Author Topic: Gameology-Fu  (Read 69402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #240 on: October 29, 2008, 11:03:11 AM »
What needs to be clarified is the reasons behind your apparent belief that, given the vast majority of posters have positive fu or can point to specific rationales or arguments that cause their fu to be negative besides 'a popuparity contest', the fu system works reasonably well at its intended playfulness except in your specific case.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #241 on: October 29, 2008, 11:06:42 AM »
The fu system works reasonably well if most people like you or get along with you. It works terribly if people don't try to understand what you write and insist that you mean something different even after you say that's not what you meant and "award" negative fu accordingly.

So, whether I'm the only victim, primary victim, only victim at the moment, or whatever, it is not reflecting gameology here.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Meg

  • Message Board Extraordinaire
  • Moderator
  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *
  • Posts: 2069
  • Are you rapier than me?
    • Brilliant Gameologists
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #242 on: October 29, 2008, 11:08:31 AM »
But Elennsar, people aren't asking for clarification because they don't think they are confused.  You wrote something inflamatory/ insulting/ or that came across as a bad idea and they read it and responded.  If there had been a question then perhaps they would've asked for clarification.  Sorry for the business jargon, but their paradigm is set- it's not on the fence. 

Like my example about min/maxers = GWB (which I don't believe and is just an example).  I should have the foresight to think, "huh.  People may think I'm calling them dumb.  Maybe I shouldn't say that."  That's the way it will be read.  If I go in later and say, "no no!  That's not what I meant!"- too late.   

Sure, later maybe the paradigm will be totally shifted, but it doesn't change that you are responsible for that first impression.

When swimming against an unpopular belief it is eve more important that you make your points clearly and tactfully.  Doesn't mean not to do it, but to throw in comments like, "Kiss a camel"-- it's not doing much for your arguments.
All of my updates are on twitter! 

This is my angry voice.  Text written in red, by me, is  an official moderator "suggestion"

Want to meet me or the other Gameologists?  Check out where we'll be on the Conventions, Meetups and Events board!

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #243 on: October 29, 2008, 11:11:43 AM »
It's not doing much for my arguements because no one is listening to them in the first place, or listening to me saying "That's not what I meant." when I say that they misread it.

Screw the paradigm. If someone isn't interested in someone's "Oh. So that's what s/he meant.", they have no business claiming to be either intelligent or mature.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Meg

  • Message Board Extraordinaire
  • Moderator
  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *
  • Posts: 2069
  • Are you rapier than me?
    • Brilliant Gameologists
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #244 on: October 29, 2008, 11:30:22 AM »
When it comes across as insulting, most people won't care to even try to figure out what you meant.

You're not the only one who has had a rapid drop.
All of my updates are on twitter! 

This is my angry voice.  Text written in red, by me, is  an official moderator "suggestion"

Want to meet me or the other Gameologists?  Check out where we'll be on the Conventions, Meetups and Events board!

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #245 on: October 29, 2008, 11:34:24 AM »
Unfortunately, that is their problem, because it means that whether or not it was actually meant to be insulting is treated as irrelevant...thusly, nothing the author does matters after the person gets it into their head that the author might have been intending to be insulting.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Meg

  • Message Board Extraordinaire
  • Moderator
  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *
  • Posts: 2069
  • Are you rapier than me?
    • Brilliant Gameologists
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #246 on: October 29, 2008, 11:45:24 AM »
Not true.  If the author changes tactics, stance, and/or attitude, the change will be noticable.  It is important for the author to demonstrate a shift so the reader can also experience a shift.  Just saying "that's not what I meant" and continuing to sound like a jerk will get you nowhere. 

If after people came down on me for saying that min/maxxers were as dumb as GWB, and after I figured out how my words had been interpreted, I would've said something like:

"Oh!!  Oh, that's not what I meant at all.  Oh wow, I can see how me saying XYZ would've been taken to mean 123 now, but please believe me, that's not what I meant.  What I should've said was ABC.

Again, sorry for the confusion I caused!"

Had I said:

"No.  What I meant was ABC.  Listen first before responding, will you dickwad?  Or maybe you should've asked me if that's what I meant when it's so clearly not what I meant.  Idiot."

I won't expect anyone to change their initial viewpoint of "Well she's a bitch.  Moving on."

This is NOT what happened, so don't take it as a parallel, rather just an example. 

The responsibility still lies with the author to be clear in the first place and if misinterpreted, play clean up until your point is understood while taking responsibility that the initial confusion was your fault.
All of my updates are on twitter! 

This is my angry voice.  Text written in red, by me, is  an official moderator "suggestion"

Want to meet me or the other Gameologists?  Check out where we'll be on the Conventions, Meetups and Events board!

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #247 on: October 29, 2008, 11:47:33 AM »
So basically, the author is responsible for the reader not trying to understand what he/she typed.

