I had a game on ToSQ, where I healed 200k HP as Reghar.
And you say that he’s bad?
Lol. OP, please.
2 Likes
That smells about what rational would say, and rational isn’t particular to the topic at hand…
While, yes, I do make posts longer than they need be, and some of my perspective is more particular on meaning and associations to those meanings, there are reasons for why, and when, i’m particular about those.
I hate the line-item tagging of items in replies, and per a reply you gave above, you don’t like it either. However, what I did there is segment parts of what you said because the details of what you convey are not correct. There’s going to be eight words that imply a heavy distinction of my typical style of posting versus the concerns expressed toward your topics:
I did not post in your hammer topic.
That kinda makes the whole of your “Funnily enough” section a lie. Particulars of what you convey are correct, or at least enough so to satisfy the concerns of your beef against me in this regard, but about each line so conveyed comes from different topics than what you wrote.
and that’s fine for those that don’t know, or don’t care about the distinctions on those particulars.
However, from what I see of topics like this, and some of the other ones i did post concerns, you’re conflating qualities of distinct elements into a composite to suit what you want something to be, rather than what it actually “is”. You have now done this enough times that i think it enough for it to be a telling pattern of your perspective shaping your perception and you are seeing ‘things’ more by ‘wanting’ it to be that way, rather than it being as such.
That’s my ‘confession’, and I stand by that statement as I find how you have presented your case for rehgar to embody that sentiment: your value of the ‘symbol’ of rehgar is more particular to you and less as ‘objective’ as you have claimed it to be.
The topic here, to those that don’t share your particular sense of identity with rehgar, comes off as complaints that probably aren’t going to inspire people to your cause concerning his problems. What would likely suit your cause more would simply to be upfront on what you want:
“back in 2017, reghar had a lightning shield talent, lightning bond, that would cast an untalented version on himself whenever he cast the shield on an allied unit. It was a lvl 16 talent (before the rehgod days) that was then moved down to lvl 1, where it was arguably overpowered. One day, the devs just up and removed the talent with no notes, or compensation for the talent!
While it was only a option, regardless of the level it came at, [I] enjoyed how it could be used on totems to assist with waveclear, taking mercs, or used on an ally to encourage rushing down targets and making use of all of rehgar’s kit to be aggressive and distinct from other support heroes!
Without any reason for the removal of the talent, [I] think it should come back to the game and allow us to relive that style of playing reghar – even if the talent comes back nerfed, or at a later tier”
Simple topic opener, conveys personal experience, genuine passion and provides reasons to invite action in response to a perceived problem. This sort of post conveys what you want, and why, while being short, honest, and grounded to what matters.
Its the sort of post you would have made before but you seem down and mired in some sort of sullen mire where passive/aggressive complaints seem about as meaningful as your concern for the game – I might be reading to much into it, but the change in tone of how you conveyed this topic (compared to previous discussions) seem more in like with the doom and gloom of the game in the aftermath of recent events. Or maybe its my fault and you’re venting frustration and having then become a sort of antagonist and betrayed your trust or expectation from our previous shared interests.
Yes, those are projected aspects, and i could be wholly wrong on either (or all accounts in that regard!) but I do notice a shift in tone, execution of writing, and what was produced doesn’t suit you. What was conveyed isn’t a call to action for change, but a loss of hope and an begrudged acceptance of loss.
Much like some of my replies of less-than-stellar length, how something is conveyed is arguably more important than what is conveyed. For all this wall, sure, you might regard it as more just “oh, derailing to fixate on the OP instead of the topic” but I think the particulars of what I’ve attempted to convey for ‘arguing semoitics’ applies to the conerns of rehgar’s “identity” per the topic.
Sure, I didn’t convey what I personally think should be done regarding reghar, so yea, that’s more of the ‘same’, but I don’t really consider the sort of concern and intention I put into trying to ascertain what people actually ‘mean’ from what that ‘actually’ post to be “safe”
It’s so much ‘easier’ to assume oneself to be right and just project complaints at others than bothering to double-check the realization of their efforts.
