Mongoose Traveller Moderation

[Murdoc]

Diplomacy 101

I think that I see the difference in what people are seeing as the "two" kinds of statements and whether they are the "same", essentially, or not. I also think that I can help with a little basic psychology and diplomacy to show what kinds of statements these really are, which are offensive or not, and why.

Basically, what we see here as two statements are in fact three.

The first: "You are (just) a fanboy." is a statement regarding the person's identity. In psychology these statements are generally harder to change than the second type of statement:

"You (just) hate all things Mongoose (or whatever)" which is talking about behaviour." This is like the difference between saying "I smoke" and "I am a smoker". These may seem like the same thing to most, but psychologically they differ because it is easier for a person to think "I smoke, but I can change that", than to think "I am a smoker, but I can change that". It's a weird but subtle difference that happens in our minds. And I think that this is the difference that Allen was talking about when he said: "If you don't know the difference between making a statement and calling someone a name, I can't help you."

So why do the two statements appear the same to others then? Because the second one is stated as a generalization: "You hate all things Mongoose." This is a behavioural statement, yes, but one that is clearly stating an unchanging behaviour, which is why it seems so much like the identity statement, because they both imply that the behaviour will not change. This is tbeard's assertion (and others) that both types of statement are the same. Hence, both Allen and tbeard are correct here, and hence why the argument.

If one were to say instead: "You hate (some) Mongoose things", then it wouldn't be all-encompassing and therefore not dismissive. Of course, it kind of loses its point in dismissing the other person's arguments/statements (which is the point here, we don't like that as it's regarded as offensive and is actually logically fallacious). Generalizations are always bad (yes, an ironic statement) because they limit your thinking. It is this kind of thinking that leads to things like racism or other forms of prejudice.

But the problem remains, what if it's true? What if the person you are talking to does really just hate all things Mongoose (or whatever you are trying to assert)? This is the point I believe that Allan was trying to make when he said: "Not if they've been demonstrated repeatedly as being true." So what's the answer there?

This is where we use what are called "I" statements. Check it out:
"You are only saying that because you hate all things Mongoose." and
"I think that you are only saying that because you hate all things Mongoose." Or even better:
"It appears to me that you are only saying that because you hate all things Mongoose."
Another option: "I feel that..." You can then go on to prove your point by providing evidence, links, quotes, whatever. The point is that regardless of how it appears to you, you don't in actuality know the truth. You may not have seen every post that person has made. Maybe they've done things differently on another forum like Mongoose's. Who knows? The only thing you know is the stuff you've seen, and while that may lead you to a conclusion, it always might be false. If you can state it like an observation rather than "the truth", it is not offensive as others can either back up your claim, or provide evidence against it. Does this make sense?

So in short, stick to behavioural statements, avoid generalizations, and if you must, then use an "I" statement before it and we should all get along fine. Does this make sense to anyone?

 

[tbeard1999]

I think that I see the difference in what people are seeing as the "two" kinds of statements and whether they are the "same", essentially, or not. I also think that I can help with a little basic psychology and diplomacy to show what kinds of statements these really are, which are offensive or not, and why.

Basically, what we see here as two statements are in fact three.

The first: "You are (just) a fanboy." is a statement regarding the person's identity. In psychology these statements are generally harder to change than the second type of statement:

"You (just) hate all things Mongoose (or whatever)" which is talking about behaviour."

Sorry, I don't buy your distinctions at all. Both statements boil down to the same charge -- that you have an irrational bias that completely clouds your judgment and renders your assertions irrational on their face. If you wish, you can change "you're just a MGT fanboy" to "you unconditionally love all things produced for Mongoose Traveller". THEY MEAN THE SAME THING.

And the only substantive difference between the two statemenrs above is that the first statement is aimed at MGT fans and the second is aimed at MGT critics. That's it. And there's no principled basis for treating the former as an insult and the latter as an acceptible comment IMHO. Either both are insulting or neither is insulting.

But I do think it is telling that some folks desperately want to be able to deride MGT critics as mindless haters of MGT while banning charges of mindless enchantment of MGT.

Sorry, but I don't think that this is an intellectually tenable position.

