Discussion:Should being rude be tolerated?

Dickery Does Not Exclude Good Points

Surgo 12:42, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

This needs a page all by itself because people keep bringing up the idea of "if you can't be polite, I'll just ignore you". That is counterproductive and stupid. You do not need to be polite to be intelligent or have good points. A few historical examples because some people are bound to not take me at my word:

Lesson to take home: because someone is mean to you does not mean that their points are invalid. In fact, if you ignore them because they're mean, you're the stupid one and your article is worse for it.

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:54, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

The exact same argument style can be adopted for the discussion Good Points do not require rudeness. This is a cooperative project and being polite is the consensus and the proper way to perform on the site. It aids all in its actions. Lesson to take home: being rude and brunt on the internet does not make your opinion more valid than a soft spoken person, nor does it make you cool. Lets all be friendly and work co-habitually properly.

Surgo 12:57, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not good points require rudeness has absolutely no bearing on whether or not rudeness impacts the quality of the points. The whole point here is that if you take the attitude of ignoring somebody's points because they are rude, you are a fool. Whether people should be polite or not is beyond the scope of good points.

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:02, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

However, if you could get your point across without being rude and you choose not to, then both sides lose and no headway is made in any on-site discussion. Thus, rudeness is unnecessary and improper.

Surgo 13:04, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

...which, again, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not points made by someone who is rude are any good.

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:08, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Well, if you refuse to acknowledge the sensibleness of my comments, let us discuss this point. Does it exclude good points - no, no it does not. However, does it dampen the ability of the good points to get across - yes, very much so. Does it make people stop listening/reading to the person who may have some good points - very much so.

Sam Kay 15:22, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

The truth is that, if you insult someone, you'll find it much harder get your point across, no matter how good it is. The same is true if you are rude. If you were to, for example, insult someone's mother while trying to get a very good point across, whad do you think they are going to do? Yes, they will punch you in the face, either physically, or metaphorically. And they will not listen to the point, even if it is as true as "1 + 1 = 2". I find the insults and rudeness completely unnecessary and detrimental to everyone. Also, you are forgetting this:

“	Anyway, on D&D Wiki, possibly since discussions are never deleted, people try to be nice. This means please follow Wikipedia's guidelines on Civility and Etiquette when discussing anything. And, if an argument does arise, please use Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution to make sure everyone comes out happy.	”
—Green Dragon, The D&D Wiki Welcome Message

Surgo 15:24, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Did I ever say that being rude was a good thing, or that I promoted it? I'm looking at my above comments, and I'm not seeing it. No, I am certainly not forgetting what you quoted. What I am saying is that it's beyond the scope of the discussion about good points and correlation to rudeness. People, please stop insinuating that I'm forgetting statement X, or I don't think that being polite is good. Because neither of those are true.

Sam Kay 04:37, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Then you'll agree that that rudeness is unnecessary and should stop? We're not saying that "dickery excludes good points". We've established that you can be rude and have a good point. But that doesn't mean that having good points is an excuse for rudeness. The real issue that needs discussing is whether or not the rudeness is acceptable. And I don't think it is. The "if you can't be polite, I'll just ignore you" thing is counterproductive, but the insults are even more counterproductive.

As we've already established that "dickery does not exclude good points", I suggest we move on to the more important "Is rudeness acceptable and if not how do we deal with it?" Because that is the real problem. So, what is your opinion?

Dmilewski 04:54, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Communication is all about the message that you wish to send. That which aids communication is helpful, and that which hinders communication is not helpful.

For the most part, rudeness distract your reader from the very points that you wish to make.

In all communication, you have a choice: do you want to be RIGHT, or do you want to be EFFECTIVE? Rudeness dwells in being right, while politeness dwells in being effective. (I know that there are exceptions to the rule, but that goes beyond this short paragraph.) You can choose to be rude, but know that you are hurting your own cause as you do so.

TK-Squared 08:58, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

So, because someone has the potential to be insulted by a word said over an internet medium; one should tip toe around things? This is not about being rude or whatever; it's about blunt-force honesty. This is the internet; there is no social contract. If someone is doing something stupid, I'll tell them they're stupid, it's quite simple.