1 Like
If you consider waveclearing is not your job, I could consider that dealing constant damage is not a Support’s job neither, could I ? 
I would like to make a statement at this point of the Topic :
You cannot say "[fill with any Hero’s name] is the worst hero compared to the others [fill with any kind of role] Heroes without considering your Team composition and your teammates skills.
It is just pointless.
Rehgar could be just fine in some comp, or be useless in others.
I agree 100% here. THIS is the main topic of Rehgar and has been since Lightning Bond’s removal.
This is pretty much the exact sentiments as above. We’re still “fighting the good fight,” as we haven’t heard anything on Rehgar (in regards to Lightning Bond) since its removal.
I wish you’d take your own advice into consideration… Walls of text do not help the discussion. Especially when it’s just arguing semantics…
1 Like
I personally believe Reghar is really bad. The only comps I would say he fits in is dive comps but heroes like Malfurion and Lucio fit better in those comps.
He just doesn’t really excel. Only thing he has going for him is a cleanse + shield + ancestral healing combo to prevent burst.
And what are you doing? This is such blatant hypocrisy.
Seems to me like another enormous paragraph detailing “You do [this this, and this instead of this] when arguing your points.” The only ‘beef’ I have against you is that on a consistent basis, you rarely offer any kind of feedback in any thread and prefer to instead pick at peoples structure of arguing.
You might think you are indirectly conveying your opinion by choosing the posters on the side of the argument you disagree with to pick apart but it doesn’t come off that way. Instead it looks like you’re trying to be the smart guy by posting that everyone is wrong not because of their ideas but because of their phraseology.
Just looking at your recent activity confirms my suspicions.
In a thread about Imperius having an unoriginal trait, your post discusses nothing even remotely close to the topic. You once again attempted to get into a debate of semantics regarding the term “change my mind”.
Literally debating the semantics of the word “Tone” in a topic about Sylvanas. The word “Sylvanas” is not even used in your post once. You even brought out your dictionary to try and argue the meaning of a word with someone.
Again, attacking someone for using a word, this time “lore-friendliness” and went into a seriously long argument as to why you believe their using the word incorrectly. Semantics as usual. Notice how nothing in your response has to do with the actual state of Tyrande’s gameplay?
Attacking someone for using a word, in this case a name; “Khaldor”. Your post goes into detail as to why you believe his opinion is wrong because he doesn’t respect one persons OPINION about the state of balance of a hero. Notice how not a single time you mention the word “Li Ming” like the title of the thread would suggest the discussion be about?
In a thread about HGC and the developers, you instead go after the OP for his post history in an attempt to discredit him as a person instead of his argument. Notice how not once you talk about either HGC or the devs? Funny how that works isn’t it? Starting to notice a pattern?
Another debate about a word, this time about the word “Boring” and why you believe it isn’t being used correctly. Not surprisingly, nothing in your post discusses the current state of Sylvanas. Semantics at its finest.
I was able to find a few exceptions like your post regarding nova armor stacking and imperius’ talents but then back into your usual habit of picking at the OP without addressing the topic. I think it’s safe to say that you engaging with the subject material is definitely a rare occasion.
In the TV show ‘The Office’, many of the characters have a grievance against one of the accountants, Oscar, for being a quote; “Mr. Umm, actually” for the way he inserts himself into other peoples discussions to correct them. You are undoubtedly, the HotS equivalent of Oscar in that regard. This, in essence, is my beef with you.
Ideas are directly influenced by phraseology: how someone conveys information reflects what they understand, and feel, about it. Per your quoted example, the phrasing there reflects the idea that I “try to be the smart guy” instead of considering the possibility that I am trained and educated in the fields pertaining to persuasive, informative, entertaining or expressive writing. Cuz really, after how many years of my examples, you’re falling privy to the perspective of my usual detractors that lambast out of what they don’t know.
