My Minor Issue With League Discourse...

[Gustav 6,417]

...is something I've been guilty of myself. I think all of us who try to get involved in serious discussion have been as well.

 

See what I did there? I did the thing I don't like people doing. 

 

Said thing is this: I see one or a few isolated incidents of something happening and state that it's something that everyone is doing, because doing so helps me push my point and having others believe that everyone is doing that thing will create a (fake) unified mindset against that thing that I might get some positive recognition for. In a way, me writing this article is an example of that, because it depends on the assumption that it happens enough that it's worth talking about.

 

Let me give you an example: I'm sure most who are active enough to care about this article caught wind of a certain argument surrounding multis and the punishments given for them. Particularly, some level of exception was taken to that, in the way that a member believed that punishments should have been more severe, and perhaps that argument could have been constructed in a more civil manner. Though it was certainly true that the community talked about the multi punishments, and opinions varied, this was the only time that I thought a response was unreasonable (whether or not I agreed with any others). Following this, I saw multiple instances where one person or another claimed that the community, in general, wanted super harsh punishment and was being mean/aggressive/confrontational/whatever about it. And I asked, twice, because I was legitimately curious--was there any time outside of this one incident when this happened? And I received no response both times. Which leads me to believe that, in certain cases (not all, because that would be me generalizing myself), an isolated incident led to the community as a whole being judged unfairly to push the opinion that the punishments were fair (which I agree with!) or too strict. 

 

This is a dangerous way of doing things because it's just plain misleading--posts or comments of this variety received agreement, even though (per my own perception) they weren't based on the best logic. Other examples I can think of (some of which I've done and some of which I agree with) include:

 

• Arguing that recreates should go straight to the VHLE because all instances of a recreate being in the VHLM are bad;
• Believing the VHLE shouldn't exist because you don't like it;
• Agreeing with everything or nothing the mod team does because of your opinions of what the mod team has done in the past, regardless of anything in the present;
• Attempting to categorically place all GMs/BoG/new members/recreates/commissioners/mods in one category and stating that all think and act the same way, because a few happen to and speaking out against the entire group, all the time, is more attention-getting than speaking out against a few things;
• Holding any opinion at all because someone else says so, without being familiar with or able to make any legitimate supporting arguments

 

And no, I'm not trying to say that everyone does this, all the time--again, that would be on the list if I did. It's just that I've noticed this happening before, and discussion surrounding recent events provides a convenient example. I have generalized the mod team, I have made statements about the VHLE dependent upon my own perceptions of how new members and recreates think and act, and at times (though I'd like to clarify, not many times) I have supported or gone against policies behind the scenes because I was too lazy to actually think about them. 

 

So please, as a general reminder to everyone including myself, before you make a statement, consider whether what you are saying is an accurate, well-informed representation of the truth. Being controversial is great, and I'm certainly no stranger to it! It's just that a few people doing things you don't like doesn't mean everyone is doing those things.

[Shindigs 1,771]

2 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

Holding any opinion at all because someone else says so, without being familiar with or able to make any legitimate supporting arguments

The problem is that for a reasonable portion of people, if they didn't do this then they would be left with no opinions at all. Forming informed opinions that you are able to coherently argue for, isn't necessarily something everyone can do. If everyone could, then everyone would have had an A in Social studies (or w/e it's actually called in English, I only know the Swedish equivalent). But most people don't, so clinging onto stuff that sounds good is kind of all that remains at that point.

 

Because we all just want to feel like part of the tribe, as that's just human nature. So we just pick an opinion that helps us feel that connection. Because realistically the people who have informed enough opinions to even question you about WHY you have that opinion are rare enough that it's very unlikely you ever get called out on it. Because they would need to not just say you are wrong, but provide a substantial burden of proof to show why you are wrong. And really who has the energy for that on your average Monday morning?

 

2 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

I have generalized the mod team, I have made statements about the VHLE dependent upon my own perceptions of how new members and recreates think and act, and at times (though I'd like to clarify, not many times) I have supported or gone against policies behind the scenes because I was too lazy to actually think about them. 

This very much ties into the above, as a lot of the time we just don't have the energy to fully break down a situation, consider all sides and flesh out that informed opinion (or the ability to do so). There's nothing wrong with that inherently, as long as you don't try and force that unfinished opinion onto others as fact. Obviously it's fine to share it, so long as you do so within the framing of "this is what I think, why am I wrong?" Because that leads to healthy discussion that may help you finalize that informed opinion. But a lot of the time you won't actually realize your opinion isn't warranted. Or at least not logically sound, and then you'll often default to "I'm right, you're wrong. Let's yell at each other a bit!" at which points you're basically forcing people to pick sides in an argument instead of actually exploring their own opinions. That's not helping anyone.

