why do I get sucked in?

[n00b]

Why do I constantly have to see what who said in some of these ongoing argument threads? They're just basically slinging mud at each other and saying the other is wrong and their way is the only right way. Sometimes I side mentally with one of the other depending on how they are interpreting the rules. But I rarely (almost never) interject anything, mostly because it would be pointless and no doubt someone would just tell me how wrong I was. Why do I feel compelled to keep up with those threads?

[NaughtyTiger]

Same boat.
And when I finally do comment, I instantly regret it. But I can't stop replying once I start.

[nickl_2000]

According to this, human nature. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/food-thought/201301/tantalized-train-wreck-reality-television


Personally, I check out of most conversations after it goes past 2 pages.

[Sigreid]

Same reason people watch shows like Jerry Springer.

[Man_Over_Game]

To summarize that link: People like conflict. What it doesn't go on to describe is the fact that being immune to the negatives of conflict make it infinitely more rewarding.

Everyone watches a cop pull someone over and can't help but watch, but the person being pulled over thinks it's a horrible nightmare. People can't help but look at a train wreck, but would the same be true if you were an EMT or someone who had family on that train? You don't want to get into a fight with your friend Dave over something dumb like whether Booming Blade is too strong or not, but there's nothing to lose if you complain about it to Man_Over_Game.

Or rather, put it this way: If a real-life fight puts you 4 steps forward and 5 steps back, but the same fight over the internet has no loss, you just gained 4 steps.

You don't really have to defend yourself or change your mind on the internet, so you don't even have to risk being wrong. You can just say whatever opinion you want, and everyone else looks like idiots for spending energy to tell you how wrong you are.

I try to spend a little more time on RPG Stack Exchange over GitP, since they do take things a lot more seriously and opinions are generally frowned upon. They sometimes are a bit TOO serious, and not everything can be solved by them (as some questions can only be opinions), but the way its set up will pretty much get most answerable questions answered.

And ask yourself: if you aren't trying to get an answer, what are you doing instead?

[Segev]

I generally am just as inclined to discuss something IRL as I am online. ^^;

The verbal and physically-visible interaction does seem to facilitate agreement, though.

I also find people IRL to be less concerned with proving themselves right no matter how they have to twist their arguments and twist your words, unless it's something like politics and religion. Usually, if there's disagreement IRL, it does tend towards "I want to be correct, and you to be correct, so let's find what's correct," and people are swifter to agree to disagree when they find that they both understand the other's arguments and just disagree on the underlying facts.

[Millface]

I enjoy it and even take part in it because it encourages me to look deeply into RAW, consider RAI, and overall just get other people's opinions on DMing.

Also, talking about D&D is a fantastic way to pass slow work days, time flies when you're engaged. I don't love the negativity, and I hate when/if it starts to get personal, but it's still engaging even at its worst. I try to keep it about the text, but sometimes I'll admit I'm guilty of clapping back if someone insults me directly. It is what it is.

[Armored Walrus]

Typically, threads are just not worth reading once they get beyond the first page. Every useful post has been made by that point, and the rest is trash and ego contests. So, OP, if you're looking for helpful advice about how to beat your addiction, just don't click on threads with more than one page worth of responses ;)

[Pex]

Always agree with me. Problem solved.

[Sigreid]

And remember, paid trolls are a thing. It is an actual job making people angry on the internet.

[Galadhrim]

Haha, I was just having this same thought after clicking respond to thread, typing up half a response, and then deleting it twice.

[ImproperJustice]

I have the same problem.

I even had to suppress the urge to post some fake oppositional viewpoint to the original post as a joke.

[n00b]

I find that I type up replies and then delete way more than I ever actually post to.

[n00b]

I need a thumbs up button on some of these replies! :)

[2D8HP]

....Why do I feel compelled to keep up with those threads?


Arguments about game rules are weirdly relaxing compared to arguments about topics that this Forum wisely bans, plus jokes (especially puns) breakout from time to time.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Somewhere out there, someone is wrong on the internet. And if I won't stop them, who will?

I mostly get into arguments because I like being proven wrong. If I'm wrong, then that means I can make my games way better than they are right now. If I'm right, it helps to know why I'm right, because that information can also be used to make my games better. And a good, strong debate can bring those answers to the forefront.