Surprise, surprise, I might have knowledge and experience in a medium that people are content to not delve.
~25 replies (about 50% of the topic at this time; not counting my posts or replies to me) present a divergent perspective on the identity of rehgar from the one presented in the OP. How many here noticed?
In effect, more posters were discussing a topic apart from the one you made; more posts are “derailed” feedback from the onset than those that adhere to the particular concerns expressed by the author. Many participants are “arguing semantics” or rather, disagree on the ‘meaning’ of the character (semiotics!?) Due to their disagreement regarding rehgar’s repertoire, some chose to disregard your argument off-hand and overgeneralize particulars because they don’t suit the “semantics’ of their argument.
’Part of why I post ‘walls’, or ‘indirect’ opinions is because I notice the sort of quirks where people disregard discussion whole-hog in favor of just asserting themselves as being correct, despite evidence to the contrary.
One example can be seen per your interpretation of my post on that sylvanas topic. You assert that I “brought out the dictionary to argue the ‘meaning of the word” instead of seeing my reference of the dictionary as a means to establish common grounds by specifying the application of the word at hand — in essay writing, this is establishing ones terms of analysis — esp considering there are 9 ways ‘tone’ can be used. Per my experience in dealing with posters that retort with bad strawmen, I don’t have any confidence in their capacity to suddenly come back, realize the err and then compose a different rebuttal.
In that same regard, I could similarly resign the whole point of any of this as futile as this could just be chalked up to more “arguing semantics” by someone who isn’t apparently interested in the distinction of what they assume it to mean, and how it is actually applied.
edit note for trimming as I intend to clarify and not preach in this regard.
You can take a lesson in this yourself. Part of the reason why I call you out on your focus on semantics is that you fixate on the literal interpretation of the word used instead of the context in which the word was used to convey a certain meaning.
You can see evidence of this in our last interaction outside of this thread where you attempted to educate me on the usage of the word “Fair” which, incidentally, is yet another example in a string of cases where you derail topics to scrutinize particulars but that is besides the point.
Was it right for me to say “literal definition”, no, and it was a mistake on my part for which I apologize. But did my usage of the word fair in that context have appropriate meaning? Absolutely yes. The fact that you wanted to make a huge enormous post to call me out on this mistake is why I call you the “Mr. Umm actually” or the “Oscar” of the forums, because that is exactly what that character would do.
The field of semantics often deals with examples of how a word may or may not be used correctly per its actual dictionary definition but can be analyzed based on the context in which it was used.
Did the literal definition of the word “fair” apply in the way I used it? Of course not. You have to look at the context in which it was used and try to understand what meaning I was trying to convey from the word’s usage. This is something that is obvious to most forum posters who don’t like to go into these kinds of debates.
“Fair” clearly constitutes something (a play or move) legit that happens within the confines of the rules of whatever is at play. But time and time again on a regular basis, people will say “That’s not fair” to something that may not technically be breaking the rules, but in their opinion should.
The sports example from the other thread is still relevant here. Many MANY football fans bemoaned the fact that the referees overturned Steelers tightend Jesse James touchdown against the Patriots even though the ball clearly made it into the touchdown area but came out of his hands after he hit the ground.
Was the play “fair” by literal standards? It was. But people still chanted that it wasn’t fair. Why is this? Because “fair” in the context in which it was used was to convey that something SHOULD be in the rules when it isn’t. This right here, is why I have chosen to pick this fight with you, because I am tired of seeing you try to pick fights with people for literal interpretations instead of just attempting to gather the information you believe they’re trying to convey to you.
You see someone use a word incorrectly, you know it doesn’t satisfy the original definition, and instead of trying to understand the context of the usage (like most normal people), you instead try to call them out for improper syntax in a cheap attempt to try and make their argument look weak and therefore discredit it without having to discuss the meat and bones of the issue.
This to me, looks like a grammatical low-blow in that you’d rather take someone out of the argument by making them look stupid instead of refuting their points or arguing the contrary. It’s effective, as I’ve seen you do it multiple times, but at the same time it’s scummy and I don’t like it.