See, people always seem to be up in arms about something that is quite simply some words. I grew out of being insulted by a few words a long time ago; sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Something people should be educated on. An insult is an insult; get over it, they're everywhere, just because you feel it's better to ... doesn't mean you should try and steer; nay, force; someone else's actions to your own way of thinking.

Unnecessary? Only in a little perfect world where people don't need to be told blunt-faced they're being a moron. But, you know what; we don't live in that world. People don't learn by you tip-toeing around issues and trying to please everyone. Rudeness is completely subjective; you may find things rude that simply aren't to others. So, should we all adhere to a single standard scale of "rude" or, should we all just shut up and sit down; NO! THAT COULD BE RUDE TO SOMEONE!

Being rude is life. Getting insulted is life. Life is a joke. People need to learn to laugh, people need to learn to get ... over themselves. These are words. They are not stabbing you in the face, they are not kicking you. They are being processed by a neural net in your head and your consciousness, due to ingrained programming from young ages, is saying "oh no guy is being rude guy is bad". True honesty; it's not nice, it's not ... sugar coated and it's what it says on the tin.

Green Dragon 10:32, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Here is where your idea does not make sense.

“	If someone is doing something stupid, I'll tell them they're stupid, it's quite simple.	”
—Discussion:Dickery Does Not Exclude Good Points, TK-Squared 08:58, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Why do you have to tell them they are stupid, and not the stupid thing they are doing is stupid? Don't tell the person they are stupid, tell them their idea is stupid.

Yes, all of what you said above would be true and necessary to get a point across if being rude was the only way to get a point across. But it's not. I agree it's okay to be rude to the idea trying to be made to get ones point across, but their is no need to be rude to the people behind the idea. It stems from the idea that people are worth more then ideas. And since it is unnecessary to be rude to a person to get your point across, by just being rude to the idea being presented, simply don't do it. However since "rude" is, of course, arbitrary, one has to use societies judgement for what is rude to someone else, not one's self idea.

And since being rude is not the only way to get your point across, use different non-rude wording when talking to the person about their content; since people are worth more then ideas. And be as rude as you want to what they are trying to implement into their content; since it's just an idea.

For example someone wants to increase the wizards BAB to full and give them a bonus feat every level.

I would not say "You're so stupid!! Haha!! You think that is balanced? Maybe you should at least think (maybe you can't?) and think of something smart (maybe you can't think smart thoughts? Oh yeah, that's right, you can't even think!), and do something like lessen their spell powers (which you were dumb enough to add as full) and give them a few special abilities (do you even know what that is?) or something else more often. It's at least a bit smarter, not like what you came up with.".

Instead I would something along the lines of "A wizard getting full BAB and a bonus feat at every level is beyond unbalanced. I believe you want to modify the wizard to give him more versatility, however adding something extra onto the standard wizard is the way to do it. With D&D one always has to give to take, not just give. As an idea I just had maybe you could tone down his spellcasting, remove most of the bonus feats, and see how it looks from there."

Seriously, which is better? Which one is going to get the class fixed?

Although that does not invalidate the point they are trying to make.

The reason why it's a policy to be nice on D&D Wiki, even though rudeness should not have an effect on the point, is because in all reality it's counter-productive. Unfortunately this is reality — not a theoretical world.

Summerscythe 11:11, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

I propose tht this whole discussion be deleted. it seems to me that this argument is just residual argument from the flaw yesterday. you know how many campaigns use flaws? maybe 20%. this discussion has just become an argument... about arguments... and thats silly. I pretty much respect everyone in here, and i should. you are all brilliant players, and probably brilliant people. but this is gettign out of hand. This is an argument about arguments, not about D and D. I beleive this website was made for people who play d and d to get together and have fun talking about it, sure sometimes people are going to get pissed, but do we need to devote and entire discussion to it? I think not, but thats just my opinion. good day gentlemen.

Surgo 11:21, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Green Dragon:

The reason why it's a policy to be nice on D&D Wiki ...

