I dont think this has any real merit (No offence Third). I think it is obvious that some of these people do exist, and do just want to cause an argument for the sake of causing an argument, but some people genuinely think WotC is doing a good job, or that the ranger is balanced. Personally, I dont think that the ranger is too bad (It is certainly not unplayable, and you can have fun while playing one), but if I tried to argue that on here with no other context of my views then I would be branded as a 'Designer Advocate', which I definitely am not. I think there are five real types of poster in any forum relating to a product:
The Haters: This is pretty self explanatory - People who will pronounce how much they HATE EVERYTHING about whatever you are talking about (As long as WotC made it) and how they would do it better and that WotC is probably being run by a Mind Flayer who is working for Tiamat..... I think it should be pretty easy to tell from the side we are on that there is a minimal amount of these on the site (Mainly thanks to our amazing mods :D).
The Dubious : This probably is 90% of the active posters on this forum - They like DnD but they are disliking the direction in which the devs are taking it and/or dont like parts of the content (Be it a little or a lot). I would probably guess that Third, Yurei, and Sposta would fall under this category (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am :) as well as myself, but I am kinda a mix of this and the next. Most people in this category are viewed by 'Supporters' as 'Haters' even if they are not.
The Regular DnD player: This is like...85% of every DnD player ever. They dont really know/care/talk about WotC's problems, they just play DnD. And usually they have fun.
The Supporters: These people Think WotC is doing pretty good or even great. Obviously they know its not perfect but they are doing the best they can to make the game better, and its working. These people will usually stand up for WotC in most arguments. These people are mostly viewed as 'Designer Advocates' by people who are 'Dubious'
The Designer Advocates: These are the people who Third is talking about. The people who are willing to die on their hill proclaiming that WotC was made by Helm himself to bring the world into peace and prosperity. These people are just as much of a problem as the 'Haters' and probably should be classified as trolls.
The thing about these threads is that they have to be kept on topic, therefore it is really hard to gauge what kind of player someone is. If someone is vehemently defending the way of four elements monk in a thread about the way of four elements monk that doesn't make them a designer advocate. Maybe they hate how broken the ranger is (In a bad way) and think the new rules in Tasha's make Races bland. Maybe they even start to say that when someone accuses them of being a developers pet...but then they realize that that is off topic (Or one of the mods remind them) so they go back to their arguments. Unlike a conversation IRL where the topics change four times every 12 minutes and 32 seconds, on these threads there is no way to get the scale of these people.
I think the only way to really gauge what kind of player any poster is is to have an open conversation in DMs where they tell you what they like, dislike and are neutral about in 5e. Then you can make your guess about what kind of player you think they are. But thats it. A guess. Ultimately, it is up to that player to play how he likes, and maybe....just maybe...we could stop classifying people by their play style and start to try and understand it. That way we can start moving away from conflict threads and more towards conversation threads.
Thank you for letting me come to your ted talk and rant on for about 3 minutes of reading time 😅
. . . I'm' not sure what you disagree with, GoodBovine. I agree with basically everything you said. The part of the community that are "Designer's Advocates" are definitely a minority of the community, but that doesn't make them not be a problem. They're certainly much more common on this site than the true "Haters/Eternal Critics" (from what I've seen, anyway). I could name over a dozen posters on this site who would truly fall into the category of "Designer's Advocate" and not just a "Supporter".
I'm not really a true member of the "Dubious" group of the community. I'm more of a "Dubious Supporter", who will support a certain design choice of WotC in certain circumstances, and explain why I dislike others in different circumstances. For an example, I think the way Echo Knights are written in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is a goddamn awful way to explain the intent of the features, but I also believe that Paladins and Warlocks are overall well designed classes. I'm dubious about certain parts Tasha's (parts of the Customize your Origin section, the lack of spell tables for the PHB ranger subclasses and XGtE/PHB sorcerer subclasses, etc), and a supporter of some of the other parts (most of the Class Feature Variants, the summoning spells, quite a lot of the subclasses, etc)
If you argued in support of the Ranger class, you would in no way be a Designer's Advocate. You would merely be a "Supporter" in that circumstance. If you argued in support of it and started to troll the conversation because of how much you like playing the ranger class, you would be a Designer's Advocate. I have argued in support for some features that are sometimes seen as unbalanced (the Champion Fighter comes to mind), but that doesn't make me a Designer's Advocate, because I didn't troll the discussion and try to win using anecdotes and logical fallacies.
You can have fun playing with almost any mechanic in the game. Just because you like playing something that is normally seen as unbalanced doesn't make you a Designer's Advocate. Of course you're going to be biased towards something you had positive experiences with! It's only human nature. However, Designer's Advocates cannot accept that their anecdotal experience with it is not objectively true, and cannot see how anyone else would have had a bad experience with it.
Is there anything you disagree with here?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
. . . I'm' not sure what you disagree with, GoodBovine. I agree with basically everything you said. The part of the community that are "Designer's Advocates" are definitely a minority of the community, but that doesn't make them not be a problem. They're certainly much more common on this site than the true "Haters/Eternal Critics" (from what I've seen, anyway). I could name over a dozen posters on this site who would truly fall into the category of "Designer's Advocate" and not just a "Supporter".
I'm not really a true member of the "Dubious" group of the community. I'm more of a "Dubious Supporter", who will support a certain design choice of WotC in certain circumstances, and explain why I dislike others in different circumstances. For an example, I think the way Echo Knights are written in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is a goddamn awful way to explain the intent of the features, but I also believe that Paladins and Warlocks are overall well designed classes. I'm dubious about certain parts Tasha's (parts of the Customize your Origin section, the lack of spell tables for the PHB ranger subclasses and XGtE/PHB sorcerer subclasses, etc), and a supporter of some of the other parts (most of the Class Feature Variants, the summoning spells, quite a lot of the subclasses, etc)
If you argued in support of the Ranger class, you would in no way be a Designer's Advocate. You would merely be a "Supporter" in that circumstance. If you argued in support of it and started to troll the conversation because of how much you like playing the ranger class, you would be a Designer's Advocate. I have argued in support for some features that are sometimes seen as unbalanced (the Champion Fighter comes to mind), but that doesn't make me a Designer's Advocate, because I didn't troll the discussion and try to win using anecdotes and logical fallacies.
You can have fun playing with almost any mechanic in the game. Just because you like playing something that is normally seen as unbalanced doesn't make you a Designer's Advocate. Of course you're going to be biased towards something you had positive experiences with! It's only human nature. However, Designer's Advocates cannot accept that their anecdotal experience with it is not objectively true, and cannot see how anyone else would have had a bad experience with it.
Is there anything you disagree with here?