 

[Allensh]

But I do think it is telling that some folks desperately want to be able to deride MGT critics as mindless haters of MGT while banning charges of mindless enchantment of MGT.

I don't believe I have ever said that or anything like it. And I honestly can't say I have seen anyone else actually say that either. If so, please enlighten me with examples.

Allen

 

[hunter]

Another option: "I feel that..." You can then go on to prove your point by providing evidence, links, quotes, whatever. The point is that regardless of how it appears to you, you don't in actuality know the truth. You may not have seen every post that person has made. Maybe they've done things differently on another forum like Mongoose's. Who knows? The only thing you know is the stuff you've seen, and while that may lead you to a conclusion, it always might be false. If you can state it like an observation rather than "the truth", it is not offensive as others can either back up your claim, or provide evidence against it. Does this make sense?

It still remains an attack on the person, not the issues or ideas they put forth. It remains offensive.

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't believe I have ever said that or anything like it. And I honestly can't say I have seen anyone else actually say that either. If so, please enlighten me with examples.

I'm not making any specific accusations. However, I infer this from the fact that some folks -- including you at one point -- have argued that two essentially identical statements should be treated differently. Yet the only meaningful difference between these statements is who each comment is directed towards.

I think that it is reasonable to use this example to illustrate my contention that the definition of "offensiveness" can be highly subjective and highly dependent on which side of the argument you happen to be on.

 

[Murdoc]

Sorry, I don't buy your distinctions at all. Both statements boil down to the same charge

First of all, they are not my distinctions, but ones made in psychology. I didn't just make this up. And I wasn't trying to justify anything either. I was attmepting to show why I believe that what Allen was saying was essentially correct, but so were you. My statements don't contradict yours (or Allen's), they attempt clarify them so that these two "opposing" sides might see where the other is coming from, and thereby be able to frame the rest of the conversation constructively rather than beating back and forth the same, essentially correct statements.

Of course they both boil down to the same charge. You did see me say: "...which is why it seems so much like the identity statement, because they both imply that the behaviour will not change." I hope you can see what I am trying to do which is not to contradict you.

It still remains an attack on the person, not the issues or ideas they put forth. It remains offensive.

Hence why I said "stick to behavioural statements, avoid generalizations", right? I don't disagree with you there either. But what I was trying to do was provide a less offensive alternative for people who honestly feel that someone might actually be doing something like that. I mean, what if they are? What would be your solution? Ideally one might combine the two, as in "I feel that you are simply dismissing anything having to do with Mongoose without looking at the facts."

 

[hunter]

Hence why I said "stick to behavioural statements, avoid generalizations", right? I don't disagree with you there either. But what I was trying to do was provide a less offensive alternative for people who honestly feel that someone might actually be doing something like that. I mean, what if they are? What would be your solution? Ideally one might combine the two, as in "I feel that you are simply dismissing anything having to do with Mongoose without looking at the facts."

But you are still attacking the person, not their opinions and statements on the subject itself. It doesn't matter how you phrase it. It may be less offensive to the person saying it, that doesn't necessarily mean that the recipient of it feels it is any less offensive.

 

[rust]

I also do not see much of a difference.

In my view "You are an *****", "You behave like an *****" and "I feel you behave like an *****" all three are equally insulting.

 

[captainjack]

I considered posting this a few days ago, but it really was too heated. How bout the short version: these problems seem to arise the minute one ventures to comment on a persons motivations, and not their behavior nor ideas. Motivations are inherently unknowable, and just fuel for the bonfire. "Mongoose seems to have a real problem with editing" is different from Mongoose can't be bothered with editing" . This isn't the only reason this happens, not by a long shot - rudeness and vitriol are real probems too, but much less quantifiable: but I will suggest that anytime one is critically asserting something about anothers motivations, that one cannot possibly know, it is potentially over the line in an argument; and I maintain it is a quantifiable observation.

"You hate MGT" = "MGT authors are idiots" ; both are inherently unknowable, and attempts to pass off a guess (at best) as fact to the detriment of the target.

Similarly "you are a fanboi" = "You are a hater". both knowingly apply (imagined) global, simplistic and permanent descriptors to an inherently situational and complex situation.

