The Tavern

Recently noticed I always highlight sarcasm with intonation. So I may have autism.
When good player tries to be funny it's fine until you think about autists, which may take this bullshit seriosly and un-improve their game competence. Especially non-native speaking autists. Like me.
Think about Duvessa. Dispite considering him a elitistic jerk (as anyone with winratio better than mine) I always though it's good idea to pay attention to his posts and even thanks. It was painful to realise he frequently makes those posts and even thanks in sarcastic way so now I don't know how I can trust anyone here. It was bad with laconic style and bullshit cryptic minmayisms already.

Or at least force them to highlight sarcasm. We may need new tag. Or could just use italic.

This is a very good idea..

The problem isn't that one cannot detect sarcasm, but valuing advice on the speaker rather than the ideas.

I believe sarcasm is spotted on the voice tone, since it is all text here you have to assume the person is being sarcastic or does not know what he is talking about, this is where chaos ensues, experienced players like to be sarcastic while newer player dont know what they are talking about.

I have to disagree about Duvessa. There have been several times when I have asked a question seeking information, and after a few replies that don't really address my OP, Duvessa directly and succinctly answers my question. When the reply is sarcastic, then that is a sign that my question was stupid, but even then there is usually something to be learned from it. I really don't think Duvessa ever deliberately spreads misinformation, rather the opposite. Sometimes I lack the skill to apply the advice successfully, but that's different.

That said, I can fully sympathize with the OP's concern, that an autist would have a hard time detecting the sarcasm in text that I can see readily.

<sarcasm> sarcasm tags would be really helpful, since one could never use them sarcastically. </sarcasm>

MainiacJoe wrote:That said, I can fully sympathize with the OP's concern, that an autist would have a hard time detecting the sarcasm in text that I can see readily.

I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome when I was 8 years old, and while I struggled with sarcasm in my childhood, I have no problem with it as an adult, be it in text or speech.

I suggest folks who can't catch sarcasm just git gud.

Whereas I suggest that any problem with understanding what someone is saying can be solved by more communication. Confused as to whether or not someone's being sarcastic? Ask! Confused as to whether someone's joking around or actually has a problem with you? PM them! Or talk to a mod; I, for one, am more than happy to help anyone who is having trouble.

I'll also put in a plug for people-first language. Describing a person with autism as an "autist" makes it sound like something that defines them, instead of an aspect of their personality and life. I don't mean to scold anyone, but I think it's important to remember that the words we use reflect the thoughts in our head. This is doubly true in a community with numerous people who have been open about their mental lives.

I never give sarcastic or intentionally bad advice. When I say I don't value resistances or reflection, that Chei and Qazlal are actively harmful to your character, that level 9 spells are useless, that Dg is the 5th best species in the game, etc. I'm not being sarcastic, those are my actual - and I believe quite well-informed - opinions. They seem strange to a lot of people, because they're counterintuitive, but sometimes that's how things are; it's bad strategy to buy hotels in Monopoly, it's good to delete scenes in filmmaking, and Dg is really really good in Crawl.

I believe the place that sarcasm gets more common is in GDD and CYC, not so much DCA.

duvessa, maybe if you didnt make such vague statements people would give you more credibility, not that you dont already have a lot.

Alternately, people can just feel free to ask duvessa if they don't understand what was said; duvessa or somebody else is almost always happy to explain.

I won't lock this thread, but I have to say, if you think someone is breaking the rules, PM the mods or report the post. If someone isn't breaking the rules, they don't deserve to be singled out for derision just because you don't like their tone. If you don't like someone's rule-abiding posts, the forum has a "foe" feature for exactly that reason.

Wait, this forum has a what?

Croases wrote:Wait, this forum has a what?

: YIUF.PNG (7.77 KiB) Viewed 15253 times

: yiuf 2.PNG (6.7 KiB) Viewed 15253 times

: yiuf 3.PNG (1.52 KiB) Viewed 15253 times

By the way on the topic of Duvessa I think he gives very solid advice and frankly, his opinions are always well thought out. I can see how some may consider him a know-it-all jackass due to the occasional attitude he might exhibit, but that's probably because he's played this game so much that some of our mistakes seem so elementary to him that it hurts him. We're the bad guys.

duvessa wrote:I don't value resistances or reflection and level 9 spells are useless

Could you please expand on these views? Resistances seem extremely valuable to me, and I find that level 9 spells are very useful in extended if you're a summoner or conjurer.