I dont disagree, I think what you sad was correct, but I think the last part of my OP still stands. The people you think are 'Designers Advocates' may very well be objectively 'Designers advocates' but I dont think they would refer to themselves as that, and I am sure there are others that would think the same as them. That makes what you say subjective, arguable, and completely pointless. Remember the last time people classified other people based on who they were and what they did? I do. It was the time period from....10 000 BC to the 1870s. Luckily in this last century we have tried to step away from that but it still happens. I also think it works the same way. I seem to remember that you dont allow rolls at your table, and dont like the ranger or the sorcerer. Is none of that from personal, or at least second hand experience? Has that not tainted your views? Maybe they can see that, but because they are arguing against you and maybe they didn't mention that, but something in what they were saying implied that, you (Maybe unconsciously) filled in the blanks. I think that when an argument becomes as polarized as on these forums, some things get misunderstood. I am willing to bet I can guess half of those dozen that you brought up, and I think that most of them dont think everything you think they think. Think.
Who knows, maybe you are right, but that is the point. No-one can know for sure, so we shouldn't put labels on people that we dont really understand. Especially on the internet.
I also wanted to address the 'Logical Fallacies' part. Some people are really good at arguing. I think you are, Yurei is (If a bit beautifully long winded), and I am one of those people. I know how to research quickly, how to ask questions in the right way, I am also extremely cool under pressure (I am not boasting, just explaining how I am. I am also extremely smart, handsome and humble. Again not boasting). Imagine it like this. There is a popular game that every kid is playing in school right now. It is a fun game, but it is pretty complex and it catered to a certain type of people (Lets say it is a maths game). In any case, most people are terrible, but 20% of the people who played were AMAZING. Because you are matched up against a bunch of people, it is likely that you will play against one of these really good players every match. Now you cannot win a single game. What do you do? What any kid would do. You cheat. Suddenly, because of these cheats, you are doing amazing, you are winning every game bla bla bla. Then someone (Lets say one of the good players, for Karma's sake) looks into why you are suddenly better. And then you are found out and the whole thing falls apart. Sometimes, the anecdotal experience and logical fallacies are a crutch, because some people can't walk the long road of a nitty gritty confrontation without them. But that doesn't make their point irrelevant, just their methods.
As a proof of concept, next time you see someone do this, DM me what he was arguing about and I will argue his side. I think the outcome will be a lot different :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I think the only way to really gauge what kind of player any poster is is to have an open conversation in DMs where they tell you what they like, dislike and are neutral about in 5e. Then you can make your guess about what kind of player you think they are. But thats it. A guess. Ultimately, it is up to that player to play how he likes, and maybe....just maybe...we could stop classifying people by their play style and start to try and understand it. That way we can start moving away from conflict threads and more towards conversation threads.
In my experience, by the time the discussion has come to a disagreement, a Designer's Advocate would not be willing to civilly discuss that. Also, the fullness of 5e normally doesn't need to be discussed in a debate about a certain mechanic/feature.
Also, this isn't classifying people based on their playstyle. Playstyle is how you play the game. This isn't playing the game, it's debating online. It's helpful to identify people as trolls in order to understand why they are debating the way they are.
Just a nit pick, but conflict/debates are a type of conversation.
I dont disagree, I think what you sad was correct, but I think the last part of my OP still stands. The people you think are 'Designers Advocates' may very well be objectively 'Designers advocates' but I dont think they would refer to themselves as that, and I am sure there are others that would think the same as them. That makes what you say subjective, arguable, and completely pointless. Remember the last time people classified other people based on who they were and what they did? I do. It was the time period from....10 000 BC to the 1870s. Luckily in this last century we have tried to step away from that but it still happens. I also think it works the same way. I seem to remember that you dont allow rolls at your table, and dont like the ranger or the sorcerer. Is none of that from personal, or at least second hand experience? Has that not tainted your views? Maybe they can see that, but because they are arguing against you and maybe they didn't mention that, but something in what they were saying implied that, you (Maybe unconsciously) filled in the blanks. I think that when an argument becomes as polarized as on these forums, some things get misunderstood. I am willing to bet I can guess half of those dozen that you brought up, and I think that most of them dont think everything you think they think. Think.
Who knows, maybe you are right, but that is the point. No-one can know for sure, so we shouldn't put labels on people that we dont really understand. Especially on the internet.
Why would someone admit to being a Designer's Advocate? That doesn't make any sense at all. That's admitting you're a troll, because by my definition (shown in the OP), a Designer's Advocate is a troll. That's like getting someone to admit that they like starting wildfires or kicking puppies. It's not impossible, it's just social suicide in most cases.
Also, I disagree with the comparison that says that calling people trolls because they troll is similar to racism.
Just a correction, I do like rangers and I do like sorcerers, I just think they have serious design flaws. Everyone is going to be biased, it's just human nature, but being biased isn't the problem with Designer's Advocates. Being biased is unavoidable. However, you can do your best to stop your biases from leaking into your argument, checking your posts to see if you're using logical fallacies. Designer's Advocates (and most trolls) don't check their posts for logical fallacies, because they don't care if their argument is logically flawed. They just care about preventing others from "winning" the debate.
I also wanted to address the 'Logical Fallacies' part. Some people are really good at arguing. I think you are, Yurei is (If a bit beautifully long winded), and I am one of those people. I know how to research quickly, how to ask questions in the right way, I am also extremely cool under pressure (I am not boasting, just explaining how I am. I am also extremely smart, handsome and humble. Again not boasting). Imagine it like this. There is a popular game that every kid is playing in school right now. It is a fun game, but it is pretty complex and it catered to a certain type of people (Lets say it is a maths game). In any case, most people are terrible, but 20% of the people who played were AMAZING. Because you are matched up against a bunch of people, it is likely that you will play against one of these really good players every match. Now you cannot win a single game. What do you do? What any kid would do. You cheat. Suddenly, because of these cheats, you are doing amazing, you are winning every game bla bla bla. Then someone (Lets say one of the good players, for Karma's sake) looks into why you are suddenly better. And then you are found out and the whole thing falls apart. Sometimes, the anecdotal experience and logical fallacies are a crutch, because some people can't walk the long road of a nitty gritty confrontation without them. But that doesn't make their point irrelevant, just their methods.
Knowing what logical fallacies are and how to identify them, why they're detrimental to an argument, and how to argue without them is a skill that takes practice to be acquired. It normally does take the type of person who doesn't immediately go "hot" after having someone disagree with them to be good at logical debates.
I don't understand your analogy. Are you saying that the cheater's "wins" aren't invalidated by the fact that they cheated? That seems backwards. Any teacher I know would give a student an automatic F if they cheated.
Logical fallacies don't automatically shut down someone else's argument, but if you can prove why in their specific case it does invalidate their argument, it's very useful to point out someone else's logical fallacies. In the case of your analogy, it would basically be the person who didn't cheat saying that the reason the person who did cheat doesn't get to win is because they didn't use their own skill/talent to get them there. Debaters who use logical fallacies basically "cheat" to win a conversation.
