Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Start reading your comments like a snowflake that gets offended easily maybe that will help, never expect that people share the same view on things or have the same moral values.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Oh it's not about self moderation, I simply disagree with your basic core assertion - if someone puts something up for discussion on a discussion group, everyone has the "right" to share their views on what they raise. Moderators have the power to enforce rules, that doesn't mean they're the only ones allowed to mention or hold opinions about them, and if the mods around here took your view they'd be banning dozens upon dozens of people from every single rumour thread. If I was bored enough to sit and go through all the posts you've made, are you seriously claiming I wouldn't see even a single solitary instance of you opining that someone else's contribution to a thread was off topic?

You can disagree with the assertion all you like, but it's there and it's life. A rather blunt fact. You can accept it and deal with it as one of those things in life that you'll personally find unfair, or you can move on to another group (or be moved on). As for me suggesting that something's off-topic somewhere, sometime - while I can't think of any, you might very well find some (feel free to look, IDK either way), though I personally tend to feth off myself instead of telling others to do so when a conversation gets too stupid or heated or potentially heated, as generally I can control what I read, engage with or choose to ignore. Especially online

However, the weight of my stay and contribution here - as well as my skill with the written word when I choose to employ it - serves me as one of those old-timers. It's not the sort of thing you'd find me doing two weeks into my engagement with any online forum/facebook group/etc. Because I understand how social groups work.

As for the whole caustic thing - eh, think what you like. Personally, I suspect that some folk have been reading emotion or malice into my words that simply wasn't there -

Probably. I did mention that, specifically. Again, blunt fact, not opinion. You do come across that way quite often, even if its unintentional. That's a pretty simple statement, and not one coloured by emotion. You can choose to act on it, or not. But you have a significant degree of control over how your words are read, if you choose to take that control.

indeed, I've been noticing a lot recently that neurotypical people's reliance on intuition and rapport can be as crippling and troublemaking for them online as my difficulties with those things causes me offline. Here the playing field is level but NT's are so used to reading things into people's words beyond the literal that you simply can't stop yourselves, even when there isn't anything there to read.

Again, to put it bluntly. You're the one that needs to adapt. The world is populated by NT (and run by Psycopaths, but that's a different tangent). You have ASD and what appears to be an IQ within the "normal" range. This means that despite neurological differences, you don't stand out in a crowd and seem like anyone else on the surface. You live in "our" world, so learn to deal, because people are very rarely going to make any special considerations for you. Are you right-handed? I'm left-handed. I live in "your" world, so I've had to adapt for my whole life. In your case, you may simply need to be more careful with your choice of words if you do not wish to cause inadvertent offence. Learn how social mores work online and adapt instead of complaining about how they're unfair. Because life's fething unfair and that never stops. In my case, I've had to learn to use scissors and a mouse with my right hand instead of my left. When I use Auslan, I don't sign correctly and tend to use either/both as my dominant hand, which is "wrong". But less likely to cause offence.

I've been removed from a facebook group (for a second time) for what I considered innocuous comments but the admins disagreed.

I'm interested to find out whether people prefer places with an anything-goes attitude, or consider criticism useful and merited. The group I was removed from seemed to consider anything other than unmitigated positivity abhorrent – this just seems utterly mental to me.

Even were I to be let back into the aforementioned group now, I don't know how I could post there again – I have no idea how to operate in that kind of environment. How can we discuss anything if dissent isn't permissable? How can I tell what is considered dissent before I am barred?

Do people like the idea of a community where any discussion beyond "thumbs up, like, great job, wow" is verboten? If people do favour that approach, can I ask how such an approach can generate useful criticism?

I'm asking the question as I don't understand; and would appreciate it if a proponent of the idea could explain it to me. Thanks in advance.

I've edited the text to trim hyperbole, and replaced all the references to 'you' (which comes across as aggressive) with 'I'; which makes it sound much more like a request for advice than a complaint.

In answer to the question posed by the topic title, I like a polite, light and professional tone. If I wouldn't say it to a colleague in an office environment, I wouldn't write it online. Offering criticism's perfectly fine; but it should be constructive critique, and ideally explain why you've reached the conclusion – otherwise it can comes across as blunt, aggressive or needlessly antagonistic.

