LAN_Megalodon

You smell bad, Ian. Stop sending me Loch-n-Lodes.

Aren't you the one who wants random crits just to be able to caveman-out and level the skullcutter without doing anything? 
Oh wait hold on I think I can answer this myself.
  
I love this whole charade of people pretending it's about how they don't want a "comp trade server" or whatever when in reality they just don't want to admit that whatever strategies they use 90% of the time benefit exponentially from doing triple damage randomly for no reason. We're really falling for it, keep it up. 

I don't know if you understand how hitscan works. Most people are pretty lazy with aiming so you can fake going a direction or move erratically  and sometimes they'll miss. That's not the same as dodging though. A scout dodges a rocket because a rocket has travel time and you can avoid where you see the rocket's going to go. You can't "dodge" a sniper rifle shot though, if the crosshair is on you and m1 is pressed you're dead. 

Melee is like aoe hitscan on a slight delay. If your hull areas touch while the swing registers you take damage. There are multiple problems with this system, firstly, the hulls are goddamn massive, not only this but they're square, which means it seems like it's easier to hit someone on a diagonal. Secondly tf2's netcode is poopy doo doo and was designed to be used with dialup internet. Thirdly accepting that both those things are horrible, awful, and enough of a gamble, why would you also want the most inconsistent hitreg in the game to also just randomly insta-kill sometimes?
 

I will take that trade off 100% of the time. If you think I am joking, I am not. Random critical kills are 120% better than having to deal with 20 seconds of random bullshıt from 15 other players every minute and a half. You are on crack if you think that is anything less than an ideal trade to me.

"Remove rtd and spawn protection, leave the base game the way it should be" 
On an unrelated note "don't get hit" is the most absurd advice when the entire game is hitscan and aoe attacks. Hitscan you literally can't dodge, you can just bait the enemy into missing. 
If stock rotation really takes off I honestly wouldn't mind re enabling crits on our silly fun trade servers, but at the moment this is about the most competitive our community's got, and judging by the amount of actual trading that occurs on any server nowadays, most people who join are just doing so to dm with other community members.

Okay so I promised I'd try to do some math when I got home.
Please keep in mind I'm dumb as a rock so if I screw this up feel free to tell me. 
The chance of a randomized critical hit in the video game team fortress two is 2.5% and caps out at a max of 12% if you do enough damage. For now, let's just assume you're playing on a full server and everyone's doing around 200 damage every 20 seconds (because 200 every twenty seconds is more reasonable for every class and player than assuming 800 or whatever the max rampup is). 200 damage every 20 seconds would net you with a 4.5 chance for a critical hit.
Here's the deal though, at the same time you as an individual player fire your weapon and roll for a critical hit, there are also on average, 12 people on the opposite team doing the exact same thing. Let's treat this like a realistic pub setting and just assume that you can only rely on yourself every fight you take.  
Ok so first off, let's find the probability of only you rolling a critical hit in one shot. That would be 4.5% right? We already know that. I'm still going to walk you through what I believe the equation is anyhow.
The chance of not getting a crit, according to the wiki, would be 95.5%  
1-0.955^1 (ninety-five-point-five-percent chance rolled once) = 0.045
Obviously the cumulative probability is still 95.5% to not roll a random crit (or a 4.5% chance to roll one). 
Goodie you, you have a 4.5% chance to randomly deal three times your base damage to an enemy gamer, seems reasonably low right? Okay let's now calculate the probability of the opposing twelve players rolling a random crit. 
1-0.955^12 (ninety-five-point-five percent-chance-rolled-twelve times) = 0.424506452 
Roughly 42% chance that one of those twelve other people gets a crit. 
Now I understand I'm a simpleton and this isn't really an exact science, just really loose math that calculates the cumulative probability of critical hits, doesn't take into account whiffed crits or people with no-crit weapons, people playing seriously as a team or etc, but I digress. This honestly could really just be simplified to "if the other team is rolling more than you are they're going to crit more", but in a game where like 90% of the time you have to solo carry, turning the entire enemy team into a spasm-ing mass that just kind of does three times more damage to you every 42 times out of 100 isn't a great idea imo. This is also why defending teams benefit from random crits far more than offensive teams just fyi, they have set up time and just kind of naturally group up in certain spots, whereas to win on blue you often have to stick your neck out regardless of whether your team follows you or not. Just saying this in case you wanted to know why crits should be removed from the base game entirely.
This isn't even getting into the idea of negativity bias and remembering bad experiences far more than good ones. 
Likelihood is you experience a random crit secondhand before ever getting one yourself.

I will take that trade off 100% of the time. If you think I am joking, I am not. Random critical kills are 120% better than having to deal with 20 seconds of random bullshıt from 15 other players every minute and a half. You are on crack if you think that is anything less than an ideal trade to me.

Im voting no because i dont play on xG servers anymore and i want those who do to suffer in agony

"Remove rtd and spawn protection, leave the base game the way it should be" 
On an unrelated note "don't get hit" is the most absurd advice when the entire game is hitscan and aoe attacks. Hitscan you literally can't dodge, you can just bait the enemy into missing. 
If stock rotation really takes off I honestly wouldn't mind re enabling crits on our silly fun trade servers, but at the moment this is about the most competitive our community's got, and judging by the amount of actual trading that occurs on any server nowadays, most people who join are just doing so to dm with other community members.