The fact that you expert people to augment their posts because they don’t satisfy your specific grammatical prerequisites simply reeks of arrogance. You might not intend for it to come off this way, and I’m going to assume you don’t, but when you pretend to act holier than though by correcting people just because you can instead of trying to understand what people are trying to convey, it does give you that appearance.
I frequently come across people on the forums who make grammatical mistakes and/or improperly attribute words they think mean one thing but in fact mean something unrelated, but I let it slide and try to focus on refuting what they try to mean. Taking 5-6 paragraphs to correct someone’s mistakes is something I would never do as it just looks arrogant, and trying to discredit someone on the basis of syntax is just dirty and wrong in my opinion.
Imma contest about 3 issues with that thesis:
- The claim of my ‘fixating’ on the “literal definition” would break down into a genetic fallacy on my end. I do a lot more of pointing out rhetoric inconsistencies and persuasive fallacies then I do of referencing a dictionary. If I’m being particular about “arguing semantics” or the ‘meaning’ of something, then it would be because I find the core of an argument is tied to the author’s assertion of a word to present a particular idea. In that regard, ‘refuting’ or ‘improving’ an argument can come from someone knowing more about the particulars of what they want to convey, esp compared to what they actually did. Iirc, I have a few instances of posts where I’d suggest a person would refute/change their own argument if their understanding of the topic were different.
In that regard, my concern is less the ‘word’ but rather the “symbol” or representation of an idea. I did toss out a word apart from your assertion of my “arguing semantics”: semiotics. I’m not sure if you didn’t notice it (or care) cuz it does look ‘enough’ like ‘semantics’, but, well, there is a bit of contextual distinction there.
- I’m quite keen to context, thank you
I’ve garnered a wonderful share of downvotes for my advocation that “numbers can lie” via context. Some people don’t make the distinction between numbers being the ‘literal liar’ and the use of numbers being used to perpetuate incorrect information, and thus be an accessory to a ‘lie’. That isn’t just a one-off case, but I mean that as an example to try to demonstrate that ‘context’ and ‘intent’ are the forefront of my reading of posts. My regard for that is part of why I can be a stickler on ‘reading comprehension’ as some replies I receive seem very evidently to have foregone context in favor of asserting their ego instead.
I could also point out a very real consideration on the ‘unspoken context’ that was given in this very topic. Some of the “off-topic” claims I argue are particular to the context for what likely influenced their presentation, esp on repeat samples. I sometimes assert that “perception shapes perspective” or rather, how people see something influences what they think of it. If people don’t know how something is influenced by other variables, they may assert something is op/up because of a lack of knowledge or observations to adjust the context of their claim. The same could be said of ideas embodied by the particular use of key words, or phraseology.
- 1 & 2 address the isolated particulars of the claim against me there, but my real concern is that you assert that one happens at the expense of the other. The consistent outlook that you’ve presented to me thus far looks to be more of ‘false dilemma’ in that you’re only considering two options, or only two variables, or rather, looking at things in more a polarized lens. The “literal fixation” comes at the “expense” of context, rather than in being in conjunction with it, or as cause/effect, or other interactions beyond that.
On the “literally fair” topic: That post was less about the ‘literal’ meaning of “fair”, but rather how your association of what fair “literally meant” shaped the argument at hand… and how it continues to so do as you brought up the particulars of what people “want” to be ‘fair’ versus what is deemed ‘fair enough’. I’ve had about a books worth of failures in trying to convey particulars of ‘unfair’ on the boards, so I’ll just chalk up my bit on that to be another take in failed efforts too.
