Superadine, Gamma Rays, Internet Forums

I'm at the point where I try to not take it to far. It comes to a point when you realize that some people are not going to listen, or even more fun, are going to insist that you are being a troll for stating your opinion on something. If I see things heading in that direction, I just back away. Or even if it is a friendly debate, if I see that it's not going to go anywhere ((No one is going to be swayed either way)) then I will politely step back.

And...
Saying the name Golden Gorilla made me go do this...


Zero offense intended, Golden Girl! I'd actually love to play together... Maybe GG encounters someone from an alternate gorilla universe!


There, Captain-Electric... Look what you've done!!

(I made the costume from memory without referring to reference pics... But hey, a gorilla's gotta be herself!)

I learned a long time ago, for my own sanity, that I look at responding and/or posting on the forums is an isolated event. Every time. I will respond within a OP that is mine if I think there's something worth responding to, and will only post if I think I have something positive, and relevant, to contribute to any other post in any given thread.

The irony that I have discovered is, more often than not, the less response you get, the more most folks probably agree with you because they don't have anything to argue about, and therefore don't post anything.

While that usually vaults your post or desire into anonymity, all I hope for is that someone who has power to do something about it (forum 'celebrity'- and I say this without malice as there are those who deserve the nomenclature- or Developer) sees it and groks its merit, thereby supporting its cause and making it happen.

There have been things, over the years, that I have championed or posted in support of that have actually seen the light of day. I won't even begin to imply in the slightest I achieved them. I spend more time enjoying the game than arguing the merit of this or that to earn that title. I toss my ideas or support into the ether and am pleasantly surprised if it falls on anything other than deaf ears. However, that may make me easy to impress... so sue me.

My rule of thumb is "Am I making a positive and/or useful contribution with this post?" if not, I don't bother. I can spend all night on the internet arguing with folks, that's easy... what's hard is positing and idea or supporting something someone else posted without hitting a land mine, or worse, being big enough to ignore the arguments thrown your way.

Just my 2 cents it's maintained my sanity (though not proclivity) as a poster over the years.

Introspection is always an interesting thing, since you'll find out that you're doing something crazy when viewed from the outside.

Me, I am similar in the sense that my sarcasm detector doesn't work and I get angry easy and somehow get other people angry easy. The difference is, I don't "change" when I go through real life or playing in the game. I'm pretty much the exact same way. I have been for as long as I can remember. Due to this and various other ticks, idiosyncrasys, and seemingly inherited strangeness and similarities with my parents, I'm pretty sure I have autism to some degree. The way movies and TV shows make it seem is overrated. Sure, I'm decent at calculus, but that is worthless when I'm getting chewed out by my boss because I made some customer unhappy for who knows what. I try my best to interact with people, but it is always like there is this secret code of communication that lets everyone else be in on the joke but me, and everyone else is furious as to why I don't get it.


As for why it is people fight on the internet despite not enjoying doing so, I have two theories.

First, there is the dominance theory. Essentially it is theorized that arguing developed not as a tactic to come to a resolution, but as a method to exert dominance over other people. Often times, the winner of an argument isn't even right; they're just more capable of putting things together and putting down the opposition. It's interesting to view dysfunctional marriages in this light, because it translates to being a large power struggle instead of who does the dishes.

But back to the topic, this strive for dominance didn't go away when the internet was invented. Instead, it is magnified due to the lack of empathy. The person you are fighting the top dog spot with ceased being a person altogether, and so because of this the stops are pulled out. And you never want to back down, because admitting defeat isn't just saying you were wrong about wonder woman's cup size. "Losing" is a profound statement about the quality of your very existence, and this quality resonates within the online community. The community looks down upon the loser and looks up to the winner, making the loser's experience that much more unpleasant in that forum. I remember once having an argument with someone that lasted nearly three months! We didn't back down... nay, we couldn't back down because the stakes were too high.


Second theory is based about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Much like how tilling the land for food is unpleasant, arguing online fulfills a need. This isn't just dominance like above; it is attributed to one's needs for esteem and belonging. It justifies, identifies, and solidifies one's existence, provides competition and meaning to various facets about one's life. Without it, the opinions that one holds lack meaning. Someone being right, in order to have necessary and fulfilling value to any individual, needs to complete the dichotomy with someone else being wrong. And so, in the very same manner that you put food on the table, you feed your ego by making someone else be wrong. The absence of empathy due to the lack of face-time makes it easier to steal the metaphorical food right off of someone else's table.

EDIT: the second theory both compliments and contrasts the first one in different ways. The way it contrasts is that, according to the needs model, it is actually important to an individual that they be correct, and so they will often honestly seek out the answers. For the dominance model, this isn't actually important. As for which one is correct, well, I have both had arguments where I didn't bother to seek out the truth, and ones where I did. I have seen people claim to seek out truth when they obviously aren't, and I have seen people claim to seek out the truth when they just might have done so.

Many years ago I came under the impression that everyone is lying to me when they talk to me directly, so it is hard to see what is sincere and what isn't.

^Don't do that. You'll destroy the universe.

Honestly, I find myself in a similar situation. Forums seem to bring out something in me.

I feel particularly compelled to post in reply to things I specifically disagree with, because I have some sense of wanting to make sure that, since the forums are the major "direct line" to the Devs, that "my side" is also represented.

I probably have at least 1 or 2 posts a day that I spend anywhere from a few minutes to even an hour typing it out only to stop, think about it, and just hit cancel, because I come to the conclusion that it simply wasn't worth all that to begin with.

@Oathbound & @Oathbound Too