Not "any confusion caused by poor wording". "Any failure of the reader to understand whatsoever".

Is this a site for adults who actually try to communicate, or not?

As someone who has been attacked for believing in something they don't at least twice (the "master race" concept and the Stormwind Fallacy), despite specifically saying I do not believe in either, I am very strongly inclined to think that the problem is not in my wording, because the posts in question specifically state that I do not believe in the thing in question, but in the inability or unwillingness of the reader/s to read the word "not", as in "I do not believe in this." I am perfectly willing to accept full responsibility for any unclarity when it is my fault, but I refuse to accept blame for someone else reading "I do not believe min-maxing ability and roleplaying ability are mutually exclusve, but..." as "I believe min-maxing ability and roleplaying ability are mutually exclusive." Failure to understand an implied meaning is partially the author's fault, partially the reader's. Failure to read what was actually specifically typed is entirely the reader's fault.

Bold text = edit.

« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 11:55:06 AM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #248 on: October 29, 2008, 11:56:40 AM »
Communications 101, and again in 201, says 'the intent of the speaker (or writer) goes out the door the instant the words reach the audience.'  It then becomes the speaker/author's responsibility to note feedback and respond in order to clarify original intent, because it cannot be assumed that the audience will say 'wait, what? I don't understand'.  Often the audience will believe their understanding is correct - based upon their own experiences and viewpoints brought to the interaction - and react accordingly. 
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #249 on: October 29, 2008, 12:01:52 PM »
That does not excuse tuning out part of what the speaker said and mutilating what was actually said into something contrary to what was said.

Particularly not when communication is written, so that what the "speaker" "said" is not merely a matter of "did I hear it right? Did he really say?" at all.

As stated, I accept responsibility for failing to clarify some things I've said/typed. I do not accept responsibility for other people refusing to read what I write and insisting on their "No, really, you said this!" over what I actually said.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #250 on: October 29, 2008, 12:04:33 PM »
 :beathorse.  I'm done.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #251 on: October 29, 2008, 12:09:24 PM »
This post has been edited by the user to remove certain content.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2008, 12:44:04 PM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Omen of Peace

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Wise Madman
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #252 on: October 29, 2008, 01:05:24 PM »
Weren't you the one who criticized 4E without knowing anything about it, by assuming it had the same flaws as 3E ? If so, I think I may have given you -Fu at this point. You were criticizing something you hadn't tried and were not willing to try, putting the burden on us to explain to you everything about it. (This is only a summary of what happened, and an obviously biased one at that.)

If it wasn't you... ignore this post.

@Meg: :clap You've got a knack to explain those things.
The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erikson

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #253 on: October 29, 2008, 01:08:37 PM »
I criticized 4e and commented that it was likely to have the same or similar flaws to 3e, yes.

The burden was to point out that if X flaw was false, to show that to be the case, not to demonstrate exactly what 4e is like. Significant difference.

And I was not willing to spend money or find-a-group effort on something that did not appear from what I knew about it to be worth playing.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Dan2

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Wizicist
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #254 on: October 29, 2008, 05:27:39 PM »
You seem to have an unfortunate belief that you can't be held responsible for your opinions.

When you criticized 4E by assuming it was like 3rd edition, you made an implied statement.
"It's not my fault I'm wrong because you guys won't bring all of the evidence for all of the points I'm wrong on to me.  And I can't be bothered to do any of the research, because it might turn out to be a bad game."

You never said that explicitly, bit it was easily understood from your posts.
Implication is an important part of communication, and cannot be ignored.


Closer to topic:
If you want someone to understand you, it's your responsibility to get the communication across.
  *If you aren't willing to put forth enough effort to prevent miscommunication, you only have yourself to blame when they don't understand
    you.
  *If you aren't willing to put forth enough tact to prevent them from ignoring your points or misrepresenting you, it's still your fault.

Likewise, if you don't care whether or not someone understands you, you have no license to complain when they don't.

My point is, if you want someone to understand, you have to actually try.
That means using tact in your communication and taking measures to prevent miscommunication.
If someone misunderstands you, you still have to use tact and effort when you are trying to correct the mistake.

Given, there are going to be some people that will only try to anger you, no matter what you post.
  *These people are trolls and should be ignored.

It is not the reader's responsibility to try to understand.  It is the writer's.
If a point you make is not clear, it is your responsibility to clear it up.
If you are an ass about it and they stop listening to you, you have made a mistake in communication.





TL;DR:
The writer is responsible for getting communication across.
The reader is not responsible for trying to understand, although doing so is a sign of good manners or tact.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #255 on: October 29, 2008, 05:35:37 PM »
You know, I'm surprised no-one said "Elennsar is an idiot", then claimed that they were really praising him and that we should all have been able to see that.
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #256 on: October 29, 2008, 05:48:38 PM »
Speaking as someone who's been paid based on my message, and criticized my audience for not understanding me, and been wrong when I did so: Shut the hell up, Elennsar.