I will add it is kinda off-putting for the claim on my ‘fixating’ for ‘literal’ particulars to come at the “expense” of context when the rapsheet of examples posted pretty much forgo context to assert the claim of what you ‘want’ to be the case — even so much as going to claim a post exemplified something, but didn’t actually exist. I would think the consequence of making such a claim an indication of a faulty/fallacious process to the conclusion I was drawing if I had that (and not edited it out <.< >,>)
Words, or how they’re combined to convey intent are processes of how the idea and argument are formed, but otherwise, ‘language is arbitrary’. That may seem really silly coming from me, or how I’m commonly perceived, but the ‘reality’ of that phrase is part of how I react to certain arguments I’ve had here where a poster is more particular about “me” then about the ‘argument’.
While, I can shrug off the particulars of how you phrased the summaries of your interpretation of my actions, the representation of those ideas are given form via specific phrases: they are the ‘work shown’ or the evidence of your, mine, or anyone’s chain of thought. I do have a particular philosophy on ‘proving’ stuff via the evidence of text, but a lot of those attempts were in topics that would up deleted >.<
I digress, but here’s a fun little secret on some unspoken context from my end: that post in Hallfail’s Ming thread (the one of my bringing up Khaldor it “argue semantics XD) was tied to an old forum topic. On sept 21, 2017 I made a 3 page reply to Hallfail regarding their concern for azmodan, zag and li-ming. While its more of an arm-chair psychoanalysis than direct hero advise, the post was about the most ‘liked’ thing I ever wrote on that forum. To my observations, I found the poster had little regard for actual advise for their concerns and concluded they wanted to persist in chronic complaints – they were more likely to ignore resources that could help them with their concerns than to heed any of what people posted to them. If they wanted to get out of that rut, then it’d take some self-reflection on their part to stop doing more-of-the-same and genuinely take to hear the replies given.
I doubt anyone else would recall the 2017 post, let alone associate it with the reply that I made to hailfall’s topic, but the particulars of what I posted wasn’t to argue about meaning, but to reference what I had written before, based on what I had observed regarding to whom hailfall would reply, and why. Well, I got a reply from Hailfall where I hadn’t before (for however many topics) so that’s close-enough to a plus in my book 
The point of that bit, or of the digression here, isn’t about grammar or ‘making’ people “look stupid”. Much of my concerns are particular to ‘willful ignorance’ – some seem content to revel in particular phrasing of a notion to suit a given perspective that seems incongruent with what they want to “mean”. I’ve generally found that many aspects of communication and activity leads to self-inflicted misery because of how people continue to ignore particular contradictions of their own composition.
I may or may not have come to that sort of conclusion by way of perpetual personal experience.
8 Likes
i dont even read it … its too long XD
2 Likes
I must spread the holy message too, Popcorn Moira.
1 Like
I’ll pass on the popcorn. It’s a shame that what could have been an interesting topic has devolved into a personal argument between two people about how to correctly and effectively argue a point.
7 Likes
Unfortunately, it happens every time Xenterex is present. /sigh
LesserLightningBond2019 ![:fist:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/fist.png?v=6" ":fist:")
I can only ever see this principle hold true is a highly formal setting and not a plain informal setting, much like the forums are. My main problem with your argument here is that you are trying to make it sound like the word which you choose to fixate on in someone’s post is the crux of their case, in which case I would applaud you for making them understand why their case is build on faulty and factually untrue reasoning but this is rarely the case.
As per my examples above, the words you choose to challenge people on have had nothing to do with the topic or their opinions on the topic. As I’ve said, more often than not, you choose to nitpick on the grammatical mistakes of the argument and not the key word itself upon which the argument was built.
Allow me to give an example of how you could have done this correctly:
Take for instance the “Imperius’ trait is a gimped compy of Orphea’s, change my mind” thread. In this case, a proper usage of your tactic to debate semantics would have been used far more effectively to discuss the word “gimped” and point out the unique properties of his trait (such as multiple activations of it through molten armor), which would allow you to discredit his argument AND stay on point to the topic of the thread.
Instead you choose to fixate on the phrase “Change my mind” and go into tremendous detail as to why you believe that phrase is a lazy attempt to get people to engage with material without much effort on the OP’s end. Ironically, the exact opposite happened with you in that you did not engage with the source material and you put in way more effort than the OP anyway, but that is besides the point.