As a proof of concept, next time you see someone do this, DM me what he was arguing about and I will argue his side. I think the outcome will be a lot different :)
As long as the debate is in the DM, I will do so. I don't need to debate a Designer's Advocate and a Devil's Advocate with good intentions at the same time in the same thread. Isolating the discussions would actually help prove my point about Designer's Advocates being trolls that are detrimental to the community.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You represent your perspective being some sort of winning tactic, that's different from actually proving your tactic a winner. Show me you "winning" against a designers advocate. If you don't want to call out specific posters, DM a link to the thread or a few threads your greatest hits, I'll respect the anonymity. However, from a survey that's simply my reading of this board including some of the epic disagreements on "the game needs a fix" vs "no it doesn't and your fix is more broken" I see mostly people walking away in disagreement or the thread itself getting locked down when the line is crossed and people are just insulting each other.
People can offer opinions, inspire creative and critical thinking, and agree to disagree. That last part is key.
I think the premise behind this thread greatly overestimates the impact positions put forth on this forum have on people giving feedback to WotC (not to mention how WotC market research and community input fits into their current or _future_ game design philosophy). But hey if you're right and you've perfected rationale discourse on the internet, here's to a happier 2021.
Again, the forum isn't a closed door deliberative body. What people write down is on record. People search out topics on the forum, read what's there and take what they like and maybe contribute a bit too. It's a bit much to presume you can teach or preach people logic and reasoning for a healthy discourse dynamic in one post.
You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. I don't think that I claimed that any of the tactics are foolproof, I actually did the opposite of that. In the OP I actually made the point to point out the pros and cons of each option and asked for other possible tactics. My OP was never meant to be a "here are all the options, use these" post, it was more of a "this is my experience, here are things you should avoid and things that generally work in your favor, have any more suggestions?" post. I just wanted to make a thread to discuss how to make the debates with the "Designer's Advocates" have a more constructive outcome.
This thread is rapidly devolving from an attempt at a meta discussion about games design analysis and into a meta debate about forum rules and reacting to people you may not agree with. I would just like to remind everyone of the following:
Bolded for relevance. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this thread is about and you can find similar statements echoed in most of the posts made by people that disagree with this thread's content.
We are not talking about people simply because they disagree with us. That is so petty.
A Designer's Advocate is toxic because of HOW they argue their opinions. The OP and many contributors since have gone on at length about this.
This thread is attempting to be a resource on how to engage with them in a productive and forum-healthy manner (i.e logical debate or maybe just the ignore button) when one poisons a thread you are a part of. Their behavior is clearly toxic, but generally does not fall within the perimeters of moderator action. No set of rules, no matter how well structured can cover every nuance of human interaction.
For anyone struggling with this kind of toxicity and are in a place where they don't want to hit the ignore button (maybe it's happening in a thread you've been engaged in for pages and want to continue, or maybe it's a thread that you created) I think that this thread is a good read.
This thread is rapidly devolving from an attempt at a meta discussion about games design analysis and into a meta debate about forum rules and reacting to people you may not agree with. I would just like to remind everyone of the following:
Bolded for relevance. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this thread is about and you can find similar statements echoed in most of the posts made by people that disagree with this thread's content.
We are not talking about people simply because they disagree with us. That is so petty.
A Designer's Advocate is toxic because of HOW they argue their opinions. The OP and many contributors since have gone on at length about this.
I think those seeing this whole thread as off-based is because it marries "designer advocates" to the rhetorical tactics the OP and other - let's call them "innovators" since we're handing out team jerseys - find frustrating. It's been introduced in this that intractable stances and bad faith arguments are found in bad forum actors of all sorts of positions, yet the OP persists in asserting a pathology endemic to the position that frustrates the OP. Isolating a pathology, as opposed to broadening the parameters of consideration in order to recognize bad faith argumentation actually isn't isolated to a particular style of thinking through the game, does in fact make this thread more a vanity validation exercise for a particular self identified camp than it is a productive resource for an entire community ... the bulk of whom I contend are simply willing to recognized differences of opinion as limiters to discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think the only way to really gauge what kind of player any poster is is to have an open conversation in DMs where they tell you what they like, dislike and are neutral about in 5e. Then you can make your guess about what kind of player you think they are. But thats it. A guess. Ultimately, it is up to that player to play how he likes, and maybe....just maybe...we could stop classifying people by their play style and start to try and understand it. That way we can start moving away from conflict threads and more towards conversation threads.
In my experience, by the time the discussion has come to a disagreement, a Designer's Advocate would not be willing to civilly discuss that. Also, the fullness of 5e normally doesn't need to be discussed in a debate about a certain mechanic/feature.
Also, this isn't classifying people based on their playstyle. Playstyle is how you play the game. This isn't playing the game, it's debating online. It's helpful to identify people as trolls in order to understand why they are debating the way they are.
Just a nit pick, but conflict/debates are a type of conversation.
I dont disagree, I think what you sad was correct, but I think the last part of my OP still stands. The people you think are 'Designers Advocates' may very well be objectively 'Designers advocates' but I dont think they would refer to themselves as that, and I am sure there are others that would think the same as them. That makes what you say subjective, arguable, and completely pointless. Remember the last time people classified other people based on who they were and what they did? I do. It was the time period from....10 000 BC to the 1870s. Luckily in this last century we have tried to step away from that but it still happens. I also think it works the same way. I seem to remember that you dont allow rolls at your table, and dont like the ranger or the sorcerer. Is none of that from personal, or at least second hand experience? Has that not tainted your views? Maybe they can see that, but because they are arguing against you and maybe they didn't mention that, but something in what they were saying implied that, you (Maybe unconsciously) filled in the blanks. I think that when an argument becomes as polarized as on these forums, some things get misunderstood. I am willing to bet I can guess half of those dozen that you brought up, and I think that most of them dont think everything you think they think. Think.
Who knows, maybe you are right, but that is the point. No-one can know for sure, so we shouldn't put labels on people that we dont really understand. Especially on the internet.
Why would someone admit to being a Designer's Advocate? That doesn't make any sense at all. That's admitting you're a troll, because by my definition (shown in the OP), a Designer's Advocate is a troll. That's like getting someone to admit that they like starting wildfires or kicking puppies. It's not impossible, it's just social suicide in most cases.
Also, I disagree with the comparison that says that calling people trolls because they troll is similar to racism.
Just a correction, I do like rangers and I do like sorcerers, I just think they have serious design flaws. Everyone is going to be biased, it's just human nature, but being biased isn't the problem with Designer's Advocates. Being biased is unavoidable. However, you can do your best to stop your biases from leaking into your argument, checking your posts to see if you're using logical fallacies. Designer's Advocates (and most trolls) don't check their posts for logical fallacies, because they don't care if their argument is logically flawed. They just care about preventing others from "winning" the debate.
