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

[Iscah]

I simply assumed that since you cared enough to pick apart my posts regarding a sensitive issue, you were open to actually working to resolve it. Was such an assumption false?

No, I am responding to your forum post with the intent of continuing a discussion on the forum.

I am not going to enter into private debate with you as some kind of spokesperson for the group.

[Theodric]

No, I am responding to your forum post with the intent of continuing a discussion on the forum.

I am not going to enter into private debate with you as some kind of spokesperson for the group.

Huh? Group? What 'group' are you referring to, exactly?

[Iscah]

The group of people in this discussion, each with their own opinion. I am not interested in splitting away from it.

[Vyrerus]

open to actually working to resolve it

My Discord handle is Vicious#2538. Please, come tell me the specifics of your grievances since you aren't comfortable airing them here. At least, if you find some time and inclination to do so.

[Jandor]

So I just wanted to make this thread to know. Could someone explain in depth just what is the matter with the present decorum? How can we be better? If we could be better, would the old Lore hounds return?

I don't think we can do better, as the conversation in this thread would seem to attest.

It was derailed by irrelevant Garlean nonsense by page 2.

[vormela]

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.

Thank you. I knew there were divisive points and this seems to explain all the questions I had and tie it back to something pre-Shadowbringers. Also makes me wonder about complaints of Sb being the boring expansion. Had no idea and it all makes sense now. I really appreciate your comments here.

As for the zealotry, it is sad...

...not just because of the obvious harassment that goes on within the fandom in multiple mediums to where people even have to identify as pro-something or other (Ascian-kupos) and not use certain keywords so they don't get flamed on twitter (I believe Veloran and know the forum commenters exist partly within that ecosystem because I have noticed echoes of it in the corrective posts about what is cold hard fact about the lore and what is an observation by someone new who has not had years to process the story...my evidence for that is within this thread. If you look through my post history then that is my experience/evidence.

This was why I thought of this invisible problem as a fanfic/lore community divide...I have been thinking, are observations or trying to work out things WRONG?? In the fanfic community it seems like accidentally stepping on people's headcanons and ships gets the same kind of defensive response...heavens forbid you refer to Azem as the wrong Greek god without hurting feelings, for example)...

...but because, within the story, the "enemy" winds up saying something about the main character that should be important to everyone despite their level of empathy or whatever they do with their fleet of "ships" and headcanon. And a lot of times these are the most divisive and interesting characters/events (hello people who say Zenos is boring).

Sun Tzu's The Art of War:
III.)18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
(You can read this on MIT's Internet Classics Archive.)

[Veloran]

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.

I thought that was pretty obvious given what was specifically quoted. My point was that just because someone thinks they're a "good-faith" actor, that doesn't mean they are. The Alliance/Garlean meeting was just a metaphor for that.

[vormela]

I blame Ilberd.

[Lauront]

Such as, for example:

I stand by what I said and by what Theodric said there. After seeing several lore discord meltdowns over minor character disagreements (or worse yet, when it devolves into constant moralising and then bringing in highly contentious RL politics while just expecting everyone to suffer in silence), and friends being stalked or harassed for their views on characters or factions in the game over reddit or twitter, as well as people avoiding this forum because they did not enjoy the way discussions are conducted, I have little inclination to alter my views. I for one do not bother very much with this subsection of the forum anymore, so whether you accept my words or not, it matters little to me.

[Jandor]

Wait, you're all in a bunch of drama filled XIV lore discord servers?

Well... that certainly explains a thing or two.