Worldly Talk Closed - Page 4 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk Closed

 
@Chase

@Whytebio

Good point, in that case I'll retract that on that particular one position--I'm reminded of a similar point made by David Hume. In retrospect, asking for people to hold too strongly toward any demeanor (especially ones that goes beyond the pragmatic protocols like being civil) does strike me as going too close toward 'thought policing,' and thus undermines one of my principles.

What about, however, an "agree to disagree" protocol?

Quote:
Originally Posted by whytebio View Post
[...]

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.
This point may be instrumental for how mods can better assess rules that have some subjective elements (i.e. what does "hateful" actually mean?). As well for some of the ways arguments became circular in certain topic threads.

I don't have any plans of it returning or reopening, and am not looking for ideas on how to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo View Post
I don't have any plans of it returning or reopening, and am not looking for ideas on how to do so.
Maybe edit that into the first post? Some of the language there makes it seem like there's a future for it once rules are revised.


Quote:
... it is not in the best interest of Myth-Weavers as a community to keep it.
I don't find that particularly unclear, but is this a more effective edit?
Quote:
Topics that would previously have belonged in Worldly Talk are totally disallowed. Some topics may eventually be allowed in General Discussion, but rules regarding that are pending.

Not at all, I just expected that statement to be read with the context of the one (and the rest) preceding it, not as modifying or backpedaling on the preceding statement.

This should save me some time.
Ultimately I am saddened by this- the Worldly Talk forum was one of the best places I had found for political discussions in recent years, where discussions with people I disagreed with did not generally denigrate into repeating the same baseless claims from each associated echo chamber.
But yes, things have changed recently. There are people who seem to only be interested in "winning" rather than actually discussing. The games I play (GURPS and Ars Magica) are not as prevalent on this site, so I am certain that I spent far more time on Worldly talk.
A special shout out to Whytebio- as vehemently as I have disagreed with most of your positions, you have presented yourself with great dignity in your debates.

I agree. To those I agreed with, it was a pleasure knowing others felt as I did. To those I disagreed with, it was a pleasure having a reasoned, cited, thoughtful debate with you all.

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.
In all seriousness, what about games set in the real world? I'm not suggesting a way to circumvent the rules or even a debate-based game, but if someone is RPing a real-world character, that character might have (strong) political views - which the player might not even agree with - and so elements of these sorts of arguments might bubble up. I'd like to think people would keep this as pure, fictional RP but there's a risk this would fall foul of a blanket ban.

Even fictional politics have analogues to real world ones, and sometimes they've very close indeed (certainly when we're talking generalities rather than specifics; a given school of thought or form of government is likely to be about the same regardless of the setting, for example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase View Post
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.
What are these "types" of which you speak?

Sure, different people have different personalities and some people are driven more by emotions. That doesn't give you a licence to be illogical. If something is not true, then it's not true, regardless of what your opinion of it is. I don't see having opinions or emotions as being mutually exclusive with being rational about your arguments, and I also don't see a reason for anyone not to do the latter all of the time.







 

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 2018-12-16 09:00:08am local time
Myth-Weavers Status