I think you're getting some good feedback in this thread, and everyone is being incredibly polite and supportive.

From some of the opinions I've heard of Dakka, this thread should not exist in its current form. And yet there it is.

For myself, although I find the tone to be overly caustic at times, I try to read your stuff in the cheesiest Scottish accent possible. It helps. I tend to assume people would turn it down a notch in a face-to-face conversation anyway.

As for Facebook... here there be landmines. I'm a silent member of a Malifaux group (as I don't play anymore but sometimes like seeing the painted stuff) where dissent is not tolerated. Nothing Wyrd does is ever, ever wrong. The only other gaming group is a local one, and I have met 80% of the people irl. It contextualizes a lot of the discussion and everyone is always respectful and always resorts to game tests as the final arbiter. (You think that list is good? Let's test the gak out of it, then) But then again, I also follow GMO activists and vaccine-enthusiasts too... and that goes downhill on both sides real fast.

The most important thing is no ad hominem, not that is a problem for you that I recall, Yodhrin.

You do tend to be very blunt when you disagree. I'm sure I do too.
I spend most of my time with people who were trained not to take things personally and being disagreed with is a matter of course, but people still don't always take it well (I, many of my friends and my colleagues are scientists). I forget that other people are less equipped.
Remember that being wrong sucks (even if you are ok with it) and the natural reaction is to get defensive.
If an idea is a part of a group's identity group members will have an urge to stamp out the dissent.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Start reading your comments like a snowflake that gets offended easily maybe that will help, never expect that people share the same view on things or have the same moral values.

I think there's a less snarky way to think about it though. I think you can read your comments and ask: is this positive? Does this add value? Can I expect most people to understand it?

Social media is still media. We are broadcasting our thoughts. doing so in an unfiltered, off the cuff style works for some people, but for others they need to think through their message more thoroughly.

Everybody has strengths and weaknesses, even in communication. For myself, I will sometimes chart our a path for a telephone call, because I'm never 100% comfortable making a cold call. OTOH, I can get in front of a large audience and speak off the cuff without a problem. The more you practice the art of communicating so that others can understand, the easier it gets.

 Apologist wrote:
I like a polite, light and professional tone. If I wouldn't say it to a colleague in an office environment, I wouldn't write it online.

This is an eminently reasonable position when it comes to a situation where people are more or less forced to spend time together ... exactly like you said, like an office environment. But a forum about gaming - basically a voluntary association based on a shared interest - ought to be a bit more relaxed, IMO ... which can include people getting a bit passionate about what, in the real world, is utterly insignificant ... such as the ins and outs of toy soldiery. In short, this is a place where it is okay to get at least a little persnickety about the things we love that other people find irrelevant. I tend to take this into account when responding to moderation reports. Of course, flat-out personal attacks are not going to be tolerated here. But I live out enough of my life in an office environment.

 Manchu wrote:

Every venue seems to have its own culture - with FB groups, this sometimes verges on groupthink. .

This isn't exclusive to FB groups, by any means. I've seen forums with the same issue.

I think FB tends to encourage it, however, because FB is built around unilateral expression. Conversation is incidental, relative to the forum.

 Manchu wrote:

 Apologist wrote:
I like a polite, light and professional tone. If I wouldn't say it to a colleague in an office environment, I wouldn't write it online.

This is an eminently reasonable position when it comes to a situation where people are more or less forced to spend time together ... exactly like you said, like an office environment. But a forum about gaming - basically a voluntary association based on a shared interest - ought to be a bit more relaxed, IMO ... which can include people getting a bit passionate about what, in the real world, is utterly insignificant ... such as the ins and outs of toy soldiery. In short, this is a place where it is okay to get at least a little persnickety about the things we love that other people find irrelevant. I tend to take this into account when responding to moderation reports. Of course, flat-out personal attacks are not going to be tolerated here. But I live out enough of my life in an office environment.

Fair point, well made – I'll admit to enjoying a fairly casual office atmosphere, so perhaps my suggestion does sound a bit over-formal!

