I was chatting with one of my 40k friends today (Mike Brandt, from D.C) who checks in to see what I'm writing from time to time. We were chatting about...well, a bunch of different stuff. The part that I wanted to share and get some feedback on is this: Ego.
I write with passion. I also write as it comes out of my head, putting down via my fingertips a literal stream of what's coming out of my head. I use things like *ponders* and *laughing* and whatever else is in there as it comes out. Mike doesn't think that is a good approach; it isn't a dispassionate presentation of my ideas.
As an example - my last blog post - I wrote about the importance of generalship, and how I felt that the person playing an army is more important than the army they put on the table. I compared 40k commentators to professional sports - noting that no one...well, you can read it.
I intended nothing about me in that post. It wasn't about me...or my Necrons, or my stupendous awesomeness. And yet...that's all that some people get out of it. Some people don't care about the content I write, and are only looking for a reason to flame me - I get it. Some people look past the presentation and value the content. I get that too. And there are some people who can't get to the content because of the presentation. Those I don't get.
It frustrates me when I run into this. Trolls...I'm not worried about trolls. Idiots exist. The world is full of stupid people, and our hobby isn't exempt from them. But there is another category of people who are *not* idiots, people unwilling to read and value something I write because the presentation of my arguments offends them....well, if there's a way to present something that is more amenable to the masses, I'd definitely consider it.
I've been pondering using "Something I was thinking about" or "Someone I know" instead of using myself as an example. I promise - I don't write things to incite riots.
Upon further chatting with Mike, one his points was that people find it offensive when I present an opinion like a fact. X is a better choice than Y. He said that there is no accreditation system to teach our hobby. I told him that in one aspect or another, teaching and training has always been a part of my professional life - and that has extended into our hobby.
On the one hand...I can understand someone like Hulksmash being offended if I try teaching him how to play Space Wolves. But skilled gamers have never been my target audience. When I first started in this hobby, I searched hard to learn, I absorbed knowledge as quickly as I could find it. I still do - what I write is meant to share the knowledge I have as a mentoring tool for others. I don't "target" individuals to teach; I present a tactical article...a battle report...a guide...that is open for anyone to read.
Inevitably, this led to us talking about a battle report. What is a battle report if not a teaching tool for both the players involved as others critique decisions made during the game, and for others to read and learn from? Mike tells me that it shouldn't be a teaching tool, just my point of view on the game - something I would find as an uninspiring reason to write them.
He asked me if I had any idea how many people ask him for 40k advice on a daily basis...and that he helps them, but in private. I returned with, "So what about when 10 Ork players ask you for help on the same thing? 25? 100? At what point is it more worthwhile to write a guide to point them to than to replicate your work in private over and over?"
I realize that there is no mechanism by which anyone can ever prove that they're the best 40k player. Nor validation to claim that they are amongst the best. There's another scientific method though - which is to start with an assumption and attempt to disprove it. That's the method I've chosen - to assume that I'm an superior 40k player, and attempt to disprove it. That's why I travel and why I play in tournaments - I want to find people who can outwit me on the table. And then I want to learn from the experience. That's personal growth to me.
I wonder if personal growth in this hobby would be accepting that the will to reign supreme doesn't fit this hobby...because it is a hobby?
This originally started as a method to solicit feedback on how to present guides and teaching tools such that they are better accepted - but now I wonder if that's the wrong goal. And now I don't know what else to write, so I'll open it up to input.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Logging you in...Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lunchmoney · 720 weeks ago
You see, Internet celebrity stems from politics at a certain point. Rhetoric and bluster is part of what gains that popularity and forms an easily recognizable persona that people either find intriguing or not.
You ponder whether you approached this whole thing the right way. I argue that you approached it in the only way you are comfortable. If it makes you feel any better, I was one of those players that didn't know what they were doing 3 yrs ago. Now, I don't worry when I line up against anyone. Even if I get beat down, I'll learn things from that opponent that I'll utilize to my advantage whenever I can. (as a side note, I recently used your blocking with raiders assault in a game against a full squad of diversified nobs. 2 nobs vs 8 wyches is win!!)
Dashofpepper 57p · 720 weeks ago
Pz. · 720 weeks ago
Also, I'm a very new player, and you have been one of my best teachers so far, you're one of the few people who give advice in a clear way and makes it a point to explain *WHY* things are the way you say. I made my list using one you played against as the basis and modified it according to your analysis of the game and have been doing pretty well so far (:
There's a million guys out there talk about stuff in a way that seems way more arrogant then yours, because they just put "facts" on the table without backing them up with either a solid explanation or table experience, and you manage to bring both with your BRs and advices. You're not a pretender, Dash, and I don't think trying to tone down your stuff to fit the standards of people who just plain don't get what you mean is worth the effort.
Norade · 720 weeks ago
Ghostin · 720 weeks ago
As far as teaching vs. offering a point of view - not sure I see the difference. Stelek offers blistering renditions of his points of view; often without a detailed explanation, just scorn. All done in an attempt to teach people. My personal opinion is you can and should make judgmental statements, but back it up with your reasoning - which should be game-related reasoning, not an exposition on bovine influences in someone else's lineage.
As far as needing to be the "best" to speak authoritatively: I personally think it's useful but not an absolute requirement - most people respond to expert authority over just about everything else - especially if it means they don't actually have to think for themselves. Whatever you post, if you're trying to teach people, write it in a way that makes people think and learn the lesson rather than just parroting it; see the above point.
Hedzer · 720 weeks ago
Atreides · 720 weeks ago
Target (Andrew G) · 720 weeks ago
This is coming from a relatively experienced 40k'r, and someone who's been in some of the same threads over time and watched the Dakka experience.
It's not them, it's you.
You probably won't like that, but it's my honest opinion, and you did solicit feedback. Here's why I feel people have issues with you, this is not including the "I'm going to act like a jerk nomatterwhatinternetrawwwwrrrr troll", who will have problems with everyone (but is extraordinarily rare, you haven't just purely run into these people).
-You present your opinion as fact-
You make broad statements with no attention paid to the parties who disagree. You don't try to understand WHY they disagree, or realize that they may have a good reason. The sooner you realize that, the easier this will be. You're a good player, you're not the end all/be all. If you can explain to someone why you disagree in an impartial fashion, and then let them decide whether you're right or not, you'll do a much better job teaching.
-When you respond to comments, you're rude-
I know this is the internet, and some sensationalism (ala Stelek) is needed in order to garner readers, but this is largely what gets you in trouble. Remember all of those random internet arguments you've had with good real life friends over the years for absolutely no reason other than there wasn't any tone, and they totally misinterpreted you, or you them? The people in the threads don't know you, they're even more likely to misinterpret. Keep in mind that since there is no tone, you have to choose your words even more carefully. Appearing (which you do routinely) dismissive, condescending, or rude (named calling, etc.) are what baits those trolls into existence. There are far less true trolls then the internet would have you believe, most "trolls" are just normal folks you disagreed with in a rude fashion, and took exception.
-Playing the victim-
Rather than respond to poster's differing viewpoints, you commonly just lay down and play the victim, and start up a sob story of how the world is out to get you. No one likes this. If you want examples of this, re-read your own post about getting Dakka-Banned. Or in fact, this post. How no one understands you and you're just trying to help. The quickest way to turn discussion/argument to an impasse is to play the victim. It's now no longer about whatever you were discussing, you've made it personal. You've essentially told the other poster that you don't believe they have a single valid point, and that their reason for disagreeing is just because they don't like you/have some sort of personal vendetta. Discussions can't continue from this point.
-Everyone who disagrees with you is not a troll-
Pretty consistently, people who continue to disagree with you in a thread that you haven't managed to scare off with strongly worded rebuttals, you begin to label as "trolls". These people follow you thread to thread, trolling you. (This plays into the above). You need to consider that these are people who just disagree with you. These people will and do exist.
-A positive note! (I'm doing an open faced shit sandwich..oh noes)-
Your heart's in the right place. You want to teach tactics, rules, and the like. Good, keep this as your central goal. Now, if you push away half of the people who would benefit from this because of your ego, personality, or how you decide to convey points in text, whats the use? Follow your mission, find less offensive/abrasive ways to convey your points so that you can reach more people. You may not find the way you talk offensive, abrasive, etc., and that's okay, but you need to realize that other people might, and they aren't "crazy" or "trolls" for feeling that way, they're just different.
Also, this post was a step in the right direction. You still played the victim a bit, but largely, it was a well thought out introspective post. More of this!
A side note on the dakka ban....
You got dakka-banned because a rule is: be polite, and you are in fact, quite rude. It's as simple as that, you deserved it. Did (and do) countless other people deserve it as well? Hell yes! But they (typically) don't do it as consistently or for as long or prolific a tenure as you, the ones that do also get banned (Stelek, Gwar!, etc). Is it fair? Probably not. Did you still break a rule that you agreed to by posting there? Yes.
Also, MVB's mentioned to me that we should do a whiskey challenge. It's your chance to take a stab at the RHQ title good sir! Because for now, I'm the King of the Nerds!*****
*In the United States
**In Warhammer 40k
***N Number of Tournament Results Not Included (N=large number)
****Based on many vastly different scoring systems which may not be compatible
Target (Andrew G)
jarmo · 720 weeks ago
One of the problems people seem to have is how unapologetic you are regarding things like rules disputes, gaming mistakes, and maxing lists.... Which I can understand if they're looking for a friendly game. Nobody likes to be caught off guard, have their mistakes be so glaring to someone else, or get creamed by a list so they weren't even in the game. But what do you expect going to a tournament with prizes? Soft lists with weak tactics? People don't like that approach... or even hearing about it. But it's tournament play! You can't expect less.