You claim that changing the way someone uses a word will help them better understand why their argument is faulty but in all of the examples I have listed, including mine with the “fair” one, it has never been the case. For my example, correcting me on the literal definition of the word “fair” did nothing to change my argument since it was evident to everyone in the thread (except you) that my usage of the word fair was used in the context to portray inequality.
Meanings of words can go beyond the literal definition. If you’re at work and you find out your hours have been cut and given to the new guy even though you’ve been there for years, you would say “that’s not fair”. But hold on a second? Your trusty dictionary clearly specifies that “fair” means no rules were breached and the action was legit.
Your boss has every right to switch the hours around however he deems is most effective for the company. “fair” was not violated in any way and your usage of the word “fair” was incorrectly applied. As you suggested, maybe if you just educate yourself on why your usage of the word was incorrect you’ll understand you had nothing to be worried about, right? Wrong.
In an informal setting, grammatical correctness is not a prerequisite to conveyed intent. The usage of the word “fair” with the boss example, the football example, and my example in the ‘gg vs bg’ thread all had the same meaning; which was to express an observation of inequality or injustice.
The idea that proper grammar will help change someone’s opinion on a topic is a laughably ridiculous claim that has no basis in the facts and no practical application. Again, I can only ever see this being true in a highly formal setting like a university, lecture, or seminar. If you’re at a party with your friends watching sports and your friend says “we ain’t got no defense”, you could point out that A) “ain’t” is an incorrect substitute for “don’t” and B) “don’t got no” is a double negative, so he’s actually saying the opposite of what he tried to convey.
In this situation, would correcting him seriously change his opinion on the matter? No. Did correcting me on “fair” change my opinion of the matchmaking system? No. Did correcting Hailfail on Khaldor change his opinion about Li Ming? No. Are you starting to see the pattern yet? You’re continuing your crusade on the false notion that the people you come across will change their ways if they understand the faults in their grammar. That is ridiculous.
You are changing nobody’s opinion. The only way you can change someone’s opinion is to refute their argument with facts and evidence, which I understand even then sometimes doesn’t help, but still is better than the alternative of what you are doing.
If someone makes a thread saying “Butcher is overpowered and this has had a large affect on the community.” I would completely expect you to be the person to point out “affect” was inappropriately used in the place of “effect” instead of doing the right thing and arguing the word “overpowered” was misapplied and easily disproved through statistical evidence that points to the contrary on almost every level of play.
Please give me one single example where you corrected someone’s grammar and in turn they said “Gee, you’re right. Now I see my complaint was wrong all along. Thanks, Xen.”
The point I’m trying to get across is that you need to pick your battles more wisely. Fixate on words such as “overpowered” that are key to the opponents argument instead of on words that have nothing to do with the spirit of the topic.
You noted in your post that:
I wonder why? Do you think that maybe your attempts at correcting people’s grammar can lead to the thread being sidetracked? Do you think that making a debate of “lore-friendliness” in a thread about the current balance of Tyrande might get sidetracked and shut down? Do you think that arguing the context of the word “Tone” in a thread about Sylvanas’ gameplay might end with the topic getting locked? Do you consider any of these factors before you decide to get into it with someone?
People tend to only post things on the forums about heroes they have an issue with. For example there has been one thread in the last three months that has mentioned Johanna, yet she is still very good. Also, popularity often has nothing to do with power level. Champions such as Probius, Gazlowe, TLV and Rexxar all have 54% plus winrates in ranked and all have some of the lowest popularities.
Blood and Thunder (Level 7)
Ghost Wolf attacks reduce Basic Ability cooldowns by 2 seconds.
Hunger of the Wolf (Level 16)
Ghost Wolf attacks against Heroes deal an additional 5% of the target’s maximum Health and heal Rehgar for 5% of his maximum Health.
