Page 3 of 4

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 27th January 2014, 03:16
by Grimm
Please welcome new Counsellors Sar and and into with the traditional drubbing of the noggin.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 27th January 2014, 07:11
by Sar
Um, thanks!

Edit: I'm in favor of dck and duvessa, too. They're some of the best Crawl players there are and their advice is always solid.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 27th January 2014, 09:03
by Tiktacy
Sar wrote:Um, thanks!

Edit: I'm in favor of dck and duvessa, too. They're some of the best Crawl players there are and their advice is always solid.


I think someone earlier stated that clarity in advice is essential, and if duvessa is not worthy of being a counsellor for this reason, Dck certainly isn't either. While I agree they are both very solid crawl players, I don't find dck to be very "helpful" but maybe that's just me.

... Well, tbh I don't understand why duvessa isn't a counsellor, I personally think it has something to do with a falling out of some kind, because not having him a counsellor with how he is currently is just plain silly.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 27th January 2014, 09:37
by duvessa
I'm already blue where it counts

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 27th January 2014, 15:29
by Sar
Well I do find dck's advice very helpful and interesting, in fact most of the time the advice he gives is better than mine and I often learn something from it. And he posts rather frequently, too. Sorry, but I think you are being biased.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 27th January 2014, 19:16
by mikee
dictatorial mock election

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 28th January 2014, 01:04
by Tiktacy
Sar wrote:Well I do find dck's advice very helpful and interesting, in fact most of the time the advice he gives is better than mine and I often learn something from it. And he posts rather frequently, too. Sorry, but I think you are being biased.


I just searched through his recent posts and most of them are helpful, sort of... It's hard to justify him being a counsellor when duvessa isn't. But that argument aside, if he were to become a counsellor, he would be less helpful than the least helpful active counsellor by a large margin.

I mean, he is hundreds of times more talented at crawl than I am, I'm not denying that, but I find his advice often saturated in a thick layer of attitude, and is often much less helpful because of this. He just doesn't seem like counsellor material to me, and maybe I do have a bias, but I would argue you have some bias towards him as well.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 28th January 2014, 14:31
by dck
mikee also likes me cause im so pretty

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 3rd February 2014, 16:26
by crate
can I lose my blue name please?

I don't like the implication that people might look at my posts more because my name is a different colour; it takes away from one of the most important parts of making an argument which is that you look at the argument and not the person.

thanks.

edit: also amusingly you never asked the first group of counsellors, you just gave them a blue name

I probably would've turned it down if it were offered (I hate the idea of special users like counsellor status), but I was too lazy to bring this up until now

edit 2 I never shouldve made that first edit I should stop posting for today

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 3rd February 2014, 17:20
by Grimm
crate wrote:can I lose my blue name please?

I'll do that right away.

edit: also amusingly you never asked the first group of counsellors, you just gave them a blue name

I probably would've turned it down if it were offered (I hate the idea of special users like counsellor status), but I was too lazy to bring this up until now

I am pretty sure I pm'ed everyone who got shanghaied the first time, as I have done for all subsequent recruits, telling them to let me know if they want out. If I omitted to pm you, I apologize.

For the record, I am the person who administrates the Counsellors group but that is only because someone has to and I got shanghaied into it myself.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 3rd February 2014, 19:34
by Lasty
I may have missed the window for this, but I'd like to nominate Siegurt as a councilor. I think he does a good job of posting helpful, detailed, and accurate information.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 3rd February 2014, 20:02
by and into
I will second Siegurt's nomination.

I also nominate Lasty.

(Tried to be clearer this time, Grimm ;) )

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 4th February 2014, 10:46
by Confidence Interval
crate wrote:one of the most important parts of making an argument ... is that you look at the argument and not the person.

Aristotle's On Rhetoric presents a basis for argumentation still important in the rhetorical literature today, i.e. that logos, ethos, and pathos are all important parts of persuading an audience (which may mean an audience of any type, including readers of a text). Logos is the content of your argument; ethos relates to the authority or credibility of the speaker; pathos involves appeal to the emotions.

