate with you.

I never once attacked you, I don't "take pleasure in assaulting you", I even said it's disgusting that people dogpile you, but if you see my challenging your ideals as me attacking you, then fine, see me as your toxic demon, let us never speak again.

[Semirhage]

I was wrong about you. I thought you wanted to debate, but you actually don't. When I challenge your ideas, you claim I attack you, this happened last time too. You say you understand what I'm saying, yet you misrepresent what I say. I'm not obligated to represent your side when you don't even deign to represent my side properly. I'm also not Deo, there is no "my side" and "your side". You claim that you agree that everyone is different, yet you're lumping me in with "the other side". I disagree with Deo and Skiros on some of the points they make, I don't agree with them completely, I also agree with some of your points, but I don't fully agree with you either. You're not accepting that there's more than 2 sides to this argument, and that means it's impossible to debate with you.

I never once attacked you, I don't "take pleasure in assaulting you", I even said it's disgusting that people dogpile you, but if you see my challenging your ideals as me attacking you, then fine, see me as your toxic demon, let us never speak again.

This is standard Renathras. It's why people "dogpile" him. You'll get a wall of text ranting about how much he hates DoTs, dislikes skill ceilings, hates RNG, etc. It's superficially different from the regular toxic casual crew around here, but scratch the surface and you'll find the rhetorical chicanery is the same as the rest of 'em. Always dancing back and forth on that Motte and Bailey line between "I'm a seasoned video game enjoyer and I understand how XYZ works", then swapping over to "Pffffff it's just a game maybe you should touch grass not everyone is interested in spending hours obsessed with numbers and stuff" when called out on it.

It's exhausting; it's always the same set of tactics. Claim something about high level play, then when the logs come out you're "attacking" them instead of, oh, I dunno, providing evidence that they're both incorrect and don't have any experience with what they're talking about.

All of this blabbering about "tooooone" and "being mean" and all of that is smoke. Spend enough time on these forums and you'll start to notice that -all- of that is a bald-faced lie. It's another tactic that toxic casuals use to dismiss your arguments, because they can't provide compelling arguments for the stupidification of the game when it comes down to brass tacks, and part of them realizes how embarrassing it is to state outright what their positions imply: that they neither want to practice their jobs, nor do they want anyone else to have room to improve because it'd make them look bad.

The first one is fine. The second one is the one the eeeeeeeeevil elitists have a problem with.

[Renathras]

I was wrong about you.

No, you weren't. But you are now. And I was wrong about you. I had thought you fair minded - in disagreement, but agreeable enough. All your posts about people's tone and such I thought were genuine, and I thought you'd be open to people pointing out the same to you. Clearly, you are not.

When I challenge your ideas, you claim I attack you, this happened last time too.

What part of calling my posts cynical is "challenging my ideas"?

You can't get away with this kind of thing. You can't pretend you're innocent here when you're saying stuff like that. And even with that, I'm LITERALLY still giving you the benefit of the doubt:

/sigh

Your first paragraph comes across as REALLY in bad faith and a horrible, snide, condescending, and aloof tone. I can only hope it wasn't intended that way and you just didn't consider how your wording is giving that impression. The odd thing is, your second and third sentences of your second paragraph are not. It's...a jarring tonal shift.

Note this is far more benefit of the doubt than you've given me in this thread, or in most others!

And yet you think I'm the one who isn't being fair? After you do all that?

You say you understand what I'm saying, yet you misrepresent what I say.

No, I said I understand what Deo is saying.

Fun fact: Turns out I didn't - I gave her too much credit and assumed good faith where there is none per her reply.

I'm not obligated to represent your side

No, you CAN'T represent my side correctly.

That's the problem.

You can't, and you don't even wish to try.

Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

The entire point of the exercise was to get people thinking about how OTHER people - who they're arguing against - are thinking, to try to get everyone to see how other people are approaching things and see things. That was the entire point of it. That's something I'd think a person like you could get behind.

If you did care and are the kind of person I initially thought you were - you shouldn't have attacked me as cynical when I was being more than fair - to someone else that wasn't even you btw - and then attack me AGAIN for responding negatively - but still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt despite it - to your aggressive and uncalled for attack on me. Even just a "Okay, yeah, I see that. Let's start fresh?" right now would be welcome.

