Differences in private vs public discourse? <split>

[matmos]

I had a couple of PMs with Nihilen & after he explained his point came across as a thoughtful fellow. As Night said, his only problem (and it's a big one) is his inability to make his point in a way people may take less offence to.

That said, he was fine person-2-person; he just sucked at posting. And came across as a dick - even though I don't think he is one or intended to be.

 

[MacGuffin]

That said, he was fine person-2-person; he just sucked at posting. And came across as a dick - even though I don't think he is one or intended to be.

This doesn't add up. If someone can handle one-on-one communications, they should be able to handle public communications.

 

[Lady_X]

^^ it might not but i got the same impression from my conversations with him.
sorry...damn, said i wasn't going to post in this thread anymore!

 

[Atomic Fiend]

This doesn't add up. If someone can handle one-on-one communications, they should be able to handle public communications.

Why do you say that?

 

[matmos]

This doesn't add up. If someone can handle one-on-one communications, they should be able to handle public communications.

I know.:crazy:

Maybe he's psychotic?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This doesn't add up. If someone can handle one-on-one communications, they should be able to handle public communications.

On what basis?

 

[MacGuffin]

Why do you say that?

On what basis?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well at least we didn't post it at the exact same time in this case.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

It's a legitimate question Guffy.

 

[Night]

It seems pretty straightforward.

It stands to reason that if a person understands the social parameters for how to behave in one-on-one conversation, that the individual would apply a similar value system for community behavior.

This is a will v. skill scenario.

 

[MacGuffin]

It seems pretty straightforward.

It stands to reason that if a person understands the social parameters for how to behave in one-on-one conversation, that the individual would apply a similar value system for community behavior.

This is a will v. skill scenario.

Thank you.

Is it so hard to figure out?

 

[Atomic Fiend]

It seems pretty straightforward.

It stands to reason that if a person understands the social parameters for how to behave in one-on-one conversation, that the individual would apply a similar value system for community behavior.

This is a will v. skill scenario.

Not necessarily, I've known several people who've carried themselves quite foolishly in more social settings, however when speaking one on one they were much easier to speak to, they weren't nearly as rude. I don't know if the same thing applies online.

Thank you.

Is it so hard to figure out?

I'm gonna chalk this and the other two comments up to you being annoyed.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

It seems pretty straightforward.

It stands to reason that if a person understands the social parameters for how to behave in one-on-one conversation, that the individual would apply a similar value system for community behavior.

This is a will v. skill scenario.

Thank you.

Is it so hard to figure out?

It's easy to imagine that answer, but it also happens to be wrong.

Multi-targeting often severely changes the nature of a skill. I find it an excessive simplification to say that being good at one-on-one makes you good in a social venue. I imagine that a person could be really good at one, and really bad at another, either way.

This might seem like a weird example, but think of this.
If a state administration had been effective while practicing diplomatic relations bilaterally, can you assume then that it will be successful with multilateral diplomacy? Obviously that's a rhetorical question. The answer is no.

 

[Salomé]

Not necessarily, I've known several people who've carried themselves quite foolishly in more social settings, however when speaking one on one they were much easier to speak to, they weren't nearly as rude. I don't know if the same thing applies online.

Agreed.

I liked Nihilen, fwiw.

 

[Night]

It's easy to imagine that answer, but it also happens to be wrong.

Multi-targeting often severely changes the nature of a skill. I find it an excessive simplification to say that being good at one-on-one makes you good in a social venue. I imagine that a person could be really good at one, and really bad at another, either way.

This might seem like a weird example, but think of this.
If a state administration had been effective while practicing diplomatic relations bilaterally, can you assume then that it will be successful with multilateral diplomacy? Obviously that's a rhetorical question. The answer is no.

Your call.

Ultimately, we're waxing anecdotal perspective at this point. Your rhetorical example breaches the scope of our present conversation/subject.

The expectations for behavior are pretty clear. Failing to consistently (and unapologetically) adhere to minimum "common sense" standards for social discourse earns you a punitive response. Just like in real life.

It's pretty simple stuff, really.

 

[MacGuffin]

Not necessarily, I've known several people who've carried themselves quite foolishly in more social settings, however when speaking one on one they were much easier to speak to, they weren't nearly as rude. I don't know if the same thing applies online.

I'm gonna chalk this and the other two comments up to you being annoyed.

Annoyed, yes. I find this line of reasoning to be excuse-making.

It's easy to imagine that answer, but it also happens to be wrong.

Multi-targeting often severely changes the nature of a skill. I find it an excessive simplification to say that being good at one-on-one makes you good in a social venue. I imagine that a person could be really good at one, and really bad at another, either way.

Thanks. I'll push for bannings sooner now that I know they cannot handle forum posting.

 

[ptgatsby]

This might seem like a weird example, but think of this.

Or just think of how introverts change between 1:1 and 1:many.

edit: To be clear, I disagree with the concept, not with the banning. No opinion on that.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

Annoyed, yes. I find this line of reasoning to be excuse-making.

Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't defending anyone, I was just curious as to why you believed that particular statement, and obviously I wasn't the only one. I really don't care who you ban(well a short list of people) as long as it isn't me quite frankly.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Or just think of how introverts change between 1:1 and 1:many.

I don't buy this argument either. We're not just talking about being socially FLUID in both domains, we're talking about being civil and courteous. Civility and courtesy are skills that you don't suddenly FORGET when you're in a crowd, you just willingly neglect them.

 

[MacGuffin]

Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't defending anyone, I was just curious as to why you believed that particular statement, and obviously I wasn't the only one. I really don't care who you ban(well a short list of people) as long as it isn't me quite frankly.

Because it is quite simple to transition one-on-one communications to forum posting.

For example this post right here, I quoted you, and I'm responding to you. Very much like one-on-one, only everyone can read it.

LOL, I'd like to see the day we'd have to ban you!