D&D Wiki does not seem to even have a policy, a point that has caused no small amounts of argument in the past. There is no help page for policy or rules, and no such meta page that I can find.

Green Dragon 11:37, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

I was just going off that TK-Squared was once banned (albeit not fair for him since it was a one-sided ban) for being rude, and him and Spickle got a warning once.

Although your right — it's not posted anywhere. We need to add some policy pages on D&D Wiki in the meta section I would dare say. Currently we have been going off Wikipedia's policies, but as evidenced that is not working.

Or maybe we could just link to Wikipedia's List of Policies and say as a general rule they apply here as well.

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:22, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

It seems some are using semantics to avoid abiding by the social standards that a community project such as this wiki rely upon.

Sam Kay 12:31, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

Don't the Wikipedia's List of Policies apply already? Anyway, I think we should use the Wikipedia's List of Policies.

Sabre070 00:33, 13 March 2009 (MDT)

Generally if you wouldn't want something said to you or think that another (any other, this is the internet) would be offended then don't say it. On normal forums the admin would normally delete the offensive post, this cannot effectively be done here and if it is said in the tavern then it cannot be stopped at all. It is effective to ban the user but we should warn people first and yes, just be nice and you won't have a problem.

Though yes, I don't agree with excluding someones ideas when they aren't acting like an idiot.

S1Q3T3 08:40, 13 March 2009 (MDT)

I think it's important to bear in mind the ultimate purpose of the discourse. If the ultimate purpose of a discourse is ending world hunger or curing cancer, then I would tend to agree that we have to tolerate knowledgeable and creative people who are abrasive and socially inept. However, we are not curing cancer, rather, we are talking and writing about our favorite role playing game. The ultimate purpose of the discourse is amusement. That being so, there is no reason to welcome into the discourse people who are insulting and rude, any more than we would invite them over to our homes for dinner. You can be a D&D genius, for whatever that's worth, but that is not, in the grand scheme of things, analogous to being Issac Newton or Thomas Edison.

I understand that it is intensely galling for anyone to be on the receiving end of criticism of any kind, especially in a public forum like this. Any given criticism may be unfair. But if people repeatedly label you as rude, you are probably, at least some of the time, acting rude. And if that's the case, the best way to approach it is to work on your rhetoric -- as Green Dragon suggests -- rather than try and justify your behavior by arguing that rudeness is unimportant or is, in fact, bracing honesty others have to "deal with." I work closely with a lot of highly respected and successful people (in medicine) and I can tell you that some of them are good with people, and some of them are not, but no one looks up to the people who aren't, whatever their technical skills. In fact, people are less tolerant of rudeness in a successful doctor than they are of rudeness in a janitor or a CNA.

S1Q3T3 08:51, 13 March 2009 (MDT)

Perusing the other threads, I came across this fine example of what we are talking about:

First and foremost, before I start; I would like to present S1Q3T3 with a link; for your crying habits. Because I'm sure after anything that is vaguely insulting to his poor little monks, he'll run to daddy immediately and ignore anything else in this point (even if it's right, but you can only make points if you're kind and living in a fantasy world where everyone wants to touch each other).

This kind of verbal diarrhea warrants a ban, in my opinion. If you have people like this on your site who are not merely inept but actively trying to provoke flame wars, you are going to end up with something utterly different (and inferior) to what you have now.

TK-Squared 10:03, 13 March 2009 (MDT)

Here are some meaningful images. Because it's totally serious business.

Lighten up. They're words, not knives.

5 years later 3 of these make any sense XDMordred the dark (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (MDT)

Green Dragon 10:09, 13 March 2009 (MDT)

I think one should always listen to someone's idea; even if they are being rude about it. Just ignore their slander and be the bigger person. This because after all they really do have a point.

Currently this stands as to when one gets banned over personal attacks. TK-Squared's comment above did not cross the line, and as such he just got a warning. Three warnings, however, I think should warrant a one week ban. Next three a two week ban. By the ninth warning a four week ban (increases exponentially).