 Apologist wrote:

Fair point, well made – I'll admit to enjoying a fairly casual office atmosphere, so perhaps my suggestion does sound a bit over-formal!

Every office situation is different. I've already told my boss to "get the feth out of here" this morning. In jest, obviously. Most bosses I've had, I wouldn't dare say that to.

Lucky 13, I guess.

I am someone who is in favour of some Facebook groups only allowing positive opinions and agree with them expelling members who are too critical. My opinion is going to go against most of you here, but as numerous of you have stated you do not like "echo chambers", I thought you might like to see a counter argument.

Talking about me personally, I prefer positive, upbeat and optimistic tone and what I see as "gentlemanly" conduct. I hate people being (what I perceive as) brash, overally negative, mocking, belittling or critical to the point that it stifles other conversation. This has brought me into heated discussions a few times here on this forum and I haven't ever once enjoyed the experience. In fact I have really hated those experiences. This has since led to me taking a step back from Dakkadakka, posting in general less but especially trying my hardest not to post in this sub forum specifically. And that's been something really positive for me, (I know I am breaking that rule right now, but I thought it might be useful for some of you to see the other side of the coin).

I am a GW fan and an AoS fan and I want to engage in fun discussion with other people who have similar interests. That is why I now post mainly on another forum which has cultivated that kind of membership base, or I post on Twitter where I surround myself (following feed) with people who share my specific loves for the hobby (GW/Painting GW minis/AoS), or I post on closed Facebook groups like the OP mentions. You might critise any of those places for being "echo chambers", but I see a real worth in curating the membership of those forums/Facebook groups/Twitter because it leads to the sorts of enjoyable discussions I want to have.

Let me explain. Especially in this sub forum if I want to talk about GW or AoS (and I love both), all conversations eventually devolve into having to defend why I don't think AoS sucks, why I don't mind GW minis being more expensive than the competition etc etc, and those are just not the conversations I want to engage in because they aren't enjoyable. Of course, I do not want to silence all your opinions here on Dakkadakka (although I would love to convince you otherwise). It's absolutely fine if most of you guys here hate the game and hate GW, that is something I need to accept and just let you get on with it really, Dakkadakka is a forum that prides itself on full freedom of expression, even if the majority opinion is negative or critical (and I am not saying it always is, just it can be the case here).

But if all of a sudden the members here all signed up for my AoS forum, or to the AoS28 Facebook group I am part of and started bringing the conversations we see here over to those places too I would most definitely not like it and would request for the admin to remove you because if not, the discussion I enjoy would instead become dominated by discussion I do not enjoy.

I hope you can see my point, there are places that want to curate the members because that in turn cultivates a different mood and discussion to letting anyone join and post anything they wanted. To finish off with a sports analogy, here is like a Sports forum where a lot of the members hate football but love Formula 1 and Rugby and also enjoy talking about why both are vastly superior to football. That's great for people who like Rugby and F1 and who like talking about why they are better than football but for football fans they can either post in the forum and probably spend their time defending the sport to the criticism raised against it, or they can instead form their own group elsewhere for Football fans where they can discuss the nuances of the game instead. And to make that happen, they would probably want to set down some stricter rules on what sort of discussion is wanted and what is unwanted.

I think if a Facebook group or anywhere else wants to keep a positive only tone there is a definite reason for it (which I have tried to explain above), and you should respect their decision or face being banned from the group if you post in an overally negative way. On the flip side you have places like here which are much more open for neutral or negative opinions to be expressed that you can enjoy.

That makes perfect sense, Bottle - nobody in their right mind would enjoy overly negative conversations. However, I would again argue it's all about the tone; disagree with someone, even strongly, or bring a negative viewpoint to the table - you just need to put forward your view in such a way that it doesn't sound like you're on the negative side for the sake of being on the negative side, especially if you're also going to deconstruct other people's arguments.

There's a big difference between "GW fething sucks" and "GW needs to improve on a lot of things in my opinion".

 Manchu wrote:

 Apologist wrote:
I like a polite, light and professional tone. If I wouldn't say it to a colleague in an office environment, I wouldn't write it online.