Since the medium on an online forum makes ethos hard to establish we might view the "coloured name" approach as one way of indicating that the speaker (poster) has an elevated level of authority or credibility in this setting, at least for some of the audience. The problem, otherwise, is that a newcomer can't tell between people who are full of good advice and those who are full of... other stuff.

You are right to suggest that the content of an argument is important. But, as social creatures, we always pay attention to the speaker as well as to what s/he says, and there are good reasons for that.

See, e.g., this page for more.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 4th February 2014, 23:53
by crate
we always pay attention to the speaker

yes

and there are good reasons for that.

no

The problem, otherwise, is that a newcomer can't tell between people who are full of good advice and those who are full of... other stuff.

I don't agree this is a problem. If it is, most likely the real problem is with the newcomer not thinking; or with the "good advice" not actually being given in a helpful manner: much of the "good advice" given here is not what I would actually call good advice even though it is suggesting the correct decision.

I don't disagree that people do look at who is giving advice, but I do assert (and will not argue in favor of, I do not care that much) that doing so is bad practice.

I am actually quite strongly opposed to a special group of users like counsellors on fora such as this, and rejecting counsellor status is my way of fighting it.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 5th February 2014, 00:25
by duvessa
(In case it is not clear, I would object to being added to the group)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 5th February 2014, 00:43
by Sandman25
It is often said that if you can't see in the game which of two weapons or two spells is better, then there is no difference and you can use any. The same applies to advices IMHO - if you cannot tell which one is correct without looking at its author, something is wrong. The best advice is one which teaches player and provides reasoning.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 5th February 2014, 05:31
by Kate
For what it's worth I still think having a Counsellor group is a pretty bad idea too, yes.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 5th February 2014, 11:51
by Confidence Interval
crate wrote:
we always pay attention to the speaker

yes

and there are good reasons for that.

no

Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you are talking about situations specific to a forum but in general I have good reasons for treating the utterances of different people differently. For example: imagine you are walking down the street and two people speak to you. One is a wild-eyed man holding a placard who ways to you, "Repent! For the end is nigh!". The other is someone with whom you share a household, i.e. your roommate or partner or whatever, and that person says, "Could you get some more milk on your way home, please, we've run out." I would suggest that in this situation you are likely to fulfil the request of one person more than the other and that that is based primarily on the attention you pay to who is speaking. (Of course you may feel that it's time to repent but that's another matter.)

I am, all the same, agnostic on the matter of whether there ought to be counsellors on this forum or not.

Sandman25 wrote:It is often said that if you can't see in the game which of two weapons or two spells is better, then there is no difference and you can use any. The same applies to advices IMHO - if you cannot tell which one is correct without looking at its author, something is wrong.

When a serious gambler backs a horse, s/he does so not because s/he thinks it will win but because s/he thinks that the odds available for that gamble do not realistically represent the chances of that horse winning the race, in a way that favours the gambler. Analogously, the decision between two weapons (or whatever) in Crawl typically does not come down to "that one will get you killed and that one won't" but rather than choosing one will shift the odds of your demise in your favour slightly more than using the other.

For example, if you had to choose between a +0/+0 dagger and a +1/+0 dagger but were blinded to the difference (i.e. couldn't tell them apart) then you might find it difficult to choose the best one. That's because the difference between them is relatively slight. In the absence of other choices it would be optimal to choose the second weapon but you would likely not be able to tell that if you didn't have the necessary information.