Keep up the way you write. It's the most educational style I've read. I feel like a better player from reading your reports and tactics, even if I've never used them. It's a different, and obviously successful perspective. Something to learn from. I highly appreciate the effort!
Foxfire · 720 weeks ago
I think you've run into a similar situation (on a much broader level than I have, with a greater player pool) but in being frank instead of smoothing over the fact of your greater ability, you draw attention to it. This would probably have the effect of people who really dislike game hierarchy becoming uncomfortable or unhappy with the way you comport yourself, whereas those who are very wound up in the game and accept a pecking order there as readily as they might in real life end up being fans of your work and ardent followers. From what I understand, this is exactly what you've seen: some people admire you and leap to your defense at every turn, others resent what you've done with your skill and try to shut down that confidence with the hard fact that it is just a game, and that this isn't really that much of an accomplishment.
I suspect it all comes down to resisting or embracing evident status in the gaming community. For me and my friends, we're extremely casual and the point isn't to be competitive with the wide world but to keep us all at a happy level of competition within our own microcosm of 40K players. That makes sense given that 90% of our games occur against the same seven or eight people. So, I might be able to win 95% of my games if I take 2 or 3 Monoliths and a C'tan to every game, but as it stands my friends struggle to contend even with just the Wraithwing, and are still daunted by a single Monolith most of the time, so I'm content with my 75% win rate if it means that people are still motivated to play against me.
I think it's fair to say, though, that this would not be satisfying for you. You play against a much wider community of players, and I imagine you prefer not to reign yourself in regarding list choices and such. I think a good analogy for what you've run into might be how high school friends often can't agree on who could 'take' who else in a fight. Testosterone being what it is, most of us don't like to be confronted with the truth that our larger friends could put us away without any trouble. Now, it's true that we could learn dirty tricks and martial arts to try and compete with that larger friend, but we might not have interest in that--he's our friend, we want to be at ease around him, not training and working hard to shut him up--we might just want for him to stop talking about how much we suck at fighting or how excellent he is at it, thereby reducing pressure on us to get better since we would prefer to talk big or at least talk as equals without backing it up...people are lazy and like to give their egos some wiggle room, so being called out on being shitty fighters or 40K players is definitely unwelcome. Thus, while what he is saying is probably true, it's still sometimes offensive to hear. Human society is comfortable because of the lies we tell or the truths we don't. I suspect this is why you've caught so much flak for speaking frankly about your talent for the game.
Anyway, in summary I think you've just run into the human condition. True or not, people don't like to hear it. In the business world, seeing things for how they truly are is something you can't do without, and making bad choices to spare peoples' feelings is unforgivable. In recreation, gentle guidance or letting a player continue to suck is probably more welcome to most than fantastic guidance at the cost of the player's ego. It pays to remember that even though you trash 99% of your opponents, they probably go on to have perfectly competitive play with their usual opponents. It might just be worth it to curb the brutality of your honest assessment unless people explicitly ask you how to get better, and then they can be responsible for their own reactions to that assessment. From what I hear, you're good enough at this point that your ability is self-evident without you having to tell people, so you can get across the same message without giving the trolls nearly as much to feed on...though I'm sure some of them will find a way regardless.
Foxfire · 720 weeks ago
Skyserpent · 720 weeks ago
I understand that you focus primarily on tournament style play and thats what I think people need to remember. Playing in your kitchen with friends is a great part of the hobby and its value cant be understated but tournaments especially GTs exist for a reason. If I played you in an environment like that I would take any oppurtunity to gain insight into the source of my undoing because I am aiming to win next time. If people cant handle learning from their mistakes then in my opinion they have no business in a tournament setting.
Lunchmoney · 720 weeks ago
Think of it as your favorite political candidate. If they lowered themselves to responding to the ignorant masses when they are obviously slinging mud, you would lose respect for them, at least a bit, for lowering themselves to that level. Your work is good enough that those who want to participate in a discussion and contribute would sift through the refuse to follow the thread. I wonder how things would have ended up with your last set of Batreps on Dakka if you would have had the patience and aloofness to allow your detractors to be banned, rather than responding in kind and garnering a ban yourself.
The Grog · 720 weeks ago
Dashofpepper 57p · 720 weeks ago
The Grog · 720 weeks ago
I do still like the battle reps, and appreciate the work that goes into them.
Tekeino · 720 weeks ago
Dashofpepper 57p · 720 weeks ago