Worldly Talk Closed - Page 3 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk Closed

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Rules:Game_Forum_and_GM_responsibilty
Game forums are specifically for games. They are not repositories for private notes, collections of characters or any other use which is not clearly a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo View Post
Until a more detailed set of discussion rules can be drafted, any topic that would belong in Worldly Talk is disallowed.
Yes, it is explicitly against the site rules, both as stated on the wiki and in Rodrigo's announcement above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordae View Post
Yes, it is explicitly against the site rules, both as stated on the wiki and in Rodrigo's announcement above.
Could a debate game be considered viable, if there were explicit rules established?

Sort of like Phoenix Wright?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber_Goddess View Post
Ugh...guess I might need to archive Amazon Prince then.
Roleplaying games about imaginary politics in imaginary worlds are fine. Political intrigue is a part of many a fun adventure. Just don't try to make the game into an actual real-world debate and it is fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverkiss View Post
Roleplaying games about imaginary politics in imaginary worlds are fine. Political intrigue is a part of many a fun adventure. Just don't try to make the game into an actual real-world debate and it is fine.
Well it's less trying to make it a debate and more just asking the party a question to consider. It'll only turn into a debate if the party decides to for some reason get into a flame war over it, after ignoring the last year of play, which would require breaking character in about a dozen different ways. Also helps the case that I've already given them the question to consider, it just hasn't come up in-character yet because they're yet to meet the House expy.

I'll try to keep them in line anyway, thanks for allowing it to go through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo View Post
Until a more detailed set of discussion rules can be drafted, any topic that would belong in Worldly Talk is disallowed. Worldly Talk is being left visible, in a closed state, to show examples of the discussion topics and, unfortunately, to show examples of why it was closed.
I recently received an infraction in the Worldly Talk forum that I intend to appeal...
...one of my points of contention was going to be to suggest that there was a vagueness to the rule(s) that I was infracted for breaking...
...will I still be able to cite those rules or even this decision to appeal my infraction?

Are you guys also aiming to take advice/constructive criticism, regarding new rules for Worldly Talk discussions, from us on this thread? If so, then I'd like to reiterate that I think whytebio made some good points:https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthr...8#post12324568 Furthermore, an "agree to disagree" protocol might be a useful moderator action for when people get stuck in circular arguments, will obviously forever talk past each other, and etc. examples of them having to agree to disagree. Finally, it might be wise to attribute a somewhat stoic demeanor (i.e. focusing on topics/arguments/debates from a more detach intellectual curiosity instead of being over emotional about them) to being civil.

Ironically, asking for people to approach debate from a standpoint of logic and intellectual curiosity starts to force out the people with personality types that are driven by feelings.

I hang out with a group of people who are mostly T's (thinking based from the Myers-briggs personality tests) who love to engage in debate on a standpoint of logic and factual information, but we do have a few F's (feeling based) individuals who tend to engage in the same discussions from the basis of emotion. Both groups are focused on the topic in the way that provides the most value to them, so asking that one be the standard rule and the other be the deviation from the rule is already removing an entire group of people from being able to engage in meaningful discussion.

This would, of course, start down a rabbit hole with a lot of different hot topic issues, which isn't really appropriate for this thread right now.

I personally tried to stay out of the actual participation of WT, but found that it was my go-to location to get a multitude of different opinions and resources for any given subject. I'd read a thread until the main themes became apparent or until the discussion devolved into fights. While I'm not sad to see the vitriol and rudeness go, I will miss the extra information hub that I was using it for.

Well, everyone considers them-self to be logical and only swayed by reason and evidence. I haven't met anyone who described themselves otherwise, even when it was clear to onlookers that they're not. Everyone thinks they're logical, everyone thinks they'll change their mind if presented with new evidence or a rational reason etc but few people do. Or at least, few people do in the arena of a discussion forum. I could count on one hand the amount of people I've seen across internet chat forums (WT included) who changed their mind as a result of the talks they were having - or at least openly stated as such. That's just human nature, from my experience.

I think in such a reality, one of the best things someone can attain from forums like that is an understanding of what goes into the decision making of other people - understanding why they hold the opinions that they do. There's a tendency to ascribe malicious motivations to people who push for something we don't agree with, so gleaning an insight into what motivates such opposites to think the way they do can be humanising.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-12-17 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status