I also wanted to address the 'Logical Fallacies' part. Some people are really good at arguing. I think you are, Yurei is (If a bit beautifully long winded), and I am one of those people. I know how to research quickly, how to ask questions in the right way, I am also extremely cool under pressure (I am not boasting, just explaining how I am. I am also extremely smart, handsome and humble. Again not boasting). Imagine it like this. There is a popular game that every kid is playing in school right now. It is a fun game, but it is pretty complex and it catered to a certain type of people (Lets say it is a maths game). In any case, most people are terrible, but 20% of the people who played were AMAZING. Because you are matched up against a bunch of people, it is likely that you will play against one of these really good players every match. Now you cannot win a single game. What do you do? What any kid would do. You cheat. Suddenly, because of these cheats, you are doing amazing, you are winning every game bla bla bla. Then someone (Lets say one of the good players, for Karma's sake) looks into why you are suddenly better. And then you are found out and the whole thing falls apart. Sometimes, the anecdotal experience and logical fallacies are a crutch, because some people can't walk the long road of a nitty gritty confrontation without them. But that doesn't make their point irrelevant, just their methods.
Knowing what logical fallacies are and how to identify them, why they're detrimental to an argument, and how to argue without them is a skill that takes practice to be acquired. It normally does take the type of person who doesn't immediately go "hot" after having someone disagree with them to be good at logical debates.
I don't understand your analogy. Are you saying that the cheater's "wins" aren't invalidated by the fact that they cheated? That seems backwards. Any teacher I know would give a student an automatic F if they cheated.
Logical fallacies don't automatically shut down someone else's argument, but if you can prove why in their specific case it does invalidate their argument, it's very useful to point out someone else's logical fallacies. In the case of your analogy, it would basically be the person who didn't cheat saying that the reason the person who did cheat doesn't get to win is because they didn't use their own skill/talent to get them there. Debaters who use logical fallacies basically "cheat" to win a conversation.
As a proof of concept, next time you see someone do this, DM me what he was arguing about and I will argue his side. I think the outcome will be a lot different :)
As long as the debate is in the DM, I will do so. I don't need to debate a Designer's Advocate and a Devil's Advocate with good intentions at the same time in the same thread. Isolating the discussions would actually help prove my point about Designer's Advocates being trolls that are detrimental to the community.
First, I never brought up racism, that was you. I was more talking about the many wars caused because people thought that other people were not worth their time, or not good enough to live.
Second, the cheaters always lose. Always. But just because they cheated, does not mean the answers hey cheated on to get were wrong, merely because he cheated. The answers were still right, but his methods were wrong. Maybe the people using logical fallacies cannot answer the test correctly, but even if they cheat to get the right answer, the answer may still be right. In an argument, there really is no winning, just an end, so this is even more prominent
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
.... "Their behavior is clearly toxic, but generally does not fall within the perimeters of moderator action. No set of rules, no matter how well structured can cover every nuance of human interaction." ...
Slicing this part out (after significant effort; holy ******* shit I absolutely despise this forum's useless quotation tool...) because I think this may well be the crux of the issue.
I know there are particular people on this forum (one of them immediately leaps to mind, and he knows exactly who he is) who delight in tearing into anyone who ever dares to criticize or modify the game for any reason, going on long-winded diatribes about how 5e is The Perfect Experience and anyone who dares to alter it is just a bad player who doesn't truly understand the sublime beauty of the Rules-Light Narrative Experience(TM) and ignoring deficiencies in the 5e ruleset.
Despite it being blindingly obvious that these are bad-faith arguments that do nothing but detract from the forum and deter players from playing their game the way they feel is best for their table, technically the posters in question do not break the letter of forum rules. Even when repeatedly asked by the thread starters to stop being destructive and distracting, they manage to continue, and nothing is ever done to deal with their shit.
Is it petty? Perhaps. But since the moderators always tell us "report the post and then don't engage", and then tell us furthermore that "bad-faith reporting will be punished" while classifying anything that isn't a direct, obvious violation of forum rules as "bad-faith reporting", we have no recourse left to deal with these folks. None, whatsoever. The only possible option is the Ignore feature, and I've already explained why the Ignore feature is harmful rather than helpful.
Third is simply trying to figure out a method of dealing with these people that doesn't get him, or me, or anyone else, infracted anymore. Because they won't go away, they won't leave us be, and they won't take "please stop disrupting my threads" for an answer. Until there's an answer to their toxicity beyond "Push Ignore", occasionally you'll get threads like this one.
Is it petty? Perhaps. But since the moderators always tell us "report the post and then don't engage", and then tell us furthermore that "bad-faith reporting will be punished" while classifying anything that isn't a direct, obvious violation of forum rules as "bad-faith reporting", we have no recourse left to deal with these folks. None, whatsoever. The only possible option is the Ignore feature, and I've already explained why the Ignore feature is harmful rather than helpful.
I make my own blockquote and copy paste when I don't want to clog up the post with a full quote. That tool is too much. You could have an aneurysm trying to master it.
I'm not sure you read my post as such but since you used the same word as I did I just want to clarify that I don't think trying to deal with these kinds of people in a forum healthy way is petty. I was saying it would be petty to have a thread where we complained about people because they disagreed with us. That is certainly NOT what the thread is about, but it seems to be a prevailing perception among those that find this thread disagreeable.
I think the ignore button can be a great friend, but I've actually only used it once. I don't want to. I agree it does more harm than good but sometimes it's necessary, at least from my experience.
First, I never brought up racism, that was you. I was more talking about the many wars caused because people thought that other people were not worth their time, or not good enough to live.
I don't know how your description here and your earlier comment is indistinguishable from the definition of racism.
Second, the cheaters always lose. Always. But just because they cheated, does not mean the answers hey cheated on to get were wrong, merely because he cheated. The answers were still right, but his methods were wrong. Maybe the people using logical fallacies cannot answer the test correctly, but even if they cheat to get the right answer, the answer may still be right. In an argument, there really is no winning, just an end, so this is even more prominent
This CAN happen in niche situations but is far from universal and not at all prevalent when dealing with a troll. We are also not specifically talking about someone who is right for the wrong reasons.
"Primeval Awareness is a horrible feature because it doesn't tell me anything about beasts and humanoids in the area."
There are all kinds of problems with Primeval Awareness, but if I made this argument I would be using a bad reason to disparage the feature. Being unable to detect beast and humanoids isn't a flaw of the feature. It doesn't fit thematically and even if they were included it still wouldn't make the feature any good.
Beng right for bad reasons is not a good position to be in but doesn't fall under the category of people being called Designer's Advocates.
We are talking about people who use bad arguments to support bad features, not bad arguments to disparage bad features.
I'm glad people are still posting in this thread cause it did remind me to take a step back and not get incited by the troll. I still struggle every time a certain user or two comes into a thread that was doing just fine and then starts throwing fallacies around.