That's not to say I don't lose sight of that goal. It's easy to become obsessed with your own viewpoint to where you fail to acknowledge a logical, sound answer just because it was delivered by your 'opponent'. I try to keep in mind that whoever I'm arguing with isn't some foe or obstacle that I need to overcome and tear down, they're voicing concerns and giving insight that I don't presently possess. Even if they're being snarky and rude about it.

Winning an argument shouldn't be the goal of any argument. You should be trying to arrive at the truth. Whether anyone around you is playing by the same rules is inconsequential.

[kivzirrum]

Typically, threads are just not worth reading once they get beyond the first page. Every useful post has been made by that point, and the rest is trash and ego contests. So, OP, if you're looking for helpful advice about how to beat your addiction, just don't click on threads with more than one page worth of responses ;)

I've also found this to be true most of the time! The longer a thread gets the more likely it is to devolve into barbarism... honestly I can't stomach the fights people have. I mean, if they get something out of it, fair enough--but personally I prefer not to read or partake :smalltongue:

[Theodoxus]

And remember, paid trolls are a thing. It is an actual job making people angry on the internet.

How do I get this job? I'm tired of being a productive member of society! I deserve to be fed bonbons while slamming other people's ideas, regardless of how I actually feel about said ideas.

[nickl_2000]

How do I get this job? I'm tired of being a productive member of society! I deserve to be fed bonbons while slamming other people's ideas, regardless of how I actually feel about said ideas.

That's a horrible idea, and you are a horrible person for suggesting it.


***NOTE, if you didn't know, blue indicates sarcasm***


*This post paid for by Bon bon company inc. Did you know that bonbons are a vital part of your daily diet?

[GlenSmash!]

Same reason people watch shows like Jerry Springer.

Oh man. This gives me some ideas.

A Jerry Springer type show but the only topic is D&D. Maybe a web show.

More realistically, a scenario where the party encounters an Ogre tribe that publicly airs grievances on a stage before the rest of the tribe.

[Sigreid]

Oh man. This gives me some ideas.

A Jerry Springer type show but the only topic is D&D. Maybe a web show.

More realistically, a scenario where the party encounters a an Ogre tribe that public ally airs grievances on a stage before the rest of the tribe.

I dont know. Just heard about it on the radio.

[Asmotherion]

Wile this is hardly a 5e thread, <- see what I did there :P

I'll make my contribution by saying that, debate is a sport. We sometimes like to think we have evolved past the times we would tear each others to pieces in an Arena (or bet on the Winner from the Spectator's sits), but honestly enough, I'm sure that if the laws allowed it, we would return to this practices in no time: That is the human nature. We love conflict. We love War. We invented the thing.

It is no accident that, the only times people work the best together and unite past their conflicts, it is in order to face a common, greater enemy. We like having enemies that tie us together us friends. This is also human nature; To have a proverbial "devil", a scapegoat to pass on humanity's sins to, and then fight against that enemy, conquer him, prove "you" were rightful.

We are a weird animal, us humans. A weird animal indeed.

So, don't worry if you feel excited by conflict and debate. It's just part of our nature. Embrace it. The more we fight it, the more hypocrites we become. It is by embracing this nature, and using it productivelly that we can archive something meaningful. At least, that's what I believe.

[willdaBEAST]

Sometimes I'm involved in the arguments myself, but that's almost never my intent. I don't find internet debates compelling and I think it's a shame when it's less of a discussion and more of "I WILL PROVE YOU WRONG" ego driven spectacle.

Part of that is so much nuance is lost through text, but people also like to troll and make others feel bad.

I do find myself typing up a response then deleting it more and more these days, when in the past I was much eager to assert my position.

To me it's strange to think comment sections might disappear in the near future. So many sites have gotten rid of them (IMDB, ESPN, etc).

[Zerazar]

Those threads are what I associate with this site. Don't see them much elsewhere.

I like them for testing (or creating) my own convictions. It is satisfying for me to enter a debate undecided, or with a shallow opinion, and exit it with more understanding of what I think and why I think so. Makes me feel like there's still some neuroplasticity left in the ol' noggin.

Still don't post in them though. It seems that, largely, people are mostly interesting in making their own arguments, rather than genuinely responding to arguments of others. So they're a great place to hear a lot of different view ports, and hear them being supported and attacked, but honest debate is rarely found. Though to be fair, I'm not sure where you would ever find that.

[Segev]

...I am unsure if the "there are paid trolls, no, seriously" thing is a joke or is meant seriously. My question, if serious, is why? How does this make whoever's paying them more money? People don't pay other people to do stuff without some sort of profit motive, generally speaking. (Unless it's a personal service, but I don't see how trolling other people online is a personal service anybody would pay for rather than doing it, themselves.)

[JakOfAllTirades]

Overall, the board's pretty quiet right now. The "mirror image" thread is at 19 pages, the "my cantrips are always on" thread is at 13.

I've seen far worse in terms of number of over-long discussions, and page counts.

"Let's read..." threads don't count; they always have high page counts. Also, I don't read them and I don't know if they devolve into pointless arguments.

[GlenSmash!]

Overall, the board's pretty quiet right now. The "mirror image" thread is at 19 pages, the "my cantrips are always on" thread is at 13.

I've seen far worse in terms of number of over-long discussions, and page counts.

"Let's read..." threads don't count; they always have high page counts. Also, I don't read them and I don't know if they devolve into pointless arguments.

i loved the Monster Manual thread. Very little arguing. Lot's of plot hooks for using monsters.

[Sigreid]

...I am unsure if the "there are paid trolls, no, seriously" thing is a joke or is meant seriously. My question, if serious, is why? How does this make whoever's paying them more money? People don't pay other people to do stuff without some sort of profit motive, generally speaking. (Unless it's a personal service, but I don't see how trolling other people online is a personal service anybody would pay for rather than doing it, themselves.)

As I understand it it is usually to support some political agenda. Other than that I have known people who were hired by companies to have a go at competitors online.

[2D8HP]

I think my favorite recent long thread that didn't just turn into extended joke after jokes (which are AWESOME!) was the

Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541237-Changing-the-quot-Caster-beats-Mundane-quot-paradigm)

thread, which basically amounted to 50 pages of "Just play a different game" and people stating their personal tastes, but it remained relatively courteous and most realized that it wasn't a matter of objectivity but instead balancing different peoples fun.

[EggKookoo]

Wait, crap. Did I join this thread when it was still fresh or has it already slid over into "not worth reading" mode?

[n00b]

Wait, crap. Did I join this thread when it was still fresh or has it already slid over into "not worth reading" mode?

I was just wondering if we'd rolled over to the 2nd page yet! :tongue:

[Spriteless]

Sorry guys, it's time for me to agree with you, but adversarially.

I mean, just because it's human nature, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do better! On the other hand, these long threads stay on the front page longer, so they tempt one over and over and over.

Feel free to quote just one of those sentences and disagree with it. You know most people don't bother reading the whole thread, it's easy to get away with out of context quotes. Though you will miss the full flavor of my meta passive aggression without reading my whole post.

[EggKookoo]

Sorry guys, it's time for me to agree with you, but adversarially.

"Adversarially" isn't a word according to the squiggly red line Chrome puts under it. Therefore the rest of your post is invalid.

(I'd put that in blue sarcasm text but I kind of think that would apply to this entire thread.)

[Maelynn]

***NOTE, if you didn't know, blue indicates sarcasm***

... wait. What? Wow.

Half a year on this forum and this is the first time I read an explanation for the blue lines of text I sometimes see. I always assumed they were a remnant of the coloured text that young people liked to use, like on the Harry Potter forums I frequented 15 years ago... o.O

Anyway, to go with the topic... personally, I like discussing rules and ideas, tossing my view on things in with others to compare them and see how my own opinion holds up against the rest. Just like someone else said, if you're proven wrong it means you've got something to learn, if you're proven right it encourages you to hone and expand that knowledge. For that reason, I read threads with subjects that interest me, and I try to read every post unless they divert from the subject too much (without being equally interesting) or when it becomes toxic. I've seen some negative posts here that made me wonder just how bitter the person must be to be so hateful/condescending to someone else.

I cannot deny that I too take the bait of a negative post sometimes, although I try to avoid it. I hate arguments, especially if they become personal... but if someone lashes out at me, then I feel I have to retort. And that if I don't, I'll have allowed a stranger to make me feel bad - and that just doesn't sit right with me.