Resistances: https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=17031&p=233353#p233353

I say level 9 spells suck because it costs too much xp to get them. Sure, they aren't completely useless and it can be an okay idea to get one if you are something like a deep elf of vehumet, but those cases are very rare. This is assuming you are just interested in winning the game, possibly with 15 runes, and not that you are trying to clear zigs (in which case necromutation and level 9 spells become good). I ignore the existence of ziggurats when giving advice because there is no incentive to complete one, even if you are going for a high score.

Honestly, I agree, and I don't find it particularly counterintuitive. The XP investment is enormous, and all that XP into something like fighting gives a lot more mileage, especially when level 5~8 spells can finish the game with 15 runes anyway.

Still like Dragon's Call and Glaciate, though, as well as Necromutate since it's extremely useful in extended.

As for zigs, I'd say there's ESPECIALLY no incentive to clear them if you're going for a high score, considering that they actually detract from your score since the turns you spend clearing zigs is turns you don't spend getting a rune.

http://dobrazupa.org/morgue/Dynast/morg ... 124830.txt

Code:: Action | 1- 3 | 4- 6 | 7- 9 | 10-12 | 13-15 | 16-18 | 19-21 | 22-24 | 25-27 || total Cast: Flame Tongue | 38 | 79 | 212 | 195 | | | | | || 524 Fireball | | | | 43 | 279 | 496 | 225 | 58 | 16 || 1117 Fire Storm | | | | | | | 149 | 294 | 164 || 607

http://dobrazupa.org/morgue/Dynast/morg ... 180054.txt

Code:: Cast: Summon Small Mamm | 23 | 2 | | | | | | || 25 Call Imp | 6 | 21 | 6 | | | | | || 33 Call Canine Famil | 7 | 62 | 31 | 60 | 98 | 21 | | || 279 Summon Lightning | | | 15 | 63 | 63 | 2 | | || 143 Summon Ice Beast | | | 33 | 133 | 223 | 79 | | || 468 Repel Missiles | | | 1 | | 14 | 6 | 2 | 2 || 25 Summon Guardian G | | | | 14 | | | | || 14 Blink | | | | 2 | 2 | 6 | | 4 || 14 Summon Mana Viper | | | | 84 | 426 | 185 | 124 | 12 || 831 Aura of Abjuratio | | | | | 6 | 10 | 29 | 7 || 52 Summon Horrible T | | | | | 19 | 37 | 24 | 24 || 104 Haunt | | | | | 40 | 174 | 227 | 41 || 482 Monstrous Menager | | | | | | 170 | 197 | 32 || 399 Regeneration | | | | | | 42 | 48 | 82 || 172 Dispel Undead | | | | | | 24 | 303 | 10 || 337 Death Channel | | | | | | | 3 | 3 || 6 Dragon's Call | | | | | | | | 127 || 127

I really felt the need to be the party pooper here because i knew the "useless" statement would boil down to "you dont need it, therefore investing exp is a waste". You sure dont need them, but having those spells sure is nice and far from useless.

We need sarcasm tags for people who don't get sarcasm.
We also need an easy mode for people who can't even get a rune.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(hint: it's called Wizard Mode! and Savescumming!)

how do I savescum tavern

I may as well stick this in here: I feel this forum is fairly dysfunctional.

When you post something, too many of the posts in response are ppl circle-jerking about how good they are at this game. Sometimes (usually?) this is by calling everything except their specific playstyle terrible, and trying to create controversy over that, so they can argue about how only their playstyle is good.

Other times, the posters are circle jerking over how knowledgeable they are about game design, and how un-knowledgeable others are. Similar to the above, this is done by calling any game design related comment terrible, or implying the author is stupid for having made it. 100% of the time this occurs, the person making the post will not offer any better suggestions themselves.

The hyper criticalness of this forum is somewhat offputting. It feels like a good portion of the posters here are just lying in wait for an opportunity to get negative. Add the problem of sarcasm (which, yes, it is hard to detect online especailly if english not your first language and no facial expressions to go on). And its surprising any positive contribution ever happen here.

The irony is rich.

lethe do have a point here. The forum is far less poisonous in tongue as it was about 2 years ago, however.

Being rudely sarcastic with know-it-all-wits really is not something first time posters want to hear.
This is way less casual than it was couple of years ago. Being sarcastic really is not bad. But it someone really asks for information or an opinion about his suggestion, I do not think the kinda answers like 'it's bad' or 'necromutation is the worst spell in the game' are good even if they have partial truth in em.

And that sarcasm.. that begins if you do disagree.

dynast wrote:The irony is rich.

If you are making the point that i am criticizing others for being too critical, yes i am. However i dont do it every single post/thread.