More talents like these (maybe even stronger if more difficult to use are supposed to replace generic this will cost less mana) and leave totems alone. He is fine, but why not.
“In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or PSP ) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.”
“Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning…
Unlike semantics… pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance,[2] any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors.
Did you know? some of the reasons I may reference a dictionary or wiki include:
a) providing a source to improve linguistic knowledge
b) assuming people wouldn’t look up particulars of their own accord
c) not believe me if I tried to explain it myself.
The whole soapbox fixation on “grammar/semantics” you keep casting at me seems pretty moot when you didn’t raise this up in terms of “arguing pragmatics”. In fact, continuing to assert that I 'Ignore context" if favor of sticking to the narrative you want to cast – which btw, should have been seen has evident case for confirmation bias that you seem content to ignore – kinda seems misplaced if you notice how many times I may or may not have been referencing toward my proclivity to stuff beyond “semantics” despite your insistence of that being so the case.
Funnily enough, of the many quotes you have of my posts now, how many of them have to not considered in applying to your concerns in this topic?
→ Oj posts rant on the assumed failure of my theory
→ Oj quoting a post I made on the reality for someone to not change someone else’s mind
Heck, even the ramble you did on the qualifier for how fact/refutation may not even work is in the same ballpark, but sure, let’s pretend that my not adhering to your strawman claim of my methodology is my fault, and not the fault of the theory presented by you toward me 
See, this bit here is another example of that conflation bit I’ve posted at you before. In your zeal you’re ignoring the tendency I have to give “troll posters” the time of day by posting genuine responses in topics that end up deleted regardless of my contribution. Sure, i’ve seen a topic locked for being derailed, but for my contribution i do try to nod something back to the topic at hand, even if people don’t want or like it.
e.g.
The ability to understand another speaker’s intended meaning is called pragmatic competence
Hi, thread that wanted to suggest rehgar could get lightning bond but, but well, didn’t really open with that.
-The whole point of why I even post “formal” antics is because the recipient isn’t going to ‘change their mind’. Part of why some people even attempt to adopt such particulars isn’t to ‘persuade’ anyone, its just to revel in how “right” they already think themselves to be. Take mekka’s specific request for someone to ‘debate’ them accordingly: their assuption in being “right” essentially compelled them to either ignore arguments that didn’t suit their model of debate, or demand others to take up what they wanted instead. The same pretty much applied to rational, animus, eigenscape, and a number of others.
If someone is partially considering that ‘word meaning’ deviates from their expectation, then they’ll more likely shift their perception of other stuff to suit the same demands they place on that word/concept belief that they hold. In previous ‘unfair’ topics that I’ve written, when presented with examples contrary to the OP’s assertion of “fair”, they just denounce all those other games has being ‘unfair’ or ‘pay2win’ or whatever else to maintain the position they wanted, regardless of how much is was contradicted by how they argued it.
a number of posters all fall into a same mindset and part of that is because the back-n-forth of the medium doesn’t change someone’s mind… at all. People are more prone to react to the perception of ‘disagreement’ then they are to honor particulars of a formalized wall. If someone brings ‘facts’ against them, then they just look for ‘facts’ for the side they want.
Of the people that “like” that sort of thing are sideliners who just assume a particular length reinforces what they wanted, and they celebrate the ‘eloquence’ someone else presented despite likely not reading much, if any, of the material at hand.
That said, despite years of effectual failure on this means by which I respond to particular arguments, the funny thing is that the technique does wonders for me in person.
In my line of work, I frequently have to diagnose “problems” clients bring to me. The basis by which I ascertain the issue is from the ‘evidence’ they provide by describing the problem. Most of the ‘issues’ I get are from the user, and not the fault of the device at hand, so my capacity to “fix” something is based on my ability to get someone to change something about what they themselves do. Usually that involves my broadening their perspective a bit by suggesting a change in how their think about their concern.
eg I’ve worked at an arcade and a number of players fall into a rut of “all the games are broken” – not so much from the machines being unplayable, but because they don’t notice what they’re even putting into the coin slot. While they, in fact, cause the very misery themselves, they’ll easily blame any and all else they can before realizing the possibility they are at fault.