The role of advice is thus to give someone information to help them reach a decision, information that would otherwise not be accessible to them. And of course you want to have good advice because someone who inadvertently or otherwise tells you that that the +0 dagger is better is not helping you. One might argue that if you can't tell the difference then the difference is slight but that is not the same as there being no difference - and if you want to optimise your chances of success in the game then even small differences may be important.

tldr: who people are is important when we communicate with them; good advice when faced with uncertainty may be beneficial if you can't differentiate between available options

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 6th February 2014, 05:13
by and into
Sandman25 wrote:It is often said that if you can't see in the game which of two weapons or two spells is better, then there is no difference and you can use any. The same applies to advices IMHO - if you cannot tell which one is correct without looking at its author, something is wrong. The best advice is one which teaches player and provides reasoning.


The difference that troubles this analogy is that weapon choice between very close competitors involves something you can (almost) immediately test at little risk to your character, while this generally is not true of most advice. Also if people are asking for advice they often will not be in the greatest position to judge whether or not the advice is sound; I don't think it is very often that someone in a good position to make such judgments would actually need the advice. (Obviously there are some exceptions to that, particularly if someone says something way off base in the middle of otherwise reasonable-sounding advice, but speaking generally here.)

The other thing I would point out is that we already have thanks and post number info prominently displayed, which a new person posting here may be just as likely to use as an "at first blush" metric for how trustworthy something is. But since thanks can mean many different things—or nothing at all—that's probably a(n even) worse cover by which one might judge the book.

I'm not claiming this justifies the existence of the counselors group. I played Crawl for a long time before lurking on Tavern, and I lurked for a long time before posting, and so I really don't have any experience or perspective on what is most useful for very new players, and helping new players get good advice is the (only) thing that *could* potentially justify having a counselors group. (Of course I've learned a ton from what others have posted here, both before and after I registered, but I have not had the experience of coming into Tavern as a new player and posting something seeking advice about Crawl.)

So really I'd be most interested in hearing how relatively new players have benefited or not benefited from having a counselors group and setting off their names with blue text. If it generally has not been useful to them, then I say lose the blue names, because as far as I'm concerned the only good justification for counselors is that it tends to help new(ish) members of the Tavern who are seeking help.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 6th February 2014, 05:44
by Tiktacy
I think having councellors wouldn't be an issue if we were all mature enough to handle it.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 6th February 2014, 06:37
by Siegurt
I think asking for a random subset of people on an internet forum to always be mature is unrealistic :) Nevertheless, I do think that the crawl forums are more mature on average than most.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 6th February 2014, 07:27
by WalkerBoh
Tiktacy wrote:I think having councellors wouldn't be an issue if we were all mature enough to handle it.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Anyways, I understood counsellors to be "active people who won't give you awful advice on your game", not "experts whose voices have increased weight in any crawl-related matter". Seems to me that's where this backlash is coming from. Maybe it's a bit misleading as it stands now, but I don't see any problems with a group marked as proven good advice-givers.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 6th February 2014, 12:04
by pratamawirya
WalkerBoh wrote: I don't see any problems with a group marked as proven good advice-givers.

This. I think it's a part of the fun of internet forums, that we can easily create different groups of people (counsellors, moderators, etc), easier than if we'd do it in real life. :)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 6th February 2014, 13:10
by Tiktacy
Maybe we could just have blue names exist only in YASD and GA forum if increased weight is really the problem?

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 10th February 2014, 14:21
by galehar
duvessa wrote:(In case it is not clear, I would object to being added to the group)

I think your posting is a lot more clearer than it used to be, you should probably be a counsellor ;)

MarvinPA wrote:For what it's worth I still think having a Counsellor group is a pretty bad idea too, yes.

I agree with crate and MarvinPA. The question is "what is a good advice?". For many, it is one that helps them win the game. For others (and me), it is one that teaches the advisee to be a better player. To do that, one must argue and explain, and when that is the case, there is no ambiguity between good and bad advice. Unless someone builds a strong argument on an invalid axiom, but that is often quickly pointed out. And anybody can make such mistakes, whatever their name colour.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 27th March 2014, 17:20
by Grimm
and into is now the leader of the Counsellors group. It makes more sense to have him because he is actually a Counsellor, though now also a Moderator. All future adding and removal will be dealt with by him.