I was more referring to the idea that everyone keeps saying this thread is just Third and a few of his friends *****ing/venting about a particular type of troll that gets our goat up. The whole "why not just write about trolling in general, you hypocrite?!" and such.
My response to the idea people have that this thread is a vent session is: so what?
Bit of background: I enjoy being verbose and flamboyant. Tossing out exotic, colorful descriptors, speaking in amusing and showy language, and generally being entertaining. A lot of folks love reading it and it makes me smile to put it out there. I have, however, had to almost entirely cut this tendency out as well as significantly cut back on posting. Half a dozen times, some days, I'm partway into writing a post before remembering that whenever possible I need to be sparing with my words, sighing, and backing out of the thread, leaving my words unsaid. I have had to adopt a staid, boring, overly-professional tone in what posts I do make, choke off my own language and be just another pointless grey salaryman tossing out occasional words.
I hate it. I very nearly quit this damn place altogether over this restriction, and the restriction's existence is almost entirely due to the people Third is referring to here. They get under my skin, they know they get under my skin, and they delight in doing so. One of them chased me around for over six weeks, bird-dogging almost every post I made, and yet I was never allowed to so much as mention to a mod that this user was actively harassing me. Even if I had, all I would've been told was "put that user on Ignore and move on with being a boring person." That particular forum user was permitted to stalk and harass me for weeks and weeks without any relent, and I was punished for it.
In my case? It is petty, but I feel like I've earned a little bit of venting. Especially here in the Vault of Forgotten Words. I don't name names and I try to avoid any serious discussion of the event because of the gag order I'm under, but man? Being a positive, helpful contributor to other people's problems when you have definitive proof that the website staff does not have your back is exceptionally difficult. Blowing off a little steam every once in a while means I'm still here and able to answer people's questions, occasionally contribute to discussions, and offer insight others may have missed.
To anyone complaining that this thread is nothing but Third and his friends *****ing and complaining:
As one of said friends who has been biting his tongue so as to make sure my Ps and my Qs are both minded,* please allow me to point out that if you don’t want to read what anyone here has to say, you are welcome not to. We won’t mind.
*(They are, I swear. They are those childproof harness and leash getups like two rubber gimps headed to Thunderdome. I also rigged them each with a proximity detector so I can be sure they’re always “in the room man!” I then made them responsible for each other so whatever one does, the other gets punished for it. Q stole a cookie in the jar last week. As punishment, P spent three days in the box. The day after I let P out, Q came to me covered I bruises and apologized for the cookie.)
This thread is not just me and my friends ranting/venting about a certain type of people, but that is a part of it. As I stated in the OP (the title even calls this a "rant/discussion"), the purpose of the thread is to "discuss your experiences with [Designer's Advocates] and how to deal with them before they destroy a discussion and end up giving infraction points to other members of the discussion [through making the thread more hostile]".
This thread's sole purpose is not venting/ranting, but that is an aspect of it. Even if the main part of the thread was to moan and whine about this kind of troll, what's wrong in that? Trolls are bad for online communities, and venting about them is not against the site rules. If you don't like listening to people complaining about trolls, and actively fight against people who dislike trolls, that seems strange and suspicious. I have made sure to not accuse anyone of trolling and keep the thread respectful and civil, it's only human decency to do the same on your end. I'm not attacking anyone, so that does not warrant any attack against me for my wanting to get rid of/explain a certain type of internet troll.
P.S. Like Sposta said, if you don't like the premise of the thread, don't read it. It does no one any harm to pass along without complaining about the people you call "complainers".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Everyone is the hero of their own life story." -John Barth
Our life story, what we write about ourselves, how we see ourselves, is gushing with bias. We're always the protagonist, and we always want to paint ourselves in a righteous light. But if we're only heroes to ourselves then we're leading pretty insular, selfish lives. Admitting to our own failings and weaknesses isn't easy. The temptation to blame someone else, whether they somehow "cheat" us or simply say, "You don't get it, man," when they don't side with us is...strong.
Likewise, nobody wants to think of themselves as a "hater" or "designer advocate." (I've seen plenty of the former, never the latter, but that's for another day.) That said, we all have biases that make it hard to separate the facts from our feelings. And as frustrating as it is that some of us keep butting heads, it's also kind of beautiful that so many of us are so passionate about something we share. It shows that we care; even if we disagree about what makes for a good time.
This thread has nothing to do with passionate disagreements.
This is about people that mire debates in unethical tactics and derail threads with their incessant need to...how shall I put this..."protect the dignity of game features". It's infuriating to try and debate someone like this. You will regularly have your arguments ignored, taken out of context and your motives called into question when dealing with someone like this.
There is no equal back and forth when interacting with a Designer's Advocate.
I don't care how passionate they are. It manifests in extremely toxic ways and that is all that matters.
If you try to pathologies intractable bad faith arguments a matter exclusively endemic to one side of oft perpetuated conflict on this forum, it doesn't help the problem at all. I don't have a real stake in the innovators vs. "strong adherents" fights. I like good ideas and strong thinking can come from both perspectives, as can weak thinking, and toxic failure to acknowledge mistakes or a superior argument or equally valid point of view.
Creating a space explicitly to discuss another group within a forum as a problem, is problematic and arguably toxic in itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you try to pathologies intractable bad faith arguments a matter exclusively endemic to one side of oft perpetuated conflict on this forum, it doesn't help the problem at all. I don't have a real stake in the innovators vs. "strong adherents" fights. I like good ideas and strong thinking can come from both perspectives, as can weak thinking, and toxic failure to acknowledge mistakes or a superior argument or equally valid point of view.
Creating a space explicitly to discuss another group within a forum as a problem, is problematic and arguably toxic in itself.
No one has claimed that only one side is capable of these bad faith arguments. Saying that these practices are a common tactic of a certain group is not the same as saying they are the only ones that do it. The OP spends time stressing knowledge of what bad faith arguments are, and is attempting to be a resource on how to interact with them in ways that avoid rules violations. Nowhere does it claim that you are incapable of using the same toxic fallacies just because you're the one on the other side. Nowhere does it claim you are some perfect being incapable of erring because you're interacting with a Designer's Advocate. Hopefully it serves as a tool to help people avoid using bad-faith arguments because of how much time it spends stressing their nature and how to counter them.
And no, it is not problematic to discuss groups of people that routinely display a pattern of toxic behaviors.
I dont think this has any real merit (No offence Third). I think it is obvious that some of these people do exist, and do just want to cause an argument for the sake of causing an argument, but some people genuinely think WotC is doing a good job, or that the ranger is balanced. Personally, I dont think that the ranger is too bad (It is certainly not unplayable, and you can have fun while playing one), but if I tried to argue that on here with no other context of my views then I would be branded as a 'Designer Advocate', which I definitely am not. I think there are five real types of poster in any forum relating to a product:
The Haters: This is pretty self explanatory - People who will pronounce how much they HATE EVERYTHING about whatever you are talking about (As long as WotC made it) and how they would do it better and that WotC is probably being run by a Mind Flayer who is working for Tiamat..... I think it should be pretty easy to tell from the side we are on that there is a minimal amount of these on the site (Mainly thanks to our amazing mods :D).