I could apply that much of the same consequence to a number of other jobs I’ve had, (or stuff people do) but some of the consistent basis I’ve personally encountered is the means by which people phrase a particular concern stems from what they know or observed of the issue.
(hi throwback to the citation of pragmatics above)
If the fault is a consequence of their action, I have found that “correcting their grammar”, as you so want to put it, does have an effect of their potential to not repeat the same err, and even improve their outlook because they’re not plagued with the idea that something else is keeping them from enjoying themselves as so they demand.
card or board games fall into a similar effect in needed ‘rules’ to be understood particular to the “grammar” (if you will) of the context the game creates. a number of games establish particular vernacular that only applies to that particular game, some of which provide a glossary of terms to be an on-hand reference during play or when teaching other players the game.
The biggest distinction, for me, is that in person, people can ‘test’ the application of the information given to them directly, and thus reinforce their understanding with a diret reward. In the written medium, the ‘reward’ is the personal satisfaction someone has of being ‘right’ versus the fear and discomfort of being ‘wrong’ So since they already have what they ‘want’, there isn’t any reasons for people to look for ‘change’ when they can just look for more fuel for the fire they already have going.
OJ and Xenterex, could we return to regular programming and continue to discuss Rehgar? This Dostoevsky length discussion regarding forum discourse is fascinating, but is definitely off topic. Maybe you two should take it private?
7 Likes
See, now that I’m pushing the offensive and suggesting that you may be contributing to the problem of these threads getting locked down, you instead are trying to shift all responsibility away from yourself by demonizing the OPs in the threads in which your participate. “Troll posters” is not an excuse. If someone is obviously a troll poster (in the case of Secant of Hailfail) and doesn’t deserve your time of day, either post a short comedic response or say nothing at all.
Also, in none of the threads except maybe Hailfail’s did the OP have clear trolly intent. You might argue that lack of effort constitutes a troll, but I would disagree. The thread saying Imperius’ trait was just a copy paste of Orphea’s demonstrated clear intent to point out a relevant concern about the design philosophy of heroes. Are you still going to suggest this person is a “troll poster”?
Giving someone a label for very vague reasons and using that as a pretext to do whatever you want in their thread sounds like a recipe for becoming a troll. There are only three posters that I can think of off the top of my head that fit into the category you are trying to describe, and that’s Hailfail, Secant, and Healsonheels (and his many alts). Everyone else gets a fair shot for a serious response from me that discusses the source material.
For you on the otherhand, your list of troll posters seems to be quite more vast. So I wonder then, if people don’t deserve your ‘time of day’ and ‘aren’t going to change’ why post these lengthy posts like you do all the time in an attempt to educate them? Are you going to suggest that the education isn’t necessarily for the OP but anyone reading? When has that ever been the case?
You are at fault here. On a consistant basis you do not engage with the subject material and instead sidetrack threads by going into pointless irrelevant debates with other posts who are doing the exact same thing. You then blame the OP for the thread getting shut down. I call you out on this and you stick to your guns saying “oh well they were just troll posters anyway, it’s all good.” This is absolute bull-you-know-what.
Maybe people are annoyed with me for making posts without thinking and using pathos as the tone of my thread, I’m willing to except that. There is blame on my end to. But to suggest you have done no wrong is a wildly incorrect statement.
I am tired of seeing threads that even I think are serious being derailed by you pointlessly debating with people just as guilty of sidetracking as you are. The thread about Tyrande was a serious post made by someone without a past history of trolling using legitmate and fair points brought up to encourage discussion. What is your excuse this time? Are you going to call the OP a troll? Maybe you’re going to call the person you were debating with a troll but that still doesn’t change the fact you sidetracked that OP’s thread with offtopic nonsense and contributed to the lack of discussion that may (or may not) have taken place.