OJSP said: Good points, but I think you probably meant manners instead of manors? (although maybe some players lose some of their manors while playing and spending in this game too..)
Vhailorx said: I don't mean to suggest that I see no value in civility. On the contrary, as I said in my post, I tend to think that rage and uncivil criticism is rarely productive. And actual harassment or abuse is tinykitty and should not be permitted.What I was addressing are general appeals to civility in the face of some other problem. So for example, consider this:(1) person X says some thing truly hateful.(2) person Y calls X out for the reprehensible comment, but does so rudely.(3) person Z issues a general call for civility and laments the lapsing standards of the modern age.I would argue that person Z in my scenario is effectively supporting person X. Z's statement is a tactic that is used to seem impartial and above the pettiness. But really is just protects the status quo by establishing a false equivalency.
OJSP said: I've been reading about debating tactics and logical fallacies just earlier today and that feels like something that I found there https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/But, I don't know if this thread was meant to be a debate or not or even trying to convey that message. You're probably reading too much into the intention of the OP. Or, maybe I was wrong, which is also entirely plausible.
randomhero1090 said: OJSP said: I've been reading about debating tactics and logical fallacies just earlier today and that feels like something that I found there https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/But, I don't know if this thread was meant to be a debate or not or even trying to convey that message. You're probably reading too much into the intention of the OP. Or, maybe I was wrong, which is also entirely plausible. That's a great article. I passed it on to the sales teams here. I highlighted Equivocation and Bandwagon.
Colognoisseur said: FirstJustin’s Comment on Discordit showed the contempt that the Demiurge team hold for the people who pay their hard earned money so they can be successful game designers.As I said in a different thread that attitude doesn’t come from nowhere.
Dogface said: Vhailorx said: I don't mean to suggest that I see no value in civility. On the contrary, as I said in my post, I tend to think that rage and uncivil criticism is rarely productive. And actual harassment or abuse is tinykitty and should not be permitted.What I was addressing are general appeals to civility in the face of some other problem. So for example, consider this:(1) person X says some thing truly hateful.(2) person Y calls X out for the reprehensible comment, but does so rudely.(3) person Z issues a general call for civility and laments the lapsing standards of the modern age.I would argue that person Z in my scenario is effectively supporting person X. Z's statement is a tactic that is used to seem impartial and above the pettiness. But really is just protects the status quo by establishing a false equivalency. I honestly can't see how person Z supports person X here. That's some strange mind step.
Dogface said: That is the point. You talk about equating those transgressions, whereas it is never made clear that that is what person Z is doing. How I see it, person X makes a horrible statement, person Y justifiably counters that, but in a inappropriate manner.Person Z says nothing about the horribleness of person X, but rather (as I see it) points out that a severe reaction to a horrible statement isn't going to help the cause. I see it that in a debate, the person that first turns it into a shouting match loses. In this case, person Z is if anything more on person Y's side, cautioning him/her to make their point in a calm, constructive manner, thus making a stronger counterargument against person X.
IIAlonditeII said: Dogface said: That is the point. You talk about equating those transgressions, whereas it is never made clear that that is what person Z is doing. How I see it, person X makes a horrible statement, person Y justifiably counters that, but in a inappropriate manner.Person Z says nothing about the horribleness of person X, but rather (as I see it) points out that a severe reaction to a horrible statement isn't going to help the cause. I see it that in a debate, the person that first turns it into a shouting match loses. In this case, person Z is if anything more on person Y's side, cautioning him/her to make their point in a calm, constructive manner, thus making a stronger counterargument against person X. That's kind of the thing though. In the given example, if X says something heinous and Y is rude to X over the statement, and Z believes in Civil Discourse, then Z's civil responsibility is to politely dress down X over the heinous comment. By instead saying "hey Y, you need to be Civil", the message that is sent is that "you being uncivil towards X is worse to me than X's inflammatory comments. You can tell this is the case because that is the problem I chose to address."
Chrynos1989 said:FirstJustins comment on Discord. SecondThreats of clawbacks Third1*-ratings in AppStore and google play.