So, one is essentially using a lie to describe another person -and if it's in a negative way, then it is indeed an attack. (if it's in a positive way, it's nauseating).

That seems pretty quantifiable to me; and I do have to say that applying it to my own issues with a certain Jovian Doctor has reduced the vitriol somewhat -we still piss and moan about ither issues, but one less thing to get banned about, is one less thing to get banned about.

 

[captainjack]

I also do not see much of a difference.

In my view "You are an *****", "You behave like an *****" and "I feel you behave like an *****" all three are equally insulting.

Gee....motivations again; could it be that the key is the use of the word ******* that makes it offensive ? I mean, unless one really thinks my **** is typing a given post...

*****is an attribution of motivation, right ?

 

[rust]

*****is an attribution of motivation, right ?

Ah ... no.

***** is a description of a cognitively challenged person, +++++ would be
an attribution of motivation ... I think.

 

[tbeard1999]

Of course they both boil down to the same charge. You did see me say: "...which is why it seems so much like the identity statement, because they both imply that the behaviour will not change." I hope you can see what I am trying to do which is not to contradict you.

Ah, okay, I must've misread your post. My mistake; sorry.

 

[aramis]

I also do not see much of a difference.

In my view "You are an *****", "You behave like an *****" and "I feel you behave like an *****" all three are equally insulting.

I certainly agree that all three are insulting; the third less so, but still across the line.

 

[captainjack]

Ah ... no.

***** is a description of a cognitively challenged person, +++++ would be
an attribution of motivation ... I think.

Oh. Fair enough. What about @@@@@@@ ?

 

[Colin]

The questioning of ideas is fine. Critque of ideas is fine. Crossing over into motivations will likely become not fine in very short order.
Let me provide an example: I don't like Mongoose Traveller becasue of the cnahges made to accepted OTU canon, such as changes to the Trajan Reach, psionics in Aslan, and antlers on Vargr ( ). That's fine.
Saying Mongoose is determined to change Traveller in unnatural ways is less fine, but still within acceptable limits.
But saying: Mongoose Matt is an evil shill of the mighty publishing conglomerate. Yeah, no, that won't fly.
Nor wiill calling someone a fanboy, or a hater.

 

[atpollard]

In my view "You are an *****", "You behave like an *****" and "I feel you behave like an *****" all three are equally insulting.

I certainly agree that all three are insulting; the third less so, but still across the line.

What about "I have noticed an apparent trend in your recent posts towards *****-like behavior, and I was wondering whether you consider yourself a true *****. or do you merely have *****ish tendencies?"

Arthur
(Proudly testing limits and pushing boundaries since 1962)

[It was a joke.]

 

[Allensh]

What about "I have noticed an apparent trend in your recent posts towards *****-like behavior, and I was wondering whether you consider yourself a true *****. or do you merely have *****ish tendencies?"

Arthur
(Proudly testing limits and pushing boundaries since 1962)

[It was a joke.]

I think only a true ***** would do something like that...

Allen

 

[aramis]

Both of which are warning to infraction turf, IMO, depending upon what ***** is.

 

[atpollard]

Both of which are warning to infraction turf, IMO, depending upon what ***** is.

From the original post, "*****" appears to have been a holder for any questionable descriptor (like "fanboy" or "hater") - neutral to which side of the debate one was on.

[Although recent 'discussions' might suggest that "moderator" could apply given your* recently well documented status as a cabal of ineffective, iron fisted, look the other way, MgT hating, Mongoose fanboys. o:]

*The collective 'you all' rather than personal 'you'.

 

[Allensh]

From the original post, "*****" appears to have been a holder for any questionable descriptor (like "fanboy" or "hater") - neutral to which side of the debate one was on.

[Although recent 'discussions' might suggest that "moderator" could apply given your* recently well documented status as a cabal of ineffective, iron fisted, look the other way, MgT hating, Mongoose fanboys. o:]

*The collective 'you all' rather than personal 'you'.

ummm...Mgt hating AND Mongoose fanboys? how does that work?

I suppose some rabid d20 B5 fans might fit that description...if there were any

Allen