The Dubious : This probably is 90% of the active posters on this forum - They like DnD but they are disliking the direction in which the devs are taking it and/or dont like parts of the content (Be it a little or a lot). I would probably guess that Third, Yurei, and Sposta would fall under this category (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am :) as well as myself, but I am kinda a mix of this and the next. Most people in this category are viewed by 'Supporters' as 'Haters' even if they are not.
The Regular DnD player: This is like...85% of every DnD player ever. They dont really know/care/talk about WotC's problems, they just play DnD. And usually they have fun.
The Supporters: These people Think WotC is doing pretty good or even great. Obviously they know its not perfect but they are doing the best they can to make the game better, and its working. These people will usually stand up for WotC in most arguments. These people are mostly viewed as 'Designer Advocates' by people who are 'Dubious'
The Designer Advocates: These are the people who Third is talking about. The people who are willing to die on their hill proclaiming that WotC was made by Helm himself to bring the world into peace and prosperity. These people are just as much of a problem as the 'Haters' and probably should be classified as trolls.
The thing about these threads is that they have to be kept on topic, therefore it is really hard to gauge what kind of player someone is. If someone is vehemently defending the way of four elements monk in a thread about the way of four elements monk that doesn't make them a designer advocate. Maybe they hate how broken the ranger is (In a bad way) and think the new rules in Tasha's make Races bland. Maybe they even start to say that when someone accuses them of being a developers pet...but then they realize that that is off topic (Or one of the mods remind them) so they go back to their arguments. Unlike a conversation IRL where the topics change four times every 12 minutes and 32 seconds, on these threads there is no way to get the scale of these people.
I think the only way to really gauge what kind of player any poster is is to have an open conversation in DMs where they tell you what they like, dislike and are neutral about in 5e. Then you can make your guess about what kind of player you think they are. But thats it. A guess. Ultimately, it is up to that player to play how he likes, and maybe....just maybe...we could stop classifying people by their play style and start to try and understand it. That way we can start moving away from conflict threads and more towards conversation threads.
Thank you for letting me come to your ted talk and rant on for about 3 minutes of reading time 😅
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
. . . I'm' not sure what you disagree with, GoodBovine. I agree with basically everything you said. The part of the community that are "Designer's Advocates" are definitely a minority of the community, but that doesn't make them not be a problem. They're certainly much more common on this site than the true "Haters/Eternal Critics" (from what I've seen, anyway). I could name over a dozen posters on this site who would truly fall into the category of "Designer's Advocate" and not just a "Supporter".
I'm not really a true member of the "Dubious" group of the community. I'm more of a "Dubious Supporter", who will support a certain design choice of WotC in certain circumstances, and explain why I dislike others in different circumstances. For an example, I think the way Echo Knights are written in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount is a goddamn awful way to explain the intent of the features, but I also believe that Paladins and Warlocks are overall well designed classes. I'm dubious about certain parts Tasha's (parts of the Customize your Origin section, the lack of spell tables for the PHB ranger subclasses and XGtE/PHB sorcerer subclasses, etc), and a supporter of some of the other parts (most of the Class Feature Variants, the summoning spells, quite a lot of the subclasses, etc)
If you argued in support of the Ranger class, you would in no way be a Designer's Advocate. You would merely be a "Supporter" in that circumstance. If you argued in support of it and started to troll the conversation because of how much you like playing the ranger class, you would be a Designer's Advocate. I have argued in support for some features that are sometimes seen as unbalanced (the Champion Fighter comes to mind), but that doesn't make me a Designer's Advocate, because I didn't troll the discussion and try to win using anecdotes and logical fallacies.
You can have fun playing with almost any mechanic in the game. Just because you like playing something that is normally seen as unbalanced doesn't make you a Designer's Advocate. Of course you're going to be biased towards something you had positive experiences with! It's only human nature. However, Designer's Advocates cannot accept that their anecdotal experience with it is not objectively true, and cannot see how anyone else would have had a bad experience with it.
Is there anything you disagree with here?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I dont disagree, I think what you sad was correct, but I think the last part of my OP still stands. The people you think are 'Designers Advocates' may very well be objectively 'Designers advocates' but I dont think they would refer to themselves as that, and I am sure there are others that would think the same as them. That makes what you say subjective, arguable, and completely pointless. Remember the last time people classified other people based on who they were and what they did? I do. It was the time period from....10 000 BC to the 1870s. Luckily in this last century we have tried to step away from that but it still happens. I also think it works the same way. I seem to remember that you dont allow rolls at your table, and dont like the ranger or the sorcerer. Is none of that from personal, or at least second hand experience? Has that not tainted your views? Maybe they can see that, but because they are arguing against you and maybe they didn't mention that, but something in what they were saying implied that, you (Maybe unconsciously) filled in the blanks. I think that when an argument becomes as polarized as on these forums, some things get misunderstood. I am willing to bet I can guess half of those dozen that you brought up, and I think that most of them dont think everything you think they think. Think.
Who knows, maybe you are right, but that is the point. No-one can know for sure, so we shouldn't put labels on people that we dont really understand. Especially on the internet.
I also wanted to address the 'Logical Fallacies' part. Some people are really good at arguing. I think you are, Yurei is (If a bit beautifully long winded), and I am one of those people. I know how to research quickly, how to ask questions in the right way, I am also extremely cool under pressure (I am not boasting, just explaining how I am. I am also extremely smart, handsome and humble. Again not boasting). Imagine it like this. There is a popular game that every kid is playing in school right now. It is a fun game, but it is pretty complex and it catered to a certain type of people (Lets say it is a maths game). In any case, most people are terrible, but 20% of the people who played were AMAZING. Because you are matched up against a bunch of people, it is likely that you will play against one of these really good players every match. Now you cannot win a single game. What do you do? What any kid would do. You cheat. Suddenly, because of these cheats, you are doing amazing, you are winning every game bla bla bla. Then someone (Lets say one of the good players, for Karma's sake) looks into why you are suddenly better. And then you are found out and the whole thing falls apart. Sometimes, the anecdotal experience and logical fallacies are a crutch, because some people can't walk the long road of a nitty gritty confrontation without them. But that doesn't make their point irrelevant, just their methods.
As a proof of concept, next time you see someone do this, DM me what he was arguing about and I will argue his side. I think the outcome will be a lot different :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Ah, I missed the last part of your post in an edit, I think. I'll respond to that here first before the next post.
In my experience, by the time the discussion has come to a disagreement, a Designer's Advocate would not be willing to civilly discuss that. Also, the fullness of 5e normally doesn't need to be discussed in a debate about a certain mechanic/feature.