 

Note that I'm not using "you" to mean you specifically @GustavMattias. Just people in general. I think we're all quite aware at this point of who have/haven't been doing the above over the last few days. There's a reason I've had my lowest forum participation since joining over that period. It's because unless you want to read "hard hitting" articles about multis, talk shit about people you barely know or just spread more salt than the average League player. Then there has been nothing to interact with. At that point I'd rather spend most my time in the Las Vegas LR trying to teach dylan Swedish. We're making decent progress, thanks for asking!

[Spartan 4,402]

I've mentioned in the past that a lot of these "VHL has a problem" articles feel like knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents and are then made out to be larger issues than they really are. Maybe for the multi account thing, I can agree that it is actually a decently large issue if we have 3 or 4 infractions caught at the same time after a decent period of the activity going on. I was more concerned in those situations about how often the moderation team checks for IPs if that is part of their job description, and how we can try and make an account level rule more prominent. It's not asking for a gigantic shift in cheating policies, a complete lack of toleration, or on the flip side - no punishments at all. But for some reason that's what the community "knee-jerk" reaction has been. A decent amount of people are either trying to move on as quickly as possible from a serious infraction, or calling for heads to roll and permanent bans from the league.

 

The locker room ownership/staff presence discussion might be another one to add to your list, as it was also a knee-jerk reaction to the Matty situation. I thought Dil was involved in another instance of rage-quitting and not handing off an LR, but turns out it wasn't the case. So we only have the one instance of an LR getting nuked (after already getting punished btw) and there was a long discussion around the community (and yes, I know it was not a "we're going to be doing this" for when a staff member interjects) about either having moderators own locker rooms and/or having moderators or some level of staff with moderation powers with full view access over all LR's.

 

Sometimes I feel like activity and the "reputation" we hold in the league revolves around how many rules or precedents we can get our fingerprints on. That being an active, contributing member is no longer defined as a person who earns TPE and posts on the forums and is active on Discord to be part of the community, but someone who actively tries to spark change in the league. Like constant activism, and frankly, it's getting dull. Even when thinking about my own activity, I feel like I've spent more time participating in these "how can we make ___ better" or "is ____ an issue" discussions over the past month or two, and haven't spent as much time enjoying the actual purpose of this league which is the spreadsheet hockey and to have a good time with people who share an interest in that spreadsheet hockey.

 

There's been more discussion around the league about a rulebook called the CoC than addressing competitive issues in the league. We added the VHLE in the middle of the M and VHL, but we didn't tweak ELC's to factor in that most players will lose a season of rookie salary tier eligibility to the VHLE. We didn't tweak salary brackets or the VHL salary cap either even though the average TPA has gone up, and I'm sure I can run the math if someone wants to question that. But players used to come in at a 200-250 floor, now they have to be at least 350 TPA, there's a clear increase at the bottom level of the salary bracket tier that hasn't been addressed or fixed. Why? Because we're too busy trying to overcomplicate what it means to be a decent person. It'll be two seasons now after the emergence of the fully exploitive meta and I haven't heard any rumblings of potential tweaks to attempt to resolve the problem, even just a step to alleviate the issue. I've been yelling about all of this competitive stuff and salary stuff for a bit and it feels like it doesn't matter because we're collectively too concerned about moderation and punishments. I've got my own issues with them but fuck, people. Is this all our league is about now?

[Shindigs 1,771]

6 minutes ago, Spartan said:

There's been more discussion around the league about a rulebook called the CoC than addressing competitive issues in the league. We added the VHLE in the middle of the M and VHL, but we didn't tweak ELC's to factor in that most players will lose a season of rookie salary tier eligibility to the VHLE.

Considering the NHL already fixed this with sliding contracts. It wouldn't exactly require much more than straight up stealing their rule to fix it either.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

8 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

• Holding any opinion at all because someone else says so, without being familiar with or able to make any legitimate supporting arguments

or the opposite, knee jerk disagreeing with every opinion you come across solely to be that guy

[Shindigs 1,771]

2 hours ago, diamond_ace said:

or the opposite, knee jerk disagreeing with every opinion you come across solely to be that guy

I disagree!