Green Dragon 09:08, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

I added that bit about how Wikipedia's policies are in effect on D&D Wiki as well to the meta pages.

Lord Dhazriel 14:34, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

Should being rude be tolerated?

Yes, it not the end of the world indeed. While a prefer a softer and much more efficient approach, some like to be rude. But personal attack shouldn't be tolerated. If I am rude against a class, it okay, no one really suffered (by being rude I mean like saying a class is crappy or it suck (in similar terms)). Making a personal attack is another thing. Calling someone a piece of shit because he did something rather stupid (which I never saw on the wiki) is just plainly bad.

Rude comments may lead to a flame war or major misunderstanding, both don't advance any causes. However everyone definition of rudeness vary, the wiki need to decide it own definition. For some saying their class is rather generic and uninteresting is a personal attack (which is false obviously). Some are overreacting, even at constructive criticisms. This may lead to rudeness and eventually on a flame war. But everyone knew that anyway, reader are more interested to read my opinion rather then my view on the subject.

I think there a code of conduct for something, and I prefer being polite and receive polite comments. But if someone make comment on one of my article's talk and is both rude and constructive. I shall accept it, but I shall continue to be polite. I think personal attacks is the only thing worth punishment (on the subject of rudeness).

Ban-worthy Comment:

You are really a sucker to make such crap, hang yourself and your crap.

Don't help at all, can make someone rage and create a flame war. Useless personal attack. Worth a ban or at least a warning.

Rude Comment:

This class suck, put template for deletion on it. Faster it forgotten better it is.

Should be deleted/edited, but shouldn't warrant a ban or other serious punishments.

Rude but Constructive Comment:

This class suck, the level 4 ability is completly useless. Create water at will, seriously! It total crap. The level 6 ability should be removed, Tsunami at will, what were you thinking. Suck yesterday doesn't justify break the game tomorrow. It completely unplayable. The level 10 ability is just as ridiculous... maximize and empower all spells and spell-like ability with the [Water] descriptor. So you have a maximized and empowered Tsunami at will? Why casting any other spell. The class is just... badly done.

I would accept such comment, since it help me making my class better.

Note:

Take note, I am not an expert of rudeness. Some may find these comment polite (I do not). So I voiced my opinion, feel free to disagreed with me.

S1Q3T3 18:06, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

As a pragmatic matter, you are not only going to create flame wars, they are going drive away people who make real contributions. "Good money drives out bad" as the economists say.

TK-Squared 18:23, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

This is hilarious, guys.

Surgo 18:24, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

Is S1Q3T3 trying to bypass the personal attack rules by adding then deleting some comments or something? Check the history of this page for some awfully colorful remarks.

S1Q3T3 18:40, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

Why would you direct people to something I obviously thought the better of and deleted? Of course you can find it, please don't go looking for it. Insults breed insults; people respond to rudeness in kind; that's what I've been trying to say. Sometimes I want to get into it with somebody, but I chose to back off and say nothing. It's called self-control, and it's what separates people like me from people like him. I assure the point is not to "get around" the guidelines and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from stirring the pot.

Green Dragon 19:05, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

S1Q3T3 this is a warning for your comment in the revision history (added above). Please try to be nice to other users and refrain from personal attacks.

S1Q3T3 19:28, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

I deleted the comments. It was TK who dug them up and referenced them, proving my point that his intent is to stir up conflict and drag people down to his level. Everything in those comments is true, and I'm finished.

Green Dragon 19:36, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

S1Q3T3 this is another warning. Please try to not to be condesending to other users. A quick wiki-break should be the perfect thing. Invite some friends over to play D&D, create some creatures, and just enjoy life. See you next week.

ZappiestTom (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2013 (MDT)

Rudeness is simply a trait which people pick up as they go through life, and although people see themselves as polite, no-one can have a polit moment with a rude moment to counteract, Polite makes you feel good, but without Rudeness that good feeling would simply be replace by a neutral feeling. So really, it is okay for people to be rude, because then other people can look better for being polite. --"To live on and not regret something which cannot be changed" - ZappiestTom (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2013 (MDT)

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions