What's wrong with "flame wars" anyway?

[Devious]

I know there's a fine line between heated discussion and dumpster fire, but why exactly do we all accept that any kind of debate or argument is automatically a flame war? I really can't see the issue as long as there aren't any personal attacks, and even then that's the user's fault, not the threads'. It's kind of sad to see threads get immediately locked as soon as it seems like something actually interesting could happen.

Is there anything you can discuss on this forum outside of "what's your favorite game/song/anime/whatever"?

[Joki the Disco Bandit]

One interesting theory is that "communication only occurs between equals". What's meant by that is that since human beings are all walking about inhabiting their own "reality tunnels", living inside their heads in realities made up of all their programming and conditioning and imprinting since birth, each one varying from the others to greater or lesser degrees, any two people can only exchange information and ideas effectively to the extent that their "reality tunnels" are similar.

Where two people with radically different reality tunnels meet, they're unable to interact without at least some degree of hostility, suspicion, skepticism or rejection of each other. One person is absolutely convinced of their own objectivity and "rightness".... and so is the other. Unless at least one of them is willing and able to expand their own reality tunnel, to at least *entertain the idea that they are not objectively "right"*, no real communication occurs. (Communication, at least, in the sense of a civil exchange of information.)

[Devious]

You two are essentially arguing that if you leave these threads as they are, the "cancer" will only spread to other users.
So then by your logic, one could say that flame wars aren't the users fault, but come from the thread itself. Therefore you can't be held accountable for personal attacks if they occured while discussing touchy topics. After all, can you expect users to remain civil while they're passionate and excited?
Much smarter to just eliminate disruptive elements rather than burn the whole thread to the ground.

[FrozenDevilz]

Messaggio originale di Devious:

Much smarter to just eliminate disruptive elements rather than burn the whole thread to the ground.

If the thread itself already a cancer, why shouldn't they lock it up?

[Joki the Disco Bandit]

Messaggio originale di Devious:

Much smarter to just eliminate disruptive elements rather than burn the whole thread to the ground.

This could be done, but it would require a hell of a lot more than the couple dozen mods Steam employs to watch over the discussions of millions of users. From a moderator's perspective it's often going to appear "easier" to close a thread entirely as opposed to selectively weeding out each "offender". And too, they may perhaps hope that others, seeing those threads closed up, will take note and possibly adjust their own behavior to stay within the established "norm".

But yeah, overall, there are far too few moderators to effectively do what you suggest, I think, even though it would be preferable.

[Devious]

Messaggio originale di ƑŘỖŻẸŇĎẸVĨĹŹ:

Messaggio originale di Devious:

Much smarter to just eliminate disruptive elements rather than burn the whole thread to the ground.

If the thread itself already a cancer, why shouldn't they lock it up?

That's where we disagree. A thread or a topic cannot be "cancer". One or some users can be disruptive, but the thread itself cannot be blamed, unless its specific purpose is to attack other users.

[FrozenDevilz]

Messaggio originale di Devious:

A thread or a topic cannot be "cancer".

Please enlighten me about this one. What if the TS make a topic about hacking and phishing and other negative stuffs, does it still classify as "not worth to be locked up" ? Is it still "cannot be cancer" ?

[Devious]

Messaggio originale di Hotblack Desiato:

One interesting theory is that "communication only occurs between equals". What's meant by that is that since human beings are all walking about inhabiting their own "reality tunnels", living inside their heads in realities made up of all their programming and conditioning and imprinting since birth, each one varying from the others to greater or lesser degrees, any two people can only exchange information and ideas effectively to the extent that their "reality tunnels" are similar.

Where two people with radically different reality tunnels meet, they're unable to interact without at least some degree of hostility, suspicion, skepticism or rejection of each other. One person is absolutely convinced of their own objectivity and "rightness".... and so is the other. Unless at least one of them is willing and able to expand their own reality tunnel, to at least *entertain the idea that they are not objectively "right"*, no real communication occurs. (Communication, at least, in the sense of a civil exchange of information.)

Interesting theory, but i'm not sure I fully agree. Real communication can occur even in the nonideal situation that both parties remain absolutely convinced that their respective side are correct, because third parties might be willing to expand their horizon by observing the exchange. Besides, avoiding such confrontations for fear that neither side might be open minded to consider the other's point ot view only ensures that ideas will remain forever stagnant.

[Dendrobates Tinctorius]

Messaggio originale di Devious:

So then by your logic, one could say that flame wars aren't the users fault,

No.

Here's another reason to not allow politics: people like simple explanations even when the world is more complicated.

Some topics attract troublemakers and push otherwise reasonable people towards more extreme behavior. Nobody is forced to participate, and nobody is forced to flame; they can still be punished. But the thread itself contributes to the problem.

[Devious]

Messaggio originale di ƑŘỖŻẸŇĎẸVĨĹŹ:

Messaggio originale di Devious:

A thread or a topic cannot be "cancer".

Please enlighten me about this one. What if the TS make a topic about hacking and phishing and other negative stuffs, does it still classify as "not worth to be locked up" ? Is it still "cannot be cancer" ?

Obviously, there are individual instances where a total lock is the correct course of action. There's nuance in everything, nothing is absolute.