I think one single post complaining about situation that is endemic to every thread is not hypocritical. If im criticizing something every post i make, maybe u have a point.

I am not making any point.

To knowingly tell counterintuitive things without drawing any attention to the counterintuitiveness is bad communication or lacking in empathy. How can a reader discriminate between honesty, sarcasm, and stupidity? By the poster's reputation, I guess.

One bad thing duvessa does is exploit definitions and use conveniently arbitrary reference points to say things that can be construed as technically correct but are bewildering, such as 'MfFE is really good'. Most egregious is refusing to call things difficult or threatening unless they can kill the player no matter the player does, which is a very poor way to define difficulty.

Oh wait, did I just define minmayism?

It appears annoying and derailing when posters act like everyone shares their assumptions, that e.g. your goal is to win a game at all costs or something, and hone all their language to fit that perspective, which leads to something like "calling everything except their specific playstyle terrible, and trying to create controversy over that, so they can argue".

lethediver wrote:how knowledgeable they are about game design, and how un-knowledgeable others are. Similar to the above, this is done by calling any game design related comment terrible, or implying the author is stupid for having made it.

Often there's no reason to make a post if this is not the case.

bad inglish. was not sarcasm. i'm not as bright as you are.

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:It appears annoying and derailing when posters act like everyone shares their assumptions, that e.g. your goal is to win a game at all costs or something, and hone all their language to fit that perspective, which leads to something like "calling everything except their specific playstyle terrible, and trying to create controversy over that, so they can argue".

hm.... I think it is a fair assumption that someone that asked for help to win wants to win. if not, I think the responsibility to make this clear is of the person asking the question. and if someone has a playstyle, it is because they think that playstyle is good, so they will argue in favor of that. so... I think your point is kinda weird.

lethediver wrote:I may as well stick this in here: I feel this forum is fairly dysfunctional.

It turns out we have a subforum for talking about meta issues, if anyone would care to have a serious discussion about the Tavern's issues and what might be done to correct them.

duvessa wrote:I never give sarcastic or intentionally bad advice.

I don't think the same can be said about your thanks although maybe you're someone who likes being insulted? I guess it must be a riot to get people so whipped up they slander you on the internet now that I think about it

Clownie wrote:I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome when I was 8 years old, and while I struggled with sarcasm in my childhood, I have no problem with it as an adult, be it in text or speech.

I suggest folks who can't catch sarcasm just git gud.

Good thing your experience with Asperger's applies to everyone on the spectrum, wow gosh, never thought of gitting gud, I'll have to tell my sister the next time people are making fun of her and she has no idea

"wow sister you know they're saying you're fucking weird, git gud"

She probably won't understand the sarcasm though.

ZipZipskins wrote:Good thing your experience with Asperger's applies to everyone on the spectrum, wow gosh, never thought of gitting gud, I'll have to tell my sister the next time people are making fun of her and she has no idea

"wow sister you know they're saying you're fucking weird, git gud"

(the offensive phrasing was sarcasm)

On a serious note, it really pisses me off when people just write character flaws off as "oh its the condishun". People without legs can function in society, for crying out loud; symptoms of a defect can be overcome, and just having x condition isn't an excuse to accept things as they are forever.

Yes, but it's also unhelpful and hurtful to write off someone's condition as a "character flaw." Yes, the symptoms can be overcome, but it's something they (for medical reasons) will be struggling with their whole lives. It can/will be extremely difficult. There will be relapses. If someone makes no effort to deal with their condition, that's one thing. But often you can't really know if they are or not, so you need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

on the other hand, if we can make things easier to our fellow human beings, yeah, I think we should.
if I don't have legs, I'll be happy that there are adequate ramps for me to use. if I have autism, I will be happy if people avoid talking to me in a way I can't fully understand. and it is not really that much of an effort.
I also find bothersome that you bundle character flaws with actual mental conditions, and would be thrilled if you stopped that.
e: ninja'd. my point stands.

Hirsch I wrote:
HardboiledGargoyle wrote:It appears annoying and derailing when posters act like everyone shares their assumptions, that e.g. your goal is to win a game at all costs or something, and hone all their language to fit that perspective, which leads to something like "calling everything except their specific playstyle terrible, and trying to create controversy over that, so they can argue".

hm.... I think it is a fair assumption that someone that asked for help to win wants to win. if not, I think the responsibility to make this clear is of the person asking the question. and if someone has a playstyle, it is because they think that playstyle is good, so they will argue in favor of that. so... I think your point is kinda weird.

but it's not just that they think a playstyle is good; they may go on and tell every wizard character to go trog because magic sucks and is stupid to the point that some people get sufficiently annoyed that they never want those people heard again and make it happen

Clownie wrote:
ZipZipskins wrote:Good thing your experience with Asperger's applies to everyone on the spectrum, wow gosh, never thought of gitting gud, I'll have to tell my sister the next time people are making fun of her and she has no idea

"wow sister you know they're saying you're fucking weird, git gud"

(the offensive phrasing was sarcasm)

On a serious note, it really pisses me off when people just write character flaws off as "oh its the condishun". People without legs can function in society, for crying out loud; symptoms of a defect can be overcome, and just having x condition isn't an excuse to accept things as they are forever.