Also, this isn't classifying people based on their playstyle. Playstyle is how you play the game. This isn't playing the game, it's debating online. It's helpful to identify people as trolls in order to understand why they are debating the way they are.
Just a nit pick, but conflict/debates are a type of conversation.
Why would someone admit to being a Designer's Advocate? That doesn't make any sense at all. That's admitting you're a troll, because by my definition (shown in the OP), a Designer's Advocate is a troll. That's like getting someone to admit that they like starting wildfires or kicking puppies. It's not impossible, it's just social suicide in most cases.
Also, I disagree with the comparison that says that calling people trolls because they troll is similar to racism.
Just a correction, I do like rangers and I do like sorcerers, I just think they have serious design flaws. Everyone is going to be biased, it's just human nature, but being biased isn't the problem with Designer's Advocates. Being biased is unavoidable. However, you can do your best to stop your biases from leaking into your argument, checking your posts to see if you're using logical fallacies. Designer's Advocates (and most trolls) don't check their posts for logical fallacies, because they don't care if their argument is logically flawed. They just care about preventing others from "winning" the debate.
Knowing what logical fallacies are and how to identify them, why they're detrimental to an argument, and how to argue without them is a skill that takes practice to be acquired. It normally does take the type of person who doesn't immediately go "hot" after having someone disagree with them to be good at logical debates.
I don't understand your analogy. Are you saying that the cheater's "wins" aren't invalidated by the fact that they cheated? That seems backwards. Any teacher I know would give a student an automatic F if they cheated.
Logical fallacies don't automatically shut down someone else's argument, but if you can prove why in their specific case it does invalidate their argument, it's very useful to point out someone else's logical fallacies. In the case of your analogy, it would basically be the person who didn't cheat saying that the reason the person who did cheat doesn't get to win is because they didn't use their own skill/talent to get them there. Debaters who use logical fallacies basically "cheat" to win a conversation.
As long as the debate is in the DM, I will do so. I don't need to debate a Designer's Advocate and a Devil's Advocate with good intentions at the same time in the same thread. Isolating the discussions would actually help prove my point about Designer's Advocates being trolls that are detrimental to the community.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. I don't think that I claimed that any of the tactics are foolproof, I actually did the opposite of that. In the OP I actually made the point to point out the pros and cons of each option and asked for other possible tactics. My OP was never meant to be a "here are all the options, use these" post, it was more of a "this is my experience, here are things you should avoid and things that generally work in your favor, have any more suggestions?" post. I just wanted to make a thread to discuss how to make the debates with the "Designer's Advocates" have a more constructive outcome.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Bolded for relevance. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what this thread is about and you can find similar statements echoed in most of the posts made by people that disagree with this thread's content.
We are not talking about people simply because they disagree with us. That is so petty.
A Designer's Advocate is toxic because of HOW they argue their opinions. The OP and many contributors since have gone on at length about this.
This thread is attempting to be a resource on how to engage with them in a productive and forum-healthy manner (i.e logical debate or maybe just the ignore button) when one poisons a thread you are a part of. Their behavior is clearly toxic, but generally does not fall within the perimeters of moderator action. No set of rules, no matter how well structured can cover every nuance of human interaction.
For anyone struggling with this kind of toxicity and are in a place where they don't want to hit the ignore button (maybe it's happening in a thread you've been engaged in for pages and want to continue, or maybe it's a thread that you created) I think that this thread is a good read.
I think those seeing this whole thread as off-based is because it marries "designer advocates" to the rhetorical tactics the OP and other - let's call them "innovators" since we're handing out team jerseys - find frustrating. It's been introduced in this that intractable stances and bad faith arguments are found in bad forum actors of all sorts of positions, yet the OP persists in asserting a pathology endemic to the position that frustrates the OP. Isolating a pathology, as opposed to broadening the parameters of consideration in order to recognize bad faith argumentation actually isn't isolated to a particular style of thinking through the game, does in fact make this thread more a vanity validation exercise for a particular self identified camp than it is a productive resource for an entire community ... the bulk of whom I contend are simply willing to recognized differences of opinion as limiters to discussion.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
First, I never brought up racism, that was you. I was more talking about the many wars caused because people thought that other people were not worth their time, or not good enough to live.
Second, the cheaters always lose. Always. But just because they cheated, does not mean the answers hey cheated on to get were wrong, merely because he cheated. The answers were still right, but his methods were wrong. Maybe the people using logical fallacies cannot answer the test correctly, but even if they cheat to get the right answer, the answer may still be right. In an argument, there really is no winning, just an end, so this is even more prominent
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Slicing this part out (after significant effort; holy ******* shit I absolutely despise this forum's useless quotation tool...) because I think this may well be the crux of the issue.
I know there are particular people on this forum (one of them immediately leaps to mind, and he knows exactly who he is) who delight in tearing into anyone who ever dares to criticize or modify the game for any reason, going on long-winded diatribes about how 5e is The Perfect Experience and anyone who dares to alter it is just a bad player who doesn't truly understand the sublime beauty of the Rules-Light Narrative Experience(TM) and ignoring deficiencies in the 5e ruleset.
Despite it being blindingly obvious that these are bad-faith arguments that do nothing but detract from the forum and deter players from playing their game the way they feel is best for their table, technically the posters in question do not break the letter of forum rules. Even when repeatedly asked by the thread starters to stop being destructive and distracting, they manage to continue, and nothing is ever done to deal with their shit.
Is it petty? Perhaps. But since the moderators always tell us "report the post and then don't engage", and then tell us furthermore that "bad-faith reporting will be punished" while classifying anything that isn't a direct, obvious violation of forum rules as "bad-faith reporting", we have no recourse left to deal with these folks. None, whatsoever. The only possible option is the Ignore feature, and I've already explained why the Ignore feature is harmful rather than helpful.
Third is simply trying to figure out a method of dealing with these people that doesn't get him, or me, or anyone else, infracted anymore. Because they won't go away, they won't leave us be, and they won't take "please stop disrupting my threads" for an answer. Until there's an answer to their toxicity beyond "Push Ignore", occasionally you'll get threads like this one.
Please do not contact or message me.
I make my own blockquote and copy paste when I don't want to clog up the post with a full quote. That tool is too much. You could have an aneurysm trying to master it.
I'm not sure you read my post as such but since you used the same word as I did I just want to clarify that I don't think trying to deal with these kinds of people in a forum healthy way is petty. I was saying it would be petty to have a thread where we complained about people because they disagreed with us. That is certainly NOT what the thread is about, but it seems to be a prevailing perception among those that find this thread disagreeable.
I think the ignore button can be a great friend, but I've actually only used it once. I don't want to. I agree it does more harm than good but sometimes it's necessary, at least from my experience.
I don't know how your description here and your earlier comment is indistinguishable from the definition of racism.