For example, I believe freedom of speech should be defended at all costs, but most will agree that there are a few very specific instances (i.e. yelling fire in a theater, or voluntarily and maliciously spreading false information about individuals) where it must be restricted. Things are rarely black and white, and the point of a rational discussion is often to decide which is the appropriate share of gray.

[FrozenDevilz]

But topics like politics already got blacklisted by steam. It's even mentioned on their guidelines, so it's not in gray area anymore.

[R.A.T. Army *MST3K*]

Nothing is wrong with them. This is the internet. Steam forum is PG rated internet and calling each other names makes people's feeling have a bobo.

[Devious]

Messaggio originale di Nightenhelser:

Messaggio originale di Devious:

That's where we disagree. A thread or a topic cannot be "cancer". One or some users can be disruptive, but the thread itself cannot be blamed, unless its specific purpose is to attack other users.

So in your scenario the users get banned (which does still happen), but then the remaining users who weren't banned get the last laugh and post something inflammatory like "haha that scrub got banned gg."

Better to lock the thread and prevent that behavior. Take it from a moderator on another forum.

So the users who didn't personally attack others didn't get banned and thus, in your own words, get the last laugh. And?

Messaggio originale di Dendrobates Tinctorius:

Messaggio originale di Devious:

So then by your logic, one could say that flame wars aren't the users fault,

No.

Here's another reason to not allow politics: people like simple explanations even when the world is more complicated.

Some topics attract troublemakers and push otherwise reasonable people towards more extreme behavior. Nobody is forced to participate, and nobody is forced to flame; they can still be punished. But the thread itself contributes to the problem.

I think you're vastly exaccerbating the number of "troublemakers" and underestimating the amount of users who are functional human beings capable of existing within a civil society. If you can't control yourself on one thread, you're probably a ticking time bomb on any other. I'm not seeing any fewer trolls on the Steam forums than on any other social site, or real life for that matter.

[Joki the Disco Bandit]

Messaggio originale di Devious:

Interesting theory, but i'm not sure I fully agree. Real communication can occur even in the nonideal situation that both parties remain absolutely convinced that their respective side are correct, because third parties might be willing to expand their horizon by observing the exchange. Besides, avoiding such confrontations for fear that neither side might be open minded to consider the other's point ot view only ensures that ideas will remain forever stagnant.

I think your scenario requires that both parties be willing to even accept the idea that their horizons can be expanded, which isn't a given. :) But anyway I'm not sure I fully agree with it, either. For that matter there's very, very little that I fully agree with, except maybe pancakes. Can't see anything wrong with pancakes.

As for the avoidance issue, I think that's a bit too nuanced to fairly make generalizations about. Some people have experienced situations that amount to "trauma" in their past that make them very reluctant to engage in even mild debate. Other people may feel as if it's futile to even try. There are any number of reasons for people to not wish to have verbal "confrontations".

My personal thoughts are that no one can ever "convince" anyone else of anything, that each of us chooses, to an extent, what we're willing to incorporate into our belief system or not. So I never try to convince people of anything if I can help it, or pretend to the truth with a capital T. I only say I don't *lie*. The rest is up to them. The trickiest part is applying that to myself, i.e. reminding myself that other people offer valuable information, even when I think they're "wrong".

[FrozenDevilz]

http://img1.joyreactor.com/pics/post/jimbenton-comics-opinion-respect-3104963.jpeg

Described this thread perfectly.

[Devious]

Messaggio originale di ƑŘỖŻẸŇĎẸVĨĹŹ:

But topics like politics already got blacklisted by steam. It's even mentioned on their guidelines, so it's not in gray area anymore.

Yes, but unlike threads discussing illegal activities, I do not think this is justifiable.

Messaggio originale di Hotblack Desiato:

Messaggio originale di Devious:

Interesting theory, but i'm not sure I fully agree. Real communication can occur even in the nonideal situation that both parties remain absolutely convinced that their respective side are correct, because third parties might be willing to expand their horizon by observing the exchange. Besides, avoiding such confrontations for fear that neither side might be open minded to consider the other's point ot view only ensures that ideas will remain forever stagnant.

I think your scenario requires that both parties be willing to even accept the idea that their horizons can be expanded, which isn't a given. :) But anyway I'm not sure I fully agree with it, either. For that matter there's very, very little that I fully agree with, except maybe pancakes. Can't see anything wrong with pancakes.

As for the avoidance issue, I think that's a bit too nuanced to fairly make generalizations about. Some people have experienced situations that amount to "trauma" in their past that make them very reluctant to engage in even mild debate. Other people may feel as if it's futile to even try. There are any number of reasons for people to not wish to have verbal "confrontations".

My personal thoughts are that no one can ever "convince" anyone else of anything, that each of us chooses, to an extent, what we're willing to incorporate into our belief system or not. So I never try to convince people of anything if I can help it, or pretend to the truth with a capital T. I only say I don't *lie*. The rest is up to them. The trickiest part is applying that to myself, i.e. reminding myself that other people offer valuable information, even when I think they're "wrong".

That's a very valid point. Never have I changed my mind about something overnight; rather, I tend to subconsciously absorb information and adapt my stances to newly learned facts, and there is reason to believe that most people operate this way. This might be why many will have the impression that debates are utterly pointless, as neither party will changed its position by the end of the exchange.