Yeah I know, it's just for all intents and purposes of this discussion, it is unmoderated - as in, no moderator will step in to protect dtgreene

Well, I think that when taken to an extreme, the apt comparison is "That kid". You know, that kid? When there's a small group of friends who get together, hang out, have fun and then that kid appears and wants to have fun with them. That's fine, isn't it? But then it turns out that kid is not a good fit for the group at all. He thinks that DC is the best but the group loves Marvel and when they talk about Spiderman with the cool spider powers he won't shut up about that lame Batman. When the group wants to go and play with airsoft guns he keeps crying about the guns being too dangerous and that they should rather pretend. He keeps trying to change the group to fit him, but the group doesn't want to change - after all, why should they change because of that kid, they had so much fun together before he arrived.

So they start dropping hints that they'd rather he'd leave but he just doesn't get them and thinks they all like him. Even after they speak to him personally and openly about wanting him to go away, he thinks they're just joking - they're cool guys like that, right? After some time, anger gets the better of the group and they beat him up so bad he gets send to a hospital for a few weeks. So he stopped showing up, but now every time the group meets they feel like shit for what they did and eventually split up and join other groups.

Did that kid do something he'd perceive as wrong? No. Was that kid bullied? Yes. Was that kid the victim? Yes. Did that kid cause irreparable damage to otherwise perfectly functional human group? Yes.

So, what should have the group done? Be more inclusive in spite of That kid ruining what they cherrished about it? Should have That group changed to accommodate that kid, sacrificing what they enjoyed so much?

Naturally, dtgreene is not generally that kid - he talks about videogames, game design, his findings in various games, clearly he belongs here. But when it comes to social topics like this one, to many people, he suddenly becomes 'that kid'. It's best demonstrated on a joke topic I've seen a long time ago in here where people were kidding and messing around for dtgreene to show up and tell them why they should feel bad for not being inclusive enough in their jokes. Hostility and adversity will naturally accumulate in situations like that. Is that right? Not really and not quite. But dtgreene is to blame for his inability to sense and understand group dynamics and the group is to blame for not understanding his inability to sense and understand group dynamics. ... ... It's kind of a complex topic so I hope I managed to put my thoughts on it in a clear enough fashion. Long story short, just about everybody is to blame here to an extent and as long as human mentality functions like it does, we have to find ways around it, not try to brute force our way into change.

Great quote and little story :D

I'd say honor is your reputation on the internet, because honor in society isn't the same as honor in an online community. In real society, you only have one reputation and sense of honor, which is the real one. But you can change your honor all you like on the internet by going to a forum which doesn't know you. So with honor nullified, reputation becomes the only important thing; that is the way I see the quote in terms of the internet anyway.

The story is great. Need to spread it around here.

Very insightful, thanks.

In a way this inability to understand and accept group dynamics is something I somehow like about dtgreene since I can really relate to that, it just brings along some problems indeed, especcially when intolerance gets involved on both sides although I have to say, that this board is still more tolerant than any other I know, of course it could always be better.

Ignoring works as alternative to worst situations. However ignoring in a way is the antithesis of communing, and therefore precludes the better outcome of a tolerant and fluid community. No man is an island and all that jazz.

It also is a problem if the user in question often makes good posts (that you want to read and are completely inoffensive), but sometimes make problematic posts.

dtgreene is a fucking walking parody.

People talk a lot of shit on the internet because they're saying it to a faceless avatar, no need to feel bad or detect the emotion in the other person's face, no need to feel you're pushing someone to knock your teeth out. That's what's so annoying about SJW's too, a lot of them just talk. They don't do shit to actually make the changes they seek, they just talk and try to tell others what to do so they can feel accomplishment in their boring fucking lives. Fuck off, no one wants to be controlled by some cunt they don't even know.

That's not even directly aimed at you, dtgreene, because honestly I can't take you 100% seriously at this point and I think you're a troll.

I like a community that responds to stupidity with jokes and sarcasm, because it weeds out the idiots and people who need to grow thicker skin. The Doomworld forum is a good example of this. People are going to do, say and think opposite of you, and if you keep pushing it, some will do the opposite just to spite you. Your "anti-hate" BS just breeds hate. Not everyone cares about the same things you do on the level that you care.

If you paint yourself as a walking target, someone who is easily triggered or just a big whiny manlet, then yeah, people are going to fuck with you. So maybe stop handing out ammo to the "mob" sick of your shit and basically saying "Here! Take it all! Shoot me! Oh, how oppressed I am!"

If you find yourself as the unpopular one in a particular community, take the hint and either a) stop being an annoying cunt or b) go somewhere that suits you more and people don't think you're an annoying cunt.

Not sure I follow. By the user in question you mean the ignored yes? What's to stop the ignoring from reading and then ignoring, as in not replying?

All I can take from your reply is you mean ignoring is a problem if sometimes you don't want to ignore? That's a problem with a simple solution... choosing either. Does not even have to be absolute approach: engage sometimes (with the good posts) and ignore sometimes (the bad posts)...

I mean, you do it all the time to the replies I address to you. :) And that's your right to only communicate with me when you want. ;)

A community in which dtgreene isn't downvoted, attacked, insulted, harrassed and ridiculed for speaking to the actual topic, that would be a starting point, don't y'all think?

Brasas was looking for repetitive sources of negativity. I agree with dtgreene in that xenophobic commentary is a definite source of negativity – amongst other things such as brash conspiracy theory and malicious gossip about game developers, especially those who demonstrate a not too common interest in releasing their games DRM free on GOG. Turns out the treatment of the topics some people here don't want to talk about may in fact be community defining.

And, of course, the forum's design for 12 year olds with its 'downvotes' fosters negativity immeasurably.

Oh well... and here we were coolly making the points in a dispassionate meta way, and again we jump to the object level and paint a target on someone's back... intentionally or not.

Edit to be clear:

Can we PLEASE stop talking about greene as if he wasn't standing just over here?

Well I would use my rats as an example instead, but it would take a lot more explaining and dtgreene is nicely at hand, being a centerpiece of repeated drama :-P Right, dtgreene? See, I'm addressing you, I know you're around, don't worry.

Edit: It's just generally an interesting discussion - for as long as there are differences between people, different opinions, different passions, different values, there will be exclusion. The only way to be 100% inclusive is for everyone to be a clone. I honestly don't see a way around that.

Oops, I actually didn't mean you. Though you're right you also did it... heck I also did it earlier on.

Anyway, exclusion is implied by choice and limited resources. It's a fundamental economical truth, though most might not consider it economical. Active exclusion however, as in taking away or pushing away rather then giving to A meaning not giving to B, is a difference in kind. To me at least.

I don't think avoiding the second kind of exclusion requires homogeneity. And actually I don't think homegeneity would make the first kind of exclusion go away. Limited resources are fundamentally physical. Limited time and space on this planet for each individual to be.

What makes you think you have the right to define what is "clearly out of line"?

dtgreene might be referencing "Ignore" as a potential forum feature, wherein each post is not evaluated on its own merit. A forum Ignore feature is instead a blanket "I do not want to read ANYthing by this particular person", regardless of its worth / humor / sentiment.

----

I'm as guilty as anyone for having my own 'pet' topics, with one in particular (small biz stuff) that I tend to throw out there whenever I feel it's relevant. But others might be thinking, "Ugh, this again?" Hasn't reached the point of saturation where anyone has told me to STFU about it, but I could see it happening if used with the frequency that dtgreene puts out the gender, etc. stuff.

Implying autists have neither humour nor self awareness.