The wisdom of having such a group is still open to debate.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 15th April 2014, 15:31
by and into
Okay, going to bump because Siegurt and Lasty are still nominated. I floated the idea of their being added to counsellors group to all current counsellors and didn't receive any negative response. Lately Siegurt is less active than Lasty, though only recently, but I stand by their recommendation for being added. If any object to their becoming counsellors, speak now or forever hold your peace.

As Grimm said, the wisdom of having such a group is still open to debate, question, skepticism, etc.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 15th April 2014, 19:00
by WalkerBoh
Definite second for Lasty if he wants it. Don't know Siegurt well enough to comment, but Lasty definitely knows his stuff.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 17th April 2014, 16:23
by Lasty
Not that WalkerBoh is on my 0.14 tournament team or anything. :D

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 17th April 2014, 23:13
by WalkerBoh
Well hey, that just reinforces your good judgment. :P

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Saturday, 19th April 2014, 07:26
by Siegurt
FWIW, I had work blow up in the last month or so, and all of my crawl time has been devoted to tourney-playing. I certainly have been less active of late in the forums than I had been previously :)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 23rd April 2014, 20:18
by and into
Lasty has been added as a counsellor, my apologies for the delay.

Siegurt's nomination still open, of course.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 24th April 2014, 06:15
by DracheReborn
I'll second Siegurt. Congrats Lasty!

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 24th April 2014, 17:05
by Lasty
Thanks, Drache! Also, I want to reiterate my support for Siegurt being a councilor.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 24th April 2014, 17:12
by and into
Okay, that's three for Siegurt (DracheReborn, Lasty, and into), including 2 current counsellors.

If anyone has any other points to make for/against do so in this thread or PM me. Thanks!

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 24th April 2014, 17:19
by Tiktacy
+1 for siegurt.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 24th April 2014, 23:26
by Sandman25
I think everyone who can write such posts should be a counsellor.

+1 for Siegurt

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 25th April 2014, 15:29
by and into
Siegurt has been added as a counsellor too, now. There's no formal custom about how long to wait but anyone who cared to voice a dissenting opinion has had plenty of time to do so, in this thread or privately. No such opinion was forthcoming, so I am happy to enlist Siegurt.

Siegurt wrote:FWIW, I had work blow up in the last month or so, and all of my crawl time has been devoted to tourney-playing. I certainly have been less active of late in the forums than I had been previously :)


You realize you are now contractually obliged to blow off work for DCSS, right? :)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 25th April 2014, 21:30
by Siegurt
I'll do that just as *soon* as someone starts paying me to play crawl.....


Anyone? .... C'mon?

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 14:18
by damiac
Lasty should be removed from Councillors, as demonstrated by this thread: https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12276&start=150
He argues with a strawman he constructed that supposedly represents Sandman25, then goes on to add him to his ignore list, and add a comment to his sig specifically calling out sandman.

The argument style is annoying but whatever. My real issue is a blue name specifically targetting one poster like that.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 18:36
by Arrhythmia
Lasty should stay, as it is his duty as a bluename to argue against those who are wrong and bad at this game, which he did with grace and skill. You say he "targeted" Sandman25, but rather, I say that just one person was being wrong about the game whom Lasty, as a bluename, is vowed to argue with, despite there being only one. Lasty adding Sandman25 to his ignore list was a mature decision, since it's what we're encouraged to do if vendettas grow too large to ignore. The choice of posting about his ignore list may have been a tad childish, but I feel it was a sensible way to communicate why he would not be participating in that conversation anymore, keeping the forum-world from living in unpleasant doubt. There wasn't any malice behind his words, only a true and honest desire to make players better at this game

Also, it is Sandman25 whose sig makes a bitchy snipe at Lasty, not vice-versa.

i'm a huge gay retard for writing all these words about forums drama

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 18:57
by and into
I'm not seeing either signature, so I think they've both removed them on their own (cooler heads and more mature judgments prevailing, apparently).

