Right well that would mean that you're acting based upon assumptions that the guest user will continue further, as though that is justification as such. Although, the impression is that you do not necessarily care whether or not the aforementioned criticism / ridiculing of their posts was warranted or not.
And on to your last point, you wouldn't necessarily be able to definitively say whether someone is indeed partaking in "good faith" (hence the "seem" within your post), so that means that you'd once again be assuming when interacting with people in "good faith" vs "bad faith". Additionally, it's interesting that that fits your description of "hav[ing] fun", but whatever I guess.
However, it seems pretty counter productive though (whether it's fun or not), seeing as fundamentally you're doing so because you disagree with them (if you didn't you wouldn't really be replying, as you wouldn't be "having fun" in that regard). Which by doing so (replying to them), it's certainly more effort than just simply ignoring them / their post(s) (literally in the case of non-guest users or figuratively) in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that others will have to sift through drivel if they wanted to observe content actually related to this thread and its topic.
That's a pretty interesting way to derive joy (in reference to the "... I bet it felt good").
Also, nice disingenuous example there. This thread (initial post) was not necessarily a post made with demands about changes to be made. It was a thread (post) in the questions and answers sub-forum inquiring as to possible inconsistencies, which seems pretty likely, as it is quite literally not consistent with the primary design document. The primary design document doesn't give additional context behind it's exact specification for not gating "non-violent or seduction options" behind Presence, it quite literally states (via the implication of no specific context) that in all cases it should never happen.
Those that are trying to explain (justify) such inconsistency away by speculative explanations would be doing just that, speculating. That does not just make the inconsistency magically disappear, in fact it just seems as though the community is not willing to accept the possibility that there are inconsistencies in this game.
Onto points 1) through 8):
1) "Common theme" implying that this happens often, yes? One could be forgiven for thinking that the implication would be that this is implied to be the occurrence "all of the time", as seems to be inferred. Anyway, does this mean that the guest users / new members always post about changes they want to be made? What about initially listed questions (as seen by the "could" and "can"), as stipulated in this scenario?
2) Okay, is that based on speculations from previous information? If so, wouldn't it be better to have devs address the queries? If it's to do with stuff on the banned list, then that's inevitable, but if it's game design related, that would probably be more in-line with the devs addressing instead of community speculation.
3) In most scenarios? Debatable, but sure, I'd be willing to entertain that possibility, as having regular members seemingly all reply to one detailing as to why their wrong would possibly lead one to reply in defense of oneself.
4) Alright, that's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make the other stance / viewpoint more inherently correct. Links being referred to may not always be consistent (prime example being the whole Wayfort PC castle thing - initially it wasn't going to be the PCs caslte - but now it is, so previously links to the prior statement would not be relevent). I'd then argue that for specific things like design queries, and consistency queries it'd be best to just let the dev team address them if they so desire (as their stances could very into the future, and they'd know how they wanted to address it, if they wanted to address it).
5) In most scenarios? Once again, debatable. But sure, once again even if I entertain this possibility, the emphasis supplied in your point then implies that they're actually consistently wrong. I'd argue that it's doubtful that every query / suggestion by a guest user / new member is not credible in the slightest and is purely for vitriolic means or causing trouble.
6) Sure, getting heating is one thing, but when it's multiple regular members seemingly against a guest user / new member, therein lies an issue. It comes across as though the community is not accepting of newer members or guest users, as there seems to be a jaded impression of them - as though they're all trouble makers (supported by your very points I'm responding too). Such comments as telling the guest user / new member to "Suck It Up, Buttercup" is not necessary, as it reflects a mocking tone and will just further the debate (something which you've gone on to imply is what you disdain).
I'm pretty sure the guest user / new member would be well aware by that point that nothing would change in any case, but having the community say that (as well as it being several members seemingly dogpiling) would obviously not be received well - as it would make one feel as though they're on the backfoot.
7) I don't know why you prefaced it in a somewhat condescending manner. It's still worthy of questioning whether it's necessary or not due to the fact that you seemingly have such a disdain for such occurrences of debates yourself - seemingly criticizing others for questioning the practice of trying to continue the debate is questionable in of itself. Sounds like you dislike these occurrences (in references to the common trend), yet don't want people to question aspects about it's occurrence (and continuation) in the first place.
8) Right, because that seemingly would make it justified? Look, that in conjunction with the above points leads one to conclude that some of the community seemingly enjoy "putting others down" either via snark, mocking or being condescending if they disagree with said others - yet get offended when it gets heated. Nobody enjoys stating a stance / viewpoint and being replied to by the majority of the community accusing them of being wrong for having such stance / viewpoint. Prefacing it as though all the above replied to guest users / new members are justified because of their actions is where the problem would seem to lie. Both sides would then need to accept some level of responsibility for the whole interaction occurring, not just trying to justify it for one side in particular.
As for your last point, then if you seem to have such a disdain for it, why do you seemingly condone it? It seems you don't hold those that question it / critique it in high regard in reference to you classifying it as "cry[ing]".
And that line in of itself would be referring to the definition of insanity, no? Doing something over and over again, in the exact same manner, yet still expecting a different result.
I'd say that no regular member is obligated to respond to guest users / new members, and if they do so, they should arguably do so with the point of addressing such queries / suggestions instead of debating things. If that is indeed the case and nobody seems to enjoy such debates.
I get that there can be frustration on both sides (as I've just edited out the relatively heated nature of this post myself), but that shouldn't be used as justification for it if it's a common occurrence. Surely there would be some better way of solving said issues (potentially having devs answer such critical / consistency / game design queries / suggestions) instead of having members dogpile and mock / ridicule.
Just like guest users / new members could try and not be so unnecessarily vitriolic.
Anyways, this tangent has gone on for quite a bit, and is not particularly relevant to the initial purpose of the thread, so I guess I'm guilty of hypocrisy for mentioning that point earlier.
Apologies for derailing this thread with this topic, as it is quite true that there was at least some unnecessary measures by both parties within this debate.
Last edited:
