Problems of majority

[Kincaide]

There's a saying that goes like this:

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people"

If everyone made an effort to stick to the conceptual topic at hand, not only would there be much less interpersonal strife, I actually think the conversations themselves will be more productive. As an example, when discussing (making up a random topic here) shot rotation for a frost mage in motion while being pursued by a melee, one person could say "my experience has been ABC" and another can say "I've tried ABC but also tried XYZ and I found it to make a difference in 123" and everyone gains some insight. But instead if the other person says "ABC is dumb (and by implication, the person who uses it is dumb) and XYZ is better (without qualifying the how)" then it's become personal, and not actually informative.

If you, sitting there, as an individual, whoever you are reading this, care about improving your own craft and improving the community, and lifting others up, then keep your focus on ideas and never talk about people. If, on the other hand, you care about being the best, holding back the community for your own benefit, and holding or pushing others down, then expect to be reported, ostracized, and/or rendered unwelcome and irrelevant.


Editing to add this correction: Never talk about people... EVEN IF OTHERS DO. Someone else violating the laws of good sportsmanship is no excuse for us to do the same.

 

[Srs]

Something to remember is that many different opinions can be valid at the same time — that is, they have the logical possibility of being true, but aren't necessarily true. Nor do they really have to be, they are opinions and are merely subjective (they depend on the person's beliefs, not the object itself). An example would be me saying "Enhancement Shaman are awesome". It's true to me, but really it's just a belief that exists outside of any empirical proof, and someone spouting a bunch of numbers at me isn't really going to change that.

Those numbers are an example of facts. Facts differ from opinions — facts are either true or not true. They are independent of belief, and do not need anybody (a subject) to verify them, and thus they are objective (they depend on the object, not the being observing them), so you can have true facts, and false facts. An example of a false fact would me saying, "Enhancement shaman can crit for 5k with the right setup". You could go about trying to prove or disprove this fact using mathematics, and could be fairly certain of the results.

When dealing with the objective/subjective, fact/opinion, and other such dichotomies, one also has to take into account human fallibility, and that basically that nothing is really truly objective (because everything we know has come to us through the senses of a subjective human being), except possibly God. And that all assumes that this world we all live isn't just grand delusion created by a great deceiver, to watch us scurry around for his twisted amusement , and everything that we think exists is a lie. I can't prove that that is not the case, so I guess I'll just stop there before I descend into a relativism and eventually, nihilism.

I guess what I'm getting around saying is that in many of these discussions that go nowhere, what you're dealing with is when people spouting unverified opinions in lieu of fact, so there is no arguing them (you can't prove or disprove an opinion), and if you try to use facts to trying to sway them using logic, or facts doesn't work because belief, and faith are independent of such things.

 

[Taeran]

As a Lurker, I can't help but be happy of the attitude presented in the thread. Thanks to DV and those who've posted constructively.

 

[pinochet]

Same idea conceptualized differently:

10% of the internet posting population is incapable of telling the difference between measured argument and unsupported opinion. They just literally, in their mental processes, make no distinction between logic and rhetoric. They've never made the causal connection that arguments-in-the-philosophy-101-sense lead to certainty, so they assume that if they feel certain about something, then whatever arguments they have must be correct. This has a cute kind of circularity to it, but by definition this 10% are not the type who would ever be woken up by pointing out the fallacy of the thought process. Since they don't distinguish reason from opinion, they'd mistake your reasoning for an opinion, and assume you must just be arguing with them.

I call these people "logicblind", since they're not really malicious so much as colorblind to the difference between reasoning and nonreasoning. Also it's nicer than calling them "stupid".

Anyway in the course of human dialogue, a logicblind person will inevitably either:
(a) hear a measured argument, interpret it as opinion, and assume that it must be appropriate to spout their own opinions, or
(b) hear a measured argument, correctly interpret it as a measured argument, then present an opinion in response mistakenly thinking that their opinion is an argument.