Yeah but you saying that you have Asperger's and you managed to learn to overcome your inability to recognise sarcasm was not

Look I'm facetious on these forums, an awful lot, primarily because earnest advice is either picked apart or falls on deaf ears, and also because I'm a shit crawl player who is mostly bad trash because I don't have the patience for a load of tedious nonsense, which is why I play ToME

(there was sarcasm in there so here's some retroactive sarcasmtags [sarcasm] [/sarcasm])

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:but it's not just that they think a playstyle is good; they may go on and tell every wizard character to go trog because magic sucks and is stupid to the point that some people get sufficiently annoyed that they never want those people heard again and make it happen

I've been here for, what, 3 years, and 1 more lurking, and I never saw anyone acting like that. maybe I just forgot.
I've also been consistently receiving good advice from every GoodPlayer™,and it made me play so much better I can actually win semi consistently.
would you mind linking an example of someone giving advice in such way?

I very much encourage this thread's readers to check out this interesting NYT article, which offers a good balance of perspectives on how autism is viewed; while it's now a decade old, a troubling sign of how little progress mental health advocates have made in the 21st century, it nevertheless points to the fact that many people who have been labeled "autistic" don't see themselves as flawed.

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:but it's not just that they think a playstyle is good; they may go on and tell every wizard character to go trog because magic sucks and is stupid to the point that some people get sufficiently annoyed that they never want those people heard again and make it happen

Good lord, if we banned everybody with some meme strategy like "always go trog," we wouldn't have a forum. OTOH, if anyone is "calling everything except their specific playstyle terrible, and trying to create controversy over that, so they can argue," please report it, because that's not fine at all. I just doubt it has much to do with strong opinions; it's not hard to feel strongly about something while respecting other's good faith disagreement, and if I see any problem on the Tavern, it's that lack of good faith.

Clownie wrote:On a serious note, it really pisses me off when people just write character flaws off as "oh its the condishun". People without legs can function in society, for crying out loud; symptoms of a defect can be overcome, and just having x condition isn't an excuse to accept things as they are forever.

welp, this has got to be the second most egregiously stupid thing i've read on this forum

duvessa wrote:
Clownie wrote:On a serious note, it really pisses me off when people just write character flaws off as "oh its the condishun". People without legs can function in society, for crying out loud; symptoms of a defect can be overcome, and just having x condition isn't an excuse to accept things as they are forever.
welp, this has got to be the second most egregiously stupid thing i've read on this forum

the... second?

It was posted earlier in this thread:

The hyper criticalness of this forum is somewhat offputting. It feels like a good portion of the posters here are just lying in wait for an opportunity to get negative.

I completely agree, and now have a fantastic example.

I don't want to call out the individual because this attitude is shared by many in our community (including myself, sometimes). Compare the questions in the OP:

I'm playing a HOFi and am a relatively new player (only won once, tried a hundred times).
I started out my background with axes. But pretty soon in I found this wicked trident! What should I do? ignore it and train axes or switch to polearms?

Thanks for the help!
(if you spot any other glaring errors do let me know, I'm for example not sure wearing plate this early is wise)

With a response like this:

That trident is bad, and the rPois on it is useless. Don't train polearms.

Advice like this is something I'd argue is actively harmful to the questioner:
1) Absolute advice
2) Surprising advice
3) Given without justification
4) Speaking down to the questioner

How many newbies will want to come back when they're exposed to a tone like that? "Your question is dumb, you are dumb for asking it, don't bother us."

Would someone joining the forum for the first time enjoy reading an answer like this? Or would it be better to say something like:
"The base damage of your trident is less than a war axe, and your aptitude for axes vs polearms means it's much less efficient to train. On a merfolk the opposite would be true."
or
"rPois only prevents a bit of poison damage which is relatively rare, and poison dot shouldn't be dangerous if you engage enemies one on one."

