Nitpicking: Forum Debate Etiquette

[axlryder]

One that always got me was partial quotes or people who act as though rebutting a SINGLE one of your points somehow negates your ENTIRE rebuttal. It's even worse when the point or phrase they were rebutting wasn't even integral to the argument you were forwarding. The best part is when they then proceed to whine that you're being too nitpicky or thorough when you point out the myriad other points still piled against them or they simply try and move the goalposts/ go off on a tangent hinged around their mostly irrelevant retort. Aside from that, the typical slew of fallacies that most people tend to engage in.

I used to get far more agitated , especially when I knew I was right, but I eventually learned (as I'm sure many others have) that it's really just not worth the stress, especially when you usually have a snowball's chance in hell of actually making a difference in the mind's of those particularly bullheaded individuals who aren't even attempting to be reasonable. That said, I still tend to indulge in juvenile banter now and then. It's a habit I'm desperately trying to break. I just wish so many people (myself included) didn't seem to have this hostile disposition towards conflicting ideals.

 

[axlryder]

Ok, the sentiment of this thread is fine but let's face something: we all in our hearts can isolate techniques in debating that only serve to save face when one cannot defend their point with anything substantial anymore, but, these techniques are born of a hair-trigger social defense mechanism and calling it out in the form of a thread will not remedy it.

People will come here and proclaim how they hate the same thing, and whatever to assimilate to this sentiment but they will use it just like we do under the same circumstances. Debates on the internet do not seek to actually prove something but instead boosts ones ego by reaffirming their beliefs by defending it against dissenting opinions. Doing this is fine as a means of entertainment but we might as well be real about what's going on here.

I think that might be generalizing the purpose of internet debating a bit too much. I've engaged in quite a few debates over the years in which I had to play devil's advocate or simply attempt to work something out in my own mind. There's also the occasional tangibly productive debates (such as when I do animations gigs as part of a joint effort) which stem out of actually needing to determine the best course of action. I find it a lot easier to form logical conclusions when there's someone actually pushing you to come up with sound reasoning. That's actually one of the reasons why I hate underhanded debating tactics, because they make debates more about ego boosting and less about defending the integrity of your position.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

It's like you need to destroy another person's argument so that yours will have more merit, and if you need to do that, why even bother?

This basically sums up my opinion towards the direction some forum debates take. It actually reminds me of the bully mentality - "I'm going to make you feel terrible so I get to feel better."

 

[incal11]

people who take internet debates so seriously they actually believe they are accomplishing something useful and winning will some how change anything important rather than the truth that they are just debating for the sake of debating and nothing will come of it no matter which way it ends... they sap all the fun right out of it

With a minimum of honesty being proven wrong is just as interesting as being right. I despise people who think seeking the truth is always useless and just for the sake of arguing, that covers a lot of people and tends to make me unpopular. I'm glad to keep the likes of you from having fun. I'm not always super serious though, so don't take that too badly.
Sure I won't change the world by myself, but I can do it for me.

That's not quite on topic, but I hate animated avatars... they are distracting (sorry OP).

 

[wooty]

When you post up something as a joke or being sarcastic and it winds up with a response of pure hostility or "logic". Half the time I dont know whether to just brush it off because people are overly sensitive or respond just to keep winding them up.

Depends on what I'm listening to really.

 

[anthony87]

Currently, there is a thread, which I shall not name, concerning Dark Souls. (you've probably seen it)
Within said thread, there is a laundry list of things the OP does not like about DS.
There's no problem, until he/she concludes (in the same post, natch) that due to these things he/she listed, the game cannot possibly be good under any circumstances.
Also bear in mind that a few of the items mentioned are not problems with the game but with the player, or just false outright.
So basically, condemning something in its entirety (and by extension, those who like it) just because it didn't appeal to you.
Makes my blood boil, I tell you.

This happens so often on this site it makes my head spin. People really love getting others to hate the stuff they hate >.>

I know, right? It's not like he/she posted particularly valid reasons, just plainly stated 'this sucks, deal with it, yo'.
Even the people who were posting were civil and posting very good advice as to how to continue. But OP just shrugged off any helpful suggestions offered.
Ooooh... the aggravation.

Was he just frustrated because of the difficulty?

Actually it was hard to tell why he was frustrated. He'd open up by saying that there's no challenge to the game as you can just go in hacking and slashing and come out the other end fine and dandy, then a paragraph or two later he'd say that the enemies are overpowered and provide a false challenge.

Although to be fair I disregarded his entire post when he said that Demon's/Dark Souls isn't a proper RPG because it's not like Skyrim

 

[OneCatch]

Spoiler: previous posts

So yeah, anyone else have any forum posting pet-peeves like this?

The breaking up a post thing I don't mind if it's done sensibly, but if it's a long debate I tend to put them all back together every few posts so as to try not to lose track.

The thing I *really* don't like is when someone only quotes part of your argument in order to change the implication or meaning of it (Snipping down to the relevant bit I have no problem with), and then responds to that changed argument rather than the one you made.
Anything else is pretty much fair game as far as I'm concerned!

P.S. What about adding "Bad habits that you know you have" to the OP?


I can go wild then. I've already started my list:

1, Making annoying suggestions to change the OP
2, ....

If I wasn't a lazy fuck I would update the OP with some of this stuff. Keep them coming and I may feel inclined to do so

Also, I am waiting for a pro troll to come in here, quote some people and display everything we are complaining about. XP

Ahaha, I'm too afraid of the response to do that!

Erm, ok, my bad habits:

1, Getting bogged down with some really trivial point and going horribly off-debate
2, Overusing italics to indicate emphasis, and then also using italic to indicate quotes (see below)
3, Over-spoilerising other people's post when it comes to quoting (see above)
4, Overusing brackets (within sentences) when commas would do fine (see here)
5, Using wikipedia as a source way too damn much
6, Being a sarky git

 

[ElPatron]

While it can be useful at times I find that I really, really hate when people quote me and pick my post apart piece by piece by splitting up the quote.

That's not nitpicking.

That's rhetoric. I would avoid getting into arguments if that's not okay.

 

[requisitename]

Unwarranted hostility is what generally keeps me out of debates on the Escapist.

- People who'd rather make negative assumptions about what you mean by something than ask for clarification. The default reaction to something that isn't completely clear seems to be "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, jerkface!" rather than "I'm not sure what you meant there." The latter would be much more conducive to discussion/debate.

- People intentionally misunderstanding what you're saying. If context makes it 90% clear you're saying X, I don't understand why so many people will go with Y instead just so they can go on to be pissed off about what you (never) said!

- People going into what are obviously opinion posts (OP something like "What is your opinion on X?", "What do you think about Y?", "What's your take on Z?", "What is the most A that you've ever B?" etc.) and lambasting the participants for.. having opinions? It's amazing how often that happens.

 

[incal11]

When you post up something as a joke or being sarcastic and it winds up with a response of pure hostility or "logic". Half the time I dont know whether to just brush it off because people are overly sensitive or respond just to keep winding them up.

Depends on what I'm listening to really.

Maybe you weren't thinking of my post just above, but I wasn't joking or being sarcastic. I admit it was hostile though, I've gone too long without anyone being particularly kind to me either I guess. This is the internet after all...
It's hard to break this cycle of hostility, even your post is not particularly kind if taken the wrong way. Conversations where no one can take criticism can go nowhere, I like to think I can (take criticism).

Interested in knowing who can wind up who ?