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #257 on: October 29, 2008, 06:09:00 PM »

  Not specifically directed to Elennsar though his protracted defense of himself prompts it; we like to think of ourself as a fairly intelligent, non-douchebag crowd on BG, with good feeling for our fellow forummer - except when they disagree with us.

  None of us are obligated to cross check and verify strongly worded statements. We assume as intelligent posters the clarity and intent of the message will come across, as we apply to our own posts. Someone who does not retract or otherwise change their statement ands expects others to 'check' before they respond .... leaves me flabbergasted.

  I negative fu-ed you Elennsar, because your attitude seems stubborn, childish, and rather presumptuous based on what I read on this thread. I am sufficiently intelligent and mature enough to do so? Your implicit worldview seems to be one where any neg. fu comes from someone who was too hasty or stupid to 'get' what you were striving at.

  And I want you to know this, because I think fu sometimes seems to arbitrary or random to the receiver. And I'd be interested in a thread where those who prefer this transparency to post their reasons for giving out positive or negative fu. It would be voluntary and a bit messy hurt feelings wise, but I'm wondering if the community thinks this might be useful?
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #258 on: October 29, 2008, 06:17:40 PM »
  And I want you to know this, because I think fu sometimes seems to arbitrary or random to the receiver. And I'd be interested in a thread where those who prefer this transparency to post their reasons for giving out positive or negative fu. It would be voluntary and a bit messy hurt feelings wise, but I'm wondering if the community thinks this might be useful?
I'd say 80% of the time, roughly, that'd be a good idea.  I'm cynical enough to believe that the other 20% of the time, it would lead to a flamewar that could dwarf any we've seen here, as someone's hurt feelings resulted in douchebaggery back and forth, escalating as people got hit collaterally or came to the 'defense' of one side or the other in the flamewar.

If there were a way to list reasons for giving positive and negative fu anonymously, it'd probably have real value as a learning instrument.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Dan2

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Wizicist
Re: Gameology-Fu
« Reply #259 on: October 29, 2008, 06:37:31 PM »
It would be voluntary and a bit messy hurt feelings wise, but I'm wondering if the community thinks this might be useful?

I think it might be useful, but there are also those here that wouldn't be mature enough to take neg fu as criticism.
I think that people like that would simply attack back with G-fu slaps.

As I further think about it, that return attack would be visible as well, the intelligent posters would be able to note that a specific poster simply returned attacks.

The worst case would then fall to an intelligent, but immature, poster who took neg fu personally, but spaced and timed his revenge slaps so that they seem like legitimate criticisms themselves.
Then he could simply say that he is naturally critical of people.

  And I want you to know this, because I think fu sometimes seems to arbitrary or random to the receiver. And I'd be interested in a thread where those who prefer this transparency to post their reasons for giving out positive or negative fu. It would be voluntary and a bit messy hurt feelings wise, but I'm wondering if the community thinks this might be useful?
I'd say 80% of the time, roughly, that'd be a good idea.  I'm cynical enough to believe that the other 20% of the time, it would lead to a flamewar that could dwarf any we've seen here, as someone's hurt feelings resulted in douchebaggery back and forth, escalating as people got hit collaterally or came to the 'defense' of one side or the other in the flamewar.

If there were a way to list reasons for giving positive and negative fu anonymously, it'd probably have real value as a learning instrument.

This looks like a pretty good idea as well.  The anonymity would work, so long as the meaning behind the neg fu was understood.
If a person couldn't understand why he got neg fu based on the short description, then it would do no good, and only lead to more bitching.



Also, I can imagine several arguments that take this structure:
A: "I think: (poorly worded sentiment/idea)
B: "But that means, (unintended meaning) and obviously, (rebuttal of sentiment or idea)
A: "No!  I meant (better worded idea).
B: "But you said "(quote of original, poorly worded idea)", which means (unintended meaning).

Now, in this case, B would look like they aren't reading A's replies.  To B, it looks like A is unaware of what his idea actually meant.  (Obviously more common in rules-translation arguments)

A: "I think: (poorly worded sentiment/idea)
B: "But that means, (unintended meaning) and obviously, (rebuttal of sentiment or idea)
A: "Ok, I think I understand, but that isn't what I meant at all.  Let me try again. (Better worded idea).
B: "Yeah, (poorly worded idea) means (unintended meaning) but (better worded idea) works out fairly well.

B is still trying to point out A's error to him, but A managed to get his real idea across by accepting his mistake, calling it out as one, and indicating that he understood the difference.

I think this kind of back-and-forth is at the heart of quite a few arguments like Elennsar's