In normal human interaction, we put a lot of emphasis on not being a douchnozzle, so we politely smile and nod and remind ourselves not to talk to this person about anything more important than the weather.

On the internet, we're stripped of the behavioral feedbacks and social cues that normally keep us from being douchenozzles, so when we see someone being an idiot in public we feel the compelling need to set them straight.

On an online forum, as the post count in a thread grows, the odds of a logicblind person showing up and saying something stupid approaches certainty. Once one of this magic 10% shows up, the rest of the community, rather than ignoring him, piles into him for saying something wrong or inflammatory or irrelevant and derailing the thread. Our logicblind friend never knew whether he was in a calm discussion or a flamewar to begin with, so he responds in kind, and thus every forum in the history of the internet descends into douchenozzlism.

The interesting logical extention of this is that all the various overmoderated authoritarian nazi boards such as elitistjerks, /r/askhistorians, etc, are actually the best places on the internet for the constructive exchange of information. Precisely because they ban people who want to contribute but don't know how.

Anyway I'm not advocating anything for TI, nor do I know what specifically prompted this thread, I just kinda hate you all a little bit sometimes. <3

 

[Earlwing]

Hi.

 

[oosstt]

Also, anything is viable if you're chain CCing, focus firing, and sticking together like glue, never getting too far from heals, and running back to your pack if it looks like you might be in danger.

I thought your entire point of posting was to call him out on complaining about OP classes on his UP class... But you saying that confuses me, as warlock has some of the best CC in the bracket when played correctly. I would prefer a good warlock (destro) than a hunter in just about every scenario, as it offers as much if not more quick burst, AND better CC...

And I could be wrong, but if what I quoted was a sarcastic statement in an attempt to call him out on playing like a "pussy" what you just described is the only way to play this game, and if you play it differently, you really really really really, need to rethink your entire book of strategy.

 

[Tyramissoux]

The OP was talking about trolls, disagreeing with opinions, popular people, how someone will keep thinking their opinion is right(99% of wow community) whatever.

The reason Fujino's post itched me because he would call someone like me an idiot for simply telling him to stop greifing his team. Now I am going off topic completely while we are at it , but this my 3rd post trying to drill into this community's heads how to win and cap your flags. http://www.twinkinfo.com/forums/f12/definition-flagger-51824/

99% of the community plays for flags-and I have written 3 guides on how to win your flags

And there is no need to explain to me how underpowered warlocks are or how well can they perform in level 20-24 pvp.I have one of my own. Warlocks belong in arenas or must come in a premade to succeed. I hope I got that point across

Did you actually realize he apologized for his behaviour and explained it in general? This thread is not about how to do something but about social interactions and the lack of communicational skills. To keep is short: it's not the place to discuss whether a class is viable or not.

And to explain my ->opinion<- on your behaviour within this thread:
Do you remember that one How I Met Your Mother episode where they had all the interventions, starting with the intervention for the alcoholic friend. All are in deep thoughts and then suddenly Barney jumps into the room with a bottle of Vodka because he didn't read the invitation.
You are Barney.

 

[oosstt]

The OP was talking about trolls, disagreeing with opinions, popular people, how someone will keep thinking their opinion is right(99% of wow community) whatever.

The reason Fujino's post itched me because he would call someone like me an idiot for simply telling him to stop greifing his team. Now I am going off topic completely while we are at it , but this my 3rd post trying to drill into this community's heads how to win and cap your flags. http://www.twinkinfo.com/forums/f12/definition-flagger-51824/

99% of the community plays for flags-and I have written 3 guides on how to win your flags

And there is no need to explain to me how underpowered warlocks are or how well can they perform in level 20-24 pvp.I have one of my own. Warlocks belong in arenas or must come in a premade to succeed. I hope I got that point across

Your guides also say "Roll hunter, and stop rolling healers, bracket has too many healers."

When Disc and Holy both do more damage than hunters, and are able to heal... Just sayin man. You should really really rethink how you play.