This CAN happen in niche situations but is far from universal and not at all prevalent when dealing with a troll. We are also not specifically talking about someone who is right for the wrong reasons.
"Primeval Awareness is a horrible feature because it doesn't tell me anything about beasts and humanoids in the area."
There are all kinds of problems with Primeval Awareness, but if I made this argument I would be using a bad reason to disparage the feature. Being unable to detect beast and humanoids isn't a flaw of the feature. It doesn't fit thematically and even if they were included it still wouldn't make the feature any good.
Beng right for bad reasons is not a good position to be in but doesn't fall under the category of people being called Designer's Advocates.
We are talking about people who use bad arguments to support bad features, not bad arguments to disparage bad features.
I'm glad people are still posting in this thread cause it did remind me to take a step back and not get incited by the troll. I still struggle every time a certain user or two comes into a thread that was doing just fine and then starts throwing fallacies around.
I was more referring to the idea that everyone keeps saying this thread is just Third and a few of his friends *****ing/venting about a particular type of troll that gets our goat up. The whole "why not just write about trolling in general, you hypocrite?!" and such.
My response to the idea people have that this thread is a vent session is: so what?
Bit of background: I enjoy being verbose and flamboyant. Tossing out exotic, colorful descriptors, speaking in amusing and showy language, and generally being entertaining. A lot of folks love reading it and it makes me smile to put it out there. I have, however, had to almost entirely cut this tendency out as well as significantly cut back on posting. Half a dozen times, some days, I'm partway into writing a post before remembering that whenever possible I need to be sparing with my words, sighing, and backing out of the thread, leaving my words unsaid. I have had to adopt a staid, boring, overly-professional tone in what posts I do make, choke off my own language and be just another pointless grey salaryman tossing out occasional words.
I hate it. I very nearly quit this damn place altogether over this restriction, and the restriction's existence is almost entirely due to the people Third is referring to here. They get under my skin, they know they get under my skin, and they delight in doing so. One of them chased me around for over six weeks, bird-dogging almost every post I made, and yet I was never allowed to so much as mention to a mod that this user was actively harassing me. Even if I had, all I would've been told was "put that user on Ignore and move on with being a boring person." That particular forum user was permitted to stalk and harass me for weeks and weeks without any relent, and I was punished for it.
In my case? It is petty, but I feel like I've earned a little bit of venting. Especially here in the Vault of Forgotten Words. I don't name names and I try to avoid any serious discussion of the event because of the gag order I'm under, but man? Being a positive, helpful contributor to other people's problems when you have definitive proof that the website staff does not have your back is exceptionally difficult. Blowing off a little steam every once in a while means I'm still here and able to answer people's questions, occasionally contribute to discussions, and offer insight others may have missed.
Please do not contact or message me.
To anyone complaining that this thread is nothing but Third and his friends *****ing and complaining:
As one of said friends who has been biting his tongue so as to make sure my Ps and my Qs are both minded,* please allow me to point out that if you don’t want to read what anyone here has to say, you are welcome not to. We won’t mind.
*(They are, I swear. They are those childproof harness and leash getups like two rubber gimps headed to Thunderdome. I also rigged them each with a proximity detector so I can be sure they’re always “in the room man!” I then made them responsible for each other so whatever one does, the other gets punished for it. Q stole a cookie in the jar last week. As punishment, P spent three days in the box. The day after I let P out, Q came to me covered I bruises and apologized for the cookie.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, that is perfectly said, Yurei and Sposta.
This thread is not just me and my friends ranting/venting about a certain type of people, but that is a part of it. As I stated in the OP (the title even calls this a "rant/discussion"), the purpose of the thread is to "discuss your experiences with [Designer's Advocates] and how to deal with them before they destroy a discussion and end up giving infraction points to other members of the discussion [through making the thread more hostile]".
This thread's sole purpose is not venting/ranting, but that is an aspect of it. Even if the main part of the thread was to moan and whine about this kind of troll, what's wrong in that? Trolls are bad for online communities, and venting about them is not against the site rules. If you don't like listening to people complaining about trolls, and actively fight against people who dislike trolls, that seems strange and suspicious. I have made sure to not accuse anyone of trolling and keep the thread respectful and civil, it's only human decency to do the same on your end. I'm not attacking anyone, so that does not warrant any attack against me for my wanting to get rid of/explain a certain type of internet troll.
P.S. Like Sposta said, if you don't like the premise of the thread, don't read it. It does no one any harm to pass along without complaining about the people you call "complainers".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"Everyone is the hero of their own life story." -John Barth
Our life story, what we write about ourselves, how we see ourselves, is gushing with bias. We're always the protagonist, and we always want to paint ourselves in a righteous light. But if we're only heroes to ourselves then we're leading pretty insular, selfish lives. Admitting to our own failings and weaknesses isn't easy. The temptation to blame someone else, whether they somehow "cheat" us or simply say, "You don't get it, man," when they don't side with us is...strong.
Likewise, nobody wants to think of themselves as a "hater" or "designer advocate." (I've seen plenty of the former, never the latter, but that's for another day.) That said, we all have biases that make it hard to separate the facts from our feelings. And as frustrating as it is that some of us keep butting heads, it's also kind of beautiful that so many of us are so passionate about something we share. It shows that we care; even if we disagree about what makes for a good time.
This thread has nothing to do with passionate disagreements.
This is about people that mire debates in unethical tactics and derail threads with their incessant need to...how shall I put this..."protect the dignity of game features". It's infuriating to try and debate someone like this. You will regularly have your arguments ignored, taken out of context and your motives called into question when dealing with someone like this.
There is no equal back and forth when interacting with a Designer's Advocate.
I don't care how passionate they are. It manifests in extremely toxic ways and that is all that matters.
If you try to pathologies intractable bad faith arguments a matter exclusively endemic to one side of oft perpetuated conflict on this forum, it doesn't help the problem at all. I don't have a real stake in the innovators vs. "strong adherents" fights. I like good ideas and strong thinking can come from both perspectives, as can weak thinking, and toxic failure to acknowledge mistakes or a superior argument or equally valid point of view.
Creating a space explicitly to discuss another group within a forum as a problem, is problematic and arguably toxic in itself.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
[REDACTED]
No one has claimed that only one side is capable of these bad faith arguments. Saying that these practices are a common tactic of a certain group is not the same as saying they are the only ones that do it. The OP spends time stressing knowledge of what bad faith arguments are, and is attempting to be a resource on how to interact with them in ways that avoid rules violations. Nowhere does it claim that you are incapable of using the same toxic fallacies just because you're the one on the other side. Nowhere does it claim you are some perfect being incapable of erring because you're interacting with a Designer's Advocate. Hopefully it serves as a tool to help people avoid using bad-faith arguments because of how much time it spends stressing their nature and how to counter them.
And no, it is not problematic to discuss groups of people that routinely display a pattern of toxic behaviors.
A reminder to everyone to keep things:
Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here