By leading your last post with calling me cynical, and leading this one by saying I don't want to debate and am trying to misrepresent you, all you're doing is poisoning the well of any discussion.

And while I'm willing to offer you an olive branch - ANOTHER olive branch - and say let's try this again, you likely won't want to, because you don't seem to want agreement or cordial relations.

If you do, I do, and I'm here for it.

If you don't, just say so and I'll stop trying to offer olive branches.

.

Oh, and one other thing - I'm not the one saying there are only two positions to hold. Though given that, there's still only one group saying leave SMN alone.

...

This is standard Semirhage - see people dogpiling on someone, join the dogpile, and never meet a dogpile you don't like.

She misquotes people, she calls good faith people trolls, she goes on rants, calls people toxic, accuses everyone but herself of being passive aggressive, never listens to any argument people actually make, and if you aren't in favor of things she is, she'll badmouth you wherever on the forum she runs across you, while attacking your "tone" or "intent", calling you any number of derogatory names, and if you EVER do any of those things to her, she'll say it was uncalled for and that you're a bad person in several different ways.

I mean, just reading that post, you can see how she even paints large swaths of people with one brush. Because that's the kind of person she is.

[Aravell]

Reply

But you are essentially saying there's only 2 positions to hold because you're lumping me in with "the other side" even though I've clearly stated my position. I called you cynical because you said that we think every job needs to be like BLM, calling you cynical isn't an insult, it's a statement, you can take it or leave it. You have a very vague definition of what constitutes an insult and that makes it very exhausting to talk to you, I can't even challenge your argument without picking my words carefully because you might see it as an insult.

You seem to think that I should represent your argument for understanding reasons, but I fundamentally disagree with your position, thus I cannot represent it correctly. I tried once in another thread when you and Ty were clashing, but you said I wasn't correct, so I'm not going to try again.

My entire problem with your post is that when I clarified my position, you doubled-down and said that you were right in what you said, when you were not. I corrected you and then you said I was wrong. What does that mean? The moment you said "people like you", you're already lumping me in with one large blob of people that you think are attacking you, after that, there's no going back.

You claimed you offered me an olive branch, yeah, right after you threw the branch in my face in our first conversation when you claimed I was attacking you because I decided to take Roe's advice. I still tried to find common ground with you after that, but you simply refuse to understand my position. So you're not the only one that feels like the other side isn't even trying to understand your position. We probably both just got heated in the moment, I'll just forget this whole thing happened if we want to be civil with each other again, I'm willing, are you?

[Renathras]

So you're not the only one that feels like the other side isn't even trying to understand your position. We probably both just got heated in the moment, I'll just forget this whole thing happened if we want to be civil with each other again, I'm willing, are you?

This...I find agreeable. In this, we're in accord.

I don't think you're a bad person, and you're better to talk to than a lot of people here (that...may not sound it, but it is a complement/intended as a complement), it's just frustrating when I'm doing the exact opposite of what you accuse me of and you accuse me of things anyway, and when I try to explain things, you take that as even more reason to oppose me instead of realizing that I'm not doing those negative things you say I am, and then you say it's just statements, not accusations, when they feel a lot like accusations, especially when you're using them to justify your responses.

In simple terms:

Please don't assume I'm attacking you all the time when I'm not. I know it can be hard and it seems you have this same problem in reverse. I'm not sure the best approach other than we should each just try to assume the other person is being nice and acting in good faith rather than assuming the opposite? Assume misunderstanding or confusion instead of malice?

One of my favorite life quotes is related to this (supposedly attributed to Gandhi, though no idea what the true origin is): "Never assume malice when ignorance is a possible explanation. People are far more often stupid than they are evil." While "stupid" isn't quite where I like to go with it, the point is more that people often misunderstand things, but are rarely malicious.

I'm not malicious, and I don't think you are, so maybe we just have to go into conversations with each other assuming that if the other person seems antagonistic, they aren't, it's just a misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up?

[Aravell]

I'm not malicious, and I don't think you are, so maybe we just have to go into conversations with each other assuming that if the other person seems antagonistic, they aren't, it's just a misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up?

I don't believe you're malicious, I'd also rather have civil conversation than mud slinging, so let's put this in the past. As for the misunderstandings, perhaps it's just cultural difference, maybe some things aren't considered insults to me that they are to you. I'll ask for clarification next time I see something that seems off, and I hope you'll do the same.