Being a counsellor doesn't mean you cannot add people to your ignore list, sometimes that is the most mature way to handle a pattern of non-productive or frustrating disagreements with someone.

The Spider's Nest thread turned into quite a rat's nest; we got a report on it from someone not participating, but I'll let a different mod, who wasn't arguing in that thread, decide whether to lock it (conflict of interest, etc.) There was a lot of frustration in that thread but for the most part Lasty kept his cool—in fact better than I did, I lashed out sarcastically at one point much worse than anything Lasty posted—so, in the context of a heated argument that various posters/sides escalated at various points, I don't think Lasty acted at all inappropriately.

If anyone majorly disagrees with that assessment, you can PM me or any mod with your concerns.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 18:59
by Sandman25
FYI. We solved our problem with Lasty, he is a very good counsellor.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 19:01
by Sandman25
Arrhythmia wrote:Also, it is Sandman25 whose sig makes a bitchy snipe at Lasty, not vice-versa.


This is false but who am I for you to trust.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 19:08
by and into
Sandman25 wrote:FYI. We solved our problem with Lasty, he is a very good counsellor.


... And there was much rejoicing. :)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 20:22
by damiac
I don't mind that And_Into got snippy with me, and I don't really have a problem with the blue names doing that either. It happens, we're human. And anyone can ignore anyone they want, that's often the most mature way to handle situations like that.

What I really didn't like was announcing that he's putting Sandman on ignore, then adding to his sig essentially "I can't correct the dumb stuff sandman says because he's on my foes list". That's uncool for someone who, in a sense, represents the crawl "management" to the average poster on this board.

Anyway, it's all over, but I don't understand why these debates over game mechanics have to get so personal. Lasty was the one who made it personal by accusing Sandman:
Lasty wrote:If you genuinely want the discussion to move forward, please engage productively with people with dissenting views instead of using rhetorical tricks and skewed information, and ignoring inconvenient responses.
Still, no matter how I felt about it, I should not have gotten irritated and been insulting, because I can't know if you were offering those posts knowing that they were manipulative and incomplete or not.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that I don't think you're arguing in good faith.


While these various examples are worded politely, it's attacking sandman rather than any point he made. It seemed rather clear that Sandman was genuinely voicing his own views and opinions, not engaging in some sort of trickery. And I just picked out a few examples from that thread.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 20:26
by Arrhythmia
damiac wrote:What I really didn't like was announcing that he's putting Sandman on ignore, then adding to his sig essentially "I can't correct the dumb stuff sandman says because he's on my foes list". That's uncool for someone who, in a sense, represents the crawl "management" to the average poster on this board.

Sandman25 wrote:
Arrhythmia wrote:Also, it is Sandman25 whose sig makes a bitchy snipe at Lasty, not vice-versa.


This is false but who am I for you to trust.


I did not see this; I apologize, friend. I'm glad you and Lasty have come to terms.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 13th May 2014, 20:59
by damiac
Sorry for making a mountain of a molehill as usual. Even when the person I'm 'defending' has dropped the matter, I keep going. Argh. Sorry guys, I'll sing kumbuya to myself and try to keep calm.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 14th May 2014, 00:57
by Lasty
FWIW, I ended up deciding that it was a bad choice to have that signature for various reasons. I'd like to give Hopeless a shout-out for sending a PM encouraging me to resolve the situation better than I had. I also ended up removing Sandman25 from my foe list after having some PM discussion with him. I do think he and I will continue to be at odds on a number of issues, but after some thought I believe I've come up with a more productive way to engage in discussions where I feel like the conversation is being misdirected or confused, and all things considered I'd rather not ignore anyone as long as I can continue to productively engage with threads that include their posts.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 14th May 2014, 02:02
by mikee
I'd like to apologize to the player Bart. When I told him to die, I think people didn't realize that I was actually using German for 'the'.