Of course, none of the previous answers in the thread are this nice. Nobody has the energy to write an essay every time. But none of the other answers were so condescending or brusque. They offered suggestions in a relatively friendly manner and without an absolutionist tone. Just because the answerer thinks they have "the right answer" should not be an excuse for such hostile behaviour.

archaeo wrote:I very much encourage this thread's readers to check out this interesting NYT article

"The effort to cure autism, they say, is not like curing cancer, but like the efforts of a previous age to cure left-handedness."

Actually, I'd say that autism is a lot like cancer in that it's not a single "disease", in all likelihood it's a group of loosely related (or entirely unrelated) conditions that just so happen to share broad diagnostic criteria. Expecting there to be a cure for it is like making "lunacy" an actual disorder, putting all the schizophrenics, ataxics and Alzheimer's patients in there, and trying to find something to cure all these.

The autism support community is really big on celebrating individual diversity and I think this is a very good thing because it drives home the idea that one autistic child will be different from another and each must be treated accordingly for them to perform well in society. Personalized medicine at its finest!

Anyway, I think people posting help have a right to be sarcastic, and if you aren't sure whether their advice is sound, you also have a right to ask them to elaborate. I don't think anyone here is such a colossal jerk that they would refuse an honest request for clarification.

I don't see what's hostile about saying a bad weapon is bad and a useless randart property is useless. Weapons and randart properties are a couple dozen bits. They don't have feelings to hurt. And answering a question doesn't mean that I think it's a dumb question...

chequers wrote:
That trident is bad, and the rPois on it is useless. Don't train polearms.

uhhhh...
I don't think one has a responsibility to post an essay in response to each question just because they have the knowledge. and I definitely don't think the answer was bad, at all. it was direct, concise, carries no emotion whatsoever, and can be expanded upon, in case the person asking, well, asks for it. it is not sarcastic, not rude, and definitely not wrong.
of course, answering like a sugar coated, heartwarming, loving, helpful, friendly pink unicorn with rainbows for mane would maybe make more players stay.
but I, for one, just want the information, thank you very much. and nobody HAS to answer in a certain way to appeal other people's tastes.
e: gawd damnit, ninja'd again.

duvessa wrote:welp, this has got to be the second most egregiously stupid thing i've read on this forum

Come on, (s)he said earlier that (s)he has been diagnosed with Asperger's. I am sure you can say this in a less offensive and easier to understand way.

Also, I play your game and ask: what is the first most egregiously stupid one?

duvessa wrote:I don't see what's hostile about saying a bad weapon is bad and a useless randart property is useless. Weapons and randart properties are a couple dozen bits. They don't have feelings to hurt. And answering a question doesn't mean that I think it's a dumb question...

You're interpreting my post in the least charitable way possible if you thought I was suggesting you'd hurt the game's feelings, which is another way of being needlessly negative and condescending.

I'm glad you answered a question, but you did it in a way that can only be seen as discouraging of future questions, while simultaneously giving the OP no information to help them learn.

chequers wrote:Would someone joining the forum for the first time enjoy reading an answer like this? Or would it be better to say something like:
"The base damage of your trident is less than a war axe, and your aptitude for axes vs polearms means it's much less efficient to train. On a merfolk the opposite would be true."
or
"rPois only prevents a bit of poison damage which is relatively rare, and poison dot shouldn't be dangerous if you engage enemies one on one."

Others has pointed out that you probably misunderstood duvessa's tone somehow. What I'd like to tell you that I prefer duvessa's advice instead of the ones you write here as good examples. While yours seems to be containing more information, this seems to be very misleading to me without a much, much longer explanation. I prefer a short answer, that does not contain more that was asked for, but at least does not seems to imply things that are not true.

sanka wrote:
duvessa wrote:welp, this has got to be the second most egregiously stupid thing i've read on this forum

Come on, (s)he said earlier that (s)he has been diagnosed with Asperger's. I am sure you can say this in a less offensive and easier to understand way.

I really couldn't think of a civil response to "Mental illnesses are just character flaws", but felt like I should at least acknowledge it.

On second tought, neither me. But at least please pm me, what was the first one?

I think you people complaining about sarcasm just don't get it.
Nobody is supposed to be nice to you and hold your hand on the internet, except perhaps for a bunch of -really- nice people that can't help it but be themselves.
No one is getting paid to be friendly towards you, except for people that actually do get paid to be friendly towards you and sometimes even they are not.
Would it be good if everyone was friendly? Sure.
But nobody has the time and/or the energy to give you advice the exact way you'd like, especially since there's the chance that they might end up including something that might confuse you even further. So keeping advice short and not necessarily sweet is good, I think.

The Tavern

Ban sarcasm for good players

Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players

Re: Ban sarcasm for good players