So, first, I'd like to thank you, Mobius. It's a rare occurrence that a user on a ban makes a new account for something other than spewing hate and bile. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation you stirred.
So let's delve into some stuff. I generally dislike "quote walls" but I think this is going to turn into one, unfortunately.
So just to clarify: the next time someone posts something that I personally believe is so far beyond idiotic as to be borderline detrimental to this strategy board as a whole....it's okay if I word my response to assault the IDEA and not the POSTER, correct?
Because, really, the only time I even bother to "go off" on someone is because the ideas they're presenting are frankly offensive to me.
I can work on my sentence structure if that's indeed all you guys are asking of me......as long as I'm not expected to be silent or be silenced in the face of bad advice.
As for the recommendation to put these "repeat offenders" on ignore...that would defeat the purpose of why I respond to begin with: To protect new players from exceedingly poor advice and showing them better ways to think/do things. If you think I'm here to stroke my Magic ego, come on. This is Duels we're talking about. I'm mostly here to help.
I'm hesitant to give a blanket yes or no here, frankly. Not because I want to maintain wiggle room on my side (though that is part of it), but more because I don't want to steer you wrong. Because as I play the scenario out in my head, I can see a case where you make a post thinking you're on the "correct" side of the line that was drawn in the sand and then we have a problem if a mod thinks otherwise. So I'm going to hedge and say, "probably" and then explain a bit.
Generally speaking, we're far more interested in the spirit of the rules than the exact letter. And as has been said previously in this thread, the spirit of the rule is, "don't be a dick." But, of course, even that is subjective, which then leads to, "Criticize the idea not the poster." And as we're seeing, even
that can be subjective.
Here's my take.
Poster A says "
Vengeful Vampire is the best card in Dimir. It's a must run for anyone who wants to win".
Bad response:"You're an idiot if you think that
Vengeful Vampire should be anywhere near your deck list. It's a really bad card, and only a fool would run it"
Good response:"
Vengeful Vampire is terrible. It's overcosted for what it does, and anyone who runs it could easily improve their deck by swapping it out for basically anything else in the deck"
This is accurate, but also probably obvious. And I don't think this example gets to the heart of what Mobius wants to really say to somebody in this situation.
Quote:
Quote:
I can work on my sentence structure if that's indeed all you guys are asking of me......as long as I'm not expected to be silent or be silenced in the face of bad advice.
I, for one, don't want anyone to be silent in the face of bad advice. As the Code states:
Quote:
You are allowed and even expected to disagree with other users from time to time, but the moment you go from disagreeing to disrespecting is the moment you cross the line
So, pointing out why something is bad advice, providing better options, even saying that a card is really bad in this deck, is all fine. Telling someone they are dumb for posting something like that, is not fine.
This, too, is accurate but, again, I don't think it's quite getting into what Mobius was really asking. He's not asking* if he can politely disagree; he wants to call the idea a big steaming pile of poo and know he won't get warned.
* If I'm mischaracterizing your question, Mobius, please correct me.
You're missing my point.
What I'm getting at is I don't want to tone down the vitriol at all (and it's not even that bad to begin with), I'm asking if it's okay to contort my posts in a way which directs all my "flowery prose" at the idea itself and not the poster......even if my outright mocking of the idea offends the poster?
I don't do charm school. Have you ever talked Magic for real outside of a message board? How I "talk" is how a majority of people talk.
As a general statement, if you somebody tells Bob his idea is bad I don't care if that offends Bob. If somebody tells Bob his idea is bad, explains why, and maybe even offers alternatives, I'm even less concerned if Bob is offended. (but keep reading.)
NeoSilk, i'd like to apply your sample discussion a bit differently:
Poster A: "I'm trying to fit
Blanchwood Armor into my Sylvan Might deck. Anyone have some advice on what to replace with it?"
Typical Mobius response: "Are you kidding? Have you even
read the card? Blanchwood armor is only good if you have a TON OF FORESTS. The elf deck neither needs them, nor has ways of getting them. Blanchwood Armor does not belong in this deck, and anyone who thinks it does needs to get their head examined."
While this does not directly attack Poster A, it is still has the potential to be offensive, and could be worded much more amicably:
Poster B: "Poster A, I would advise you not to use
Blanchwood Armor here. The elf deck usually runs a low land count and has no ramp, so
Alpha Status is usually a better aura to use. However, I don't think you need any auras, just max out on elves and draw and you're good to go."
OK, so let's start with the hypothetical Mobius reply. (Side note: I've actually been on boards where, "have you even read what I said" type comments were considered flaming. Good boards, even, with good discussion and strong back and forth.) Side note, um, aside... the only problem in the hypothetical is, "and anyone who thinks it does needs to get their head examined." That's flaming. Maybe not full blown, bonfire flames. But it is flaming. It's passive aggressively saying Poster A is a
loon for thinking Blanchwood Armor is useful; effectively, it has left the idea of talking about Poster A's idea and shifted to talking directly about Poster A instead.
Clearly, Poster B's reply is fine. I don't think anybody has any question about that sort of reply. If everybody responded like that, frankly, things might be a bit boring, even.
If I understand this correctly, you can insult an idea, but you can't insult a person, and you can't be condescending in the way you insult their ideas. The condescension part of it seems to cover most of the blurry area.
This is really, really close.
You can't insult an idea. Because ideas don't have feelings. Or a consciousness, for that matter. An idea is a thing, just like a coffee mug or a table or a bookshelf. You can't insult those things no matter what you say about them. And the same is true for an idea. I can call it the worst thing since unsliced bread, and I can't hurt its feelings - because it doesn't have any. (And if you want to get a bit philosophical about it: ideas, by their nature,
demand criticism, as that's the only way they can grow and expand and mature.)
People can be insulted. What it takes to insult somebody varies from person to person, and so it's difficult to draw the line in the sand a dictate what is and is not OK. So we just say it's not OK.
Sometimes people decide they need to serve as a proxy when their things are insulted, because of that whole lack of emotions thing. So if I trash (verbally) your coffee mug because it's truly an ugly sight - it's chipped and stained and has a picture of Justin Beiber with a heart around it and so on - I'm not insulting
you by any sane definition of the word; and so if you choose to take offense at it, that's on you not me. Similarly, if I trash your idea that your deck needs MOAR Blanchwood Armor - as long as I truly trashed only the idea - then that's on you and not me.
And so that's the spirit behind the rules, and what the thinking is. Ideas are made to be flogged, and only the strongest survive and improve. If your verbal flogging truly sticks to the idea, rather than stretching that point wider than the Hoover Dam with verbal gymnastics, you should be OK. If you're lacing your critique with passive aggressive statements and such, then there's a chance you're going to run into some trouble - even if at first blush it appears your flogging the idea. Seeker's post is a good example of that, I think.
And so while I know I didn't really answer your question, I hope I gave you the building blocks needed to build your own conclusion. I don't think I can answer your question otherwise, because it's really asking me to draw a line in the sand. And maybe you don't use that line as a weapon to cudgel us later, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't. "But you said..." type posts worry me when they spring from this sort of conversation, and so I don't want to lead anybody down that path.
I'm happy to continue the conversation, because I'm sure I've raised as many questions - or more - as I answered...
Login
Register
Card Search
NGAWiki
Search