This is an eminently reasonable position when it comes to a situation where people are more or less forced to spend time together ... exactly like you said, like an office environment. But a forum about gaming - basically a voluntary association based on a shared interest - ought to be a bit more relaxed, IMO ... which can include people getting a bit passionate about what, in the real world, is utterly insignificant ... such as the ins and outs of toy soldiery. In short, this is a place where it is okay to get at least a little persnickety about the things we love that other people find irrelevant. I tend to take this into account when responding to moderation reports. Of course, flat-out personal attacks are not going to be tolerated here. But I live out enough of my life in an office environment.

May not be the "best" policy for office talk...today I told the owner of the company's son that he was fat and old when he complained people were picking on him over his bald spot, and asked my opinion. So...some offices allow for snark and a-hole comments. Granted, we all know when chop busting is happening. My boss started laughing his ass off when I made that comment.

Now...business meeting dialogue or how you'd write a professional email, that I can get behind!

I think any discussion that begins with tone policing is automatically suspect - and I'm not just talking about the standard courtesies (which are a fine starting point for any discussion) but rather the very specific requirement that a principal like - for example - "GW can do no wrong" be the threshold of participation. That's just creepy.

Now I admit getting tired of "yelling into the wind" contra the anti-AoS groupthink that we saw here on Dakka Dakka when the game was initially launched, and of course we still see some of that. But the criticism was not all bogus. It was a big, unsettling change. It brought an era to a close that was dear to many gamers. It strikes me as ethically repulsive at a very deep level to ban people from a conversation solely because they have a different viewpoint than me.

That said, I also think it's gross to join a community just to undermine its purpose.

BTW Bottle, my group played Hinterlands this past Saturday. We didn't get to finish but I had fun!

 Manchu wrote:
BTW Bottle, my group played Hinterlands this past Saturday. We didn't get to finish but I had fun!

Oh, that's awesome to hear, Manchu! If you get to play any more games of it let me know. I know you are an experienced gamer with lots of systems so any feedback you can provide would be very valuable.

Back on topic, I don't really have much more to contribute to this thread although maybe Yodhrin would find it useful for me to mention how I have perceived you in our interactions on Dakkadakka over time. Firstly, I really like Yodhrin, and I think we have some mutual respect despite me being an advocate of AoS and Yodhrin not being, um, too keen on it. What really helped shape my perception of you positively was seeing your modelling threads and work (if posters in this thread don't know, Yodhrin is a very skilled modeller with top notch greenstuff skills. I particualry recommend his Mordheim Cultists converted from Empire Archers).

We will have clashed in opinion in the rumour threads previously, and no doubt will in the future, but seeing instead some positive threads and posts showcasing parts of the hobby you enjoy helped me understand that you are a passionate hobbyist just like me and all of a sudden your negative posts in the rumour threads were now framed about a game and setting you clearly love having morphed into something you no longer liked which made them much easier to read and even if I didn't agree on what was good or bad I understood where you were coming from.

Perhaps next time you post in a Facebook Group you can make an assertive effort to start off positively or to share something you do like about the topic of the group or hobby in general and it will help the other users develop a much more rounded opinion of you and be more tolerant when you are later being critical about something.

This is just meant as friendly advice and in no way do I want to come off as dogmatic.

The thing about "discussion" is:
- It's not productive to tell someone who likes a game what you think is wrong with that game. A spontaneous, unrequested critique from a random stranger isn't going to appreciated.
- It might, on some occasions, be worth telling someone how a different game would be better suited because of specific elements. This is likely to be appreciated if asked for, implicitly or explicitly.

The people who can't tell the difference between those two points are the reason various places have "no complaining" or "no arguments" policies. Because complaining isn't the same thing as discussing, even though you sometimes complain while discussing something. And in order for criticism to be constructive, it has to be relevant and appreciated.

 Manchu wrote:
I think FB tends to encourage it, however, because FB is built around unilateral expression. Conversation is incidental, relative to the forum.

You just rocked my world. You completely shifted my paradigm. I might sound dense, but this was eye-opening.

How do you mean?

Just putting that spin on Facebook had never occured to me, but it fits the observational data so much.

Azazelx likes this.