+ 1 get on the right side of history my dudes. 
On a more serious note, when I'm not on my phone I can make a very mathematical post on how the likelihood of dissatisfaction with random crits for any individual is more likely than satisfaction 

html ?

I LOVE MEGAMAN

rainbow palace

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios
 
 

Greetings members and guests. You may be wondering what in the high heavens has been going on lately. Threads are a mess of toxicity and hate. It's very difficult to pinpoint the actual claims of many a thread, oh dear oh dear.
It is because of this that in this thread I will be trying to explain how to actually engage in constructive dialogue with your fellow xenogamers members.. 
 
Part 1. Make sure any claims you make in any thread are substantiated by verifiable evidence.  
  
For instance, were I to make a thread called "Virr is an incredibly toxic individual who bullies and harasses me daily please demote" it would probably help to have multiple things. Maybe witness testimony that, yes indeed, Virr does do these things. Maybe a screencap of the abuse Virr definitely really sends me on the daily. 
 
However the strongest form of evidence I could provide would be unedited records of the events that had occured in full context. It is very very easy to clip a sentence or two out of context to try and assassinate someone's character
 
Even if doing this somewhat incriminates me, it is better to provide evidence of the occurrence in context. It adds towards the credibility of my claim, as I am obviously not trying to hide any bad acting on my part this way. While this is the strongest form of evidence, that does not mean that Anecdotal evidence is inherently bad. It is especially useful in cases such as abuse through voice. Abuses or violations through voice are especially difficult to gather evidence against, as demos must start being recorded before the event transpires, and it's unreasonable to expect anyone making an abuse report to have been running demos at all times or for them to have enabled some kind of third party recording software. In this situation, you can see how merely the testimony of multiple unrelated individuals might be sufficient evidence worthy of creating a thread about. 
What isn't strong evidence though is "I feel like virr is being toxic because they vaguely don't like me and don't want to communicate with me outside of the platform of xenogamers when necessary". 
Which brings us to step two. 
 
Part 2: Realize that opinions are not really worth discussing if you are not willing to try and back them up. 

We've all got opinions. 'They're like armpits' or some other bottom-of-the-barrel-dad-joke. But generally it's not worth making a thread about an opinion if the most reasoning you have for an opinion is "idk i just feel that way I guess". That's not to say you don't have a right to that opinion, but the point of the forums is to provide some outlet for discussion. If I wanted to make a vote to remove clocktown because I think it's a bad garbage map, but I cannot elaborate on why I think that, it's pointless to even try to discuss it. That's why the vote exists, to just be able to give your input without having to defend it. It would be pointless and unproductive to just constantly parrot "Idk man I want it removed because I think it's bad" (which usually just devolves into a sh¡tstorm). Just create the vote, vote, and be done with it. You'd make just as much progress arguing over whether blue is a better color than green.  
 
Part 3: Please don't needlessly attack other folks' character, thanks. 
This one kind of speaks for itself. Kinda a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of deal. Generally you should take issue with what people are saying and not who's saying it. If virr said something as absolutely stupid as...
 
it would still not be acceptable or intelligent to attack virr directly for his opinion on things. Attack his argument, that's fine, but the end goal of discussion is not mindless name-calling. There's a big difference between saying "hey man, I think your opinion is poorly thought through and inconsistent because xyz" and "lol ur dumb nerd". 
 
Part 4: Do not, under any circumstances, posit that you know what anyone's thoughts are unless they've already explicitly stated it.  
This is the big one that really annoys me the most. Like okay Sherlock, we get it, you think so highly of your genius self that you think you've conquered what philosophers worldwide have grappled with for decades, the impenetrable prison of the human mind. 
Here's the reality; you likely do not know what that other person is thinking. Even if they were to explicitly tell you what they are thinking, there's always something lost in the transition from thoughts to words. You can directly quote someone's opinion on a matter, you can try to theorize what their feelings on a matter may be through some amount of evidence, but to approach the matter without delicacy and just assume that you've got an individuals stance or views nailed down with no supporting evidence makes you look like an arrogant idiot who's so strapped for any modicum of support for their claims that you literally have to build a straw-man and burn it to have any impact.  
 
Part 5: Every single person on this planet has a set of biases. 
Everyone has a set of actions, opinions, or choices that they are predisposed to. This brings back the point about being humble. You are not above this. You may think you have no active bias against anyone or even anything, but previous experience and interaction always paints an individual's worldview a certain way. Some biases we can be conscious of, while others we can't. There isn't anything wrong with anyone for having an internal blind bias, it's completely normal, but my hope is that the more people who know about this, the less people will think that someone's bias exists solely to harm them. Just please be kind; as much as you're thinking the other person on the opposite end of the argument is a biased garbage bin, they're probably thinking the exact same about you, and it doesn't help anyone to grow sore over it. 
 
So there it is, my not-so-brief outline on issues with a couple of recent trends in threads. I hope it was at least somewhat coherent and I hope you have a wonderful day. 
Adios