I know exactly who behaves like this here at FSD, lol. Then again, there are a lot of people who behave like this.
Community How the FGC community SHOULD treat people
- Thread starter Argentus
- Start date
- Status
I know exactly who behaves like this here at FSD, lol. Then again, there are a lot of people who behave like this.
Argentus
Well-Known Member
Other way around. I get angry and defensive at being told that I have to play a certain way or I'm "wrong".
Not gonna lie and say I never was like that, but I'm not anymore.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
You don't have to play a specific way, but you do have to play the same game as the rest of us.
Your main problem is that you get frustrated when you hit the mental wall of what the game is supposed to be, and rather than accept what people tell you about the way that it works you instead opt to lash out against the mechanics and criticize everything, which makes people lose interest in helping you.
Your main problem is that you get frustrated when you hit the mental wall of what the game is supposed to be, and rather than accept what people tell you about the way that it works you instead opt to lash out against the mechanics and criticize everything, which makes people lose interest in helping you.
Argentus
Well-Known Member
I know, it just REALLY doesn't help when I get a lot of "you suck, learn to play", which sets off my temper. I'm responding civilly to people actually giving advice, though. Plus, I honestly didn't know, Dragon Gunner referred to the ankle grab. Thought it meant his machine gun palm strike thing, because Logic. Lot less confusion now.
Rikuto
P-P-P-P-P-P-POWER!
Tone down the rage against the mechanics and you're going to find a lot less people are going to get pissed off and say hurtful shit. That's mostly just the people being frustrated with your attitude regarding things.
Not saying its right, but it is an understandably common response. It's gota start with you.
Not saying its right, but it is an understandably common response. It's gota start with you.
Argentus
Well-Known Member
well kinda. core fighters so i can't actually check Jann's command list.
Logic was, "i'm only using 2 characters, so i'll just buy those two and be done with it". But i'm gonna get full game for Last Round, mostly just so I can check all this nonsense.
Argentus
Well-Known Member
yeah, I know. just saying that since I can't actually bring Jann into training, if all you said was was the numbers, I would have no idea what move that was.
I did not want to get involved in this thread, as I knew exactly what was going to be in it. But then someone decided to report a post, so I had to drag my rear in here and read everything to make sure I had the appropriate context. Sure enough, it's the same old arguments, but now with higher doses of victim complex, red herrings and strawman fallacies.
So let's break this down into baby steps, shall we?
What the subject here is allegedly about is how respectful community members are to one another when they have differing opinions. So, to address who was right/wrong in the original argument is irrelevant. Why the explanation was included here was nothing short of igniting the victim complex (explained later).
So, now that we have a topic, let's look at the intent of the topic. We can start at the goal: "I would like to be treated with respect, even when my opinion differs from another's." So does everyone. Unfortunately, it's life. And in life people are jerks, and the internet is certainly no exception. No one is immune to that. Here on FSD we don't support that behavior, but we're certainly not going to go white knighting across the internet every time anyone in the DOA community says something out of line. If it wasn't said on FSD, we can't do anything about it. All we can do is hope that the pointless drama doesn't make its way over here so we have to clean it up.
But what does this thread do? It brought the drama right to our doorstep. And for what purpose? The objective is allegedly to make people stop being jerks out of pity because someone on Facebook was being a jerk in light of an opinion very few people hold. What an inane course of action! Utterly futile to those with even the slightest comprehension of what is going on. So let's consider the true purpose.
The true purpose was to gain a victory via strawman fallacy. Argentus could not win the original argument (and was offended in the process), so another argument was made to attack and defeat. This argument was the: "It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, don't be a jerk!" argument. How do we know this is the case? Because there would be no other reason to include the original argument's position in the OP if the subsequent one was in fact the primary topic. The inclusion of that blurb was to indirectly link the two points in an attempt to associate them, with the latter being more objectively winnable. This plan went awry when everyone simply attacked the original argument (juggles) and dismissed the strawman (community respect). At this point, the response was: "I got angry that everyone is derailing from the real subject (ie: the strawman)" in an attempt to re-diverge the conversation flow. Elements such as addressing the larger FGC, playstyle improvement, offline apprehension, Jann Lee, etc. are all red herrings in relation to either one argument or the other, further indicating an attempted merger between two separate avenues.
Whether all of this was intentional or subconscious by the instigator doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that this topic, as it is presented, will not contribute an objective purpose and serves primarily to vent and cause contention between different members when they are already emotionally charged. Venting, in moderation, is fine, but this certainly is not the time (or really the place) for it, and the structure here only serves to further offend.
Thread locked.
So let's break this down into baby steps, shall we?
What the subject here is allegedly about is how respectful community members are to one another when they have differing opinions. So, to address who was right/wrong in the original argument is irrelevant. Why the explanation was included here was nothing short of igniting the victim complex (explained later).
So, now that we have a topic, let's look at the intent of the topic. We can start at the goal: "I would like to be treated with respect, even when my opinion differs from another's." So does everyone. Unfortunately, it's life. And in life people are jerks, and the internet is certainly no exception. No one is immune to that. Here on FSD we don't support that behavior, but we're certainly not going to go white knighting across the internet every time anyone in the DOA community says something out of line. If it wasn't said on FSD, we can't do anything about it. All we can do is hope that the pointless drama doesn't make its way over here so we have to clean it up.
But what does this thread do? It brought the drama right to our doorstep. And for what purpose? The objective is allegedly to make people stop being jerks out of pity because someone on Facebook was being a jerk in light of an opinion very few people hold. What an inane course of action! Utterly futile to those with even the slightest comprehension of what is going on. So let's consider the true purpose.
The true purpose was to gain a victory via strawman fallacy. Argentus could not win the original argument (and was offended in the process), so another argument was made to attack and defeat. This argument was the: "It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, don't be a jerk!" argument. How do we know this is the case? Because there would be no other reason to include the original argument's position in the OP if the subsequent one was in fact the primary topic. The inclusion of that blurb was to indirectly link the two points in an attempt to associate them, with the latter being more objectively winnable. This plan went awry when everyone simply attacked the original argument (juggles) and dismissed the strawman (community respect). At this point, the response was: "I got angry that everyone is derailing from the real subject (ie: the strawman)" in an attempt to re-diverge the conversation flow. Elements such as addressing the larger FGC, playstyle improvement, offline apprehension, Jann Lee, etc. are all red herrings in relation to either one argument or the other, further indicating an attempted merger between two separate avenues.
Whether all of this was intentional or subconscious by the instigator doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that this topic, as it is presented, will not contribute an objective purpose and serves primarily to vent and cause contention between different members when they are already emotionally charged. Venting, in moderation, is fine, but this certainly is not the time (or really the place) for it, and the structure here only serves to further offend.
Thread locked.
- Status