Deep Discussions Are Valuable

[Rudometkin]

I have noticed in my experience, lately we as a community in general favor shallow discussion and discourage deep discussion. However, I think that is not good for Vintage Story. I think Vintage Story will be better off if we instead value deep discussion when it happens to arise. Surely, Vintage Story itself is a result of deep discussion between the developers.

When I am thorough, coherent, and relevant (with proper grammar and fair spacing) in my replies to some other members, I am told "noone is reading what I post" on the basis that I am "writing too much", and I get criticized for "having a response to everything". (This is precisely the part where in my experience, the general community discourages deep discussion. I often get told by a variety of people that they are not appreciating my posts, and I am concluding based off of the reasons they have provided that it is precisely because my messages are deep, thorough, and exhaustive). It even gets to the point where I am begged to not defend basic principles, such as the meanings of our words when we speak, and whether someone is right or wrong.

(Even worse, when I defended these principles, it was said to be a threat to "valuable comments". When reinforcing 'healthy principles' is regarded as a 'threat', we know we have messed up somewhere as a community.)

These principles are crucial to the value our community brings, and are always important and worthy of addressing no matter what the topic of discussion is. Otherwise, if words don't have meanings, and it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, then this forum would be an irrational cluster of meaninglessness.

I perceive on one hand, if we are not thorough in our replies, then we get attacked for dismissing "valuable points" and not listening. On the other hand, if we are thorough, then we get attacked for ranting about pointlessness - well, what happened to "valuable points"? Are we considering points to be "worthy of discussion" arbitrarily, only when it is convenient to us?

And I want to put a spotlight on @Enjen for openly encouraging deep discussion and giving the deeper posts justice by reading them thoroughly, as fair members of our community generally should.

I encourage everyone to not discourage deep discussion as some of us have been, because it is more fundamental and healthy than you might think. In fact, we could all generally benefit from reading more. Let's stop acting like a bunch of cave-dwelling drifters and appreciate when each other are logical.  

Thanks,

Love you all, Vintage Story Community!

Edited July 3, 2025 by Rudometkin
Refinement

[Tom Cantine]

On The Official Public Server, someone created a separate chat channel specifically for the sorts of profound conversations that some folks don't like for whatever reason. It's an open group, so you don't need to be invited. Just type /group join PhiloCircle 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

I don't mind a deep discussion around the lore and game mechanics as long as it stays on topic and doesn't delve into idle speculation posing as fact.

[Thorfinn]

2 minutes ago, traugdor said:

I don't mind a deep discussion around the lore and game mechanics as long as it stays on topic and doesn't delve into idle speculation posing as fact.

I don't even mind if it wanders all over the place, though that does make it a bit hard to follow. But facts are categorically different than opinions, and, you know you have your hot-button issues, @Rudometkin? That mine.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

7 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

I don't even mind if it wanders all over the place, though that does make it a bit hard to follow.

OH sure, it can be fun to speculate as long as everyone else is clear that it's just speculation and not "this is how the game works, trust me" kind of thing. Even worse when someone tries to argue with your speculation because they misunderstood it as you stating facts. Maddening!

[Steel General]

On 7/2/2025 at 10:39 AM, Rudometkin said:

I have noticed in my experience, lately we as a community in general favor shallow discussion and discourage deep discussion.

False - deep discussion is not discouraged by the community. Shallow discussions are easy, and so are plentiful. Deep discussions tend to make people keenly aware of the limits of their knowledge and ability, and most doubt the quality of their own speculation, so the deepest of discussions tend to bottom out relatively quickly. The only discouragement in this is individual choices to not blindly dig. It can still happen - the key is to add value to the discussion; most people drop out when they doubt they are adding value, but they would happily read text of any length if the average value remains high. Someone who adds lots of text without adding value is, to say the least, inconsiderate of the community's attention, and they are quite likely to get skimmed more than read.

On 7/2/2025 at 10:39 AM, Rudometkin said:

It even gets to the point where I am begged to not defend basic principles, such as the meanings of our words when we speak, and whether someone is right or wrong.

Meaning depends on context, and one of the easiest bad-faith rhetorical tactics is to neglect just the right context to result in a meaning that is easily dismissed. When some statements are considered wrong and others right solely because part of the context is deemed irrelevant while other parts are deemed supremely relevant, the conversation withers quickly: no one is obliged to engage bad faith with good faith. When the desire to be right drives one to rhetoric it is virtually guaranteed that no further value can be added to the conversation.

This is not to equivocate right and wrong, nor to prevaricate meanings. General Intelligence is the ability to identify which context matters, to result in the meaning that best aids understanding and prediction - being 'right'. It is a mistake to imagine this is effortless, or to presume everyone will get the same results on the first try. It is a mistake to presume ones own initial apprehension reflects truth... though it might, so don't presume it doesn't, either.

On 7/2/2025 at 10:39 AM, Rudometkin said:

When reinforcing 'healthy principles' is regarded as a 'threat', we know we have messed up somewhere as a community.

False: principles are personal choices. To try to enforce them upon the community is a short, Puritanical path to evil. For the community to enforce them on individuals is a short path to witch trials. Diversity of principles, and in the values the principles attempt to actualize, is a good thing in society and in discussion. It is important, though, to recognize that ones own values are not universal, no matter how 'obvious' they seem.

On 7/2/2025 at 10:39 AM, Rudometkin said:

I perceive on one hand, if we are not thorough in our replies, then we get attacked for dismissing "valuable points" and not listening. On the other hand, if we are thorough, then we get attacked for ranting about pointlessness - well, what happened to "valuable points"? Are we considering points to be "worthy of discussion" arbitrarily, only when it is convenient to us?

If your reply neglects relevant context, or if the reply goes on at length without adding enough value to justify the length, you'll get dispute instead of acclaim. If, instead of responding to your points, people discuss your approach to conversation, that is not an attack, it is criticism, and you should not imagine it is sign of a degenerate community. Rather, you should examine your approach to conversation.

Adding value to a discussion is not just a matter of being right, nor of making good points: one must demonstrate (not elucidate) cognitive strategies that let other participants feel they are more prepared for the next discussion, of whatever subject. If you demonstrate strategies that make them feel discussion is a pointless endeavor, that takes value out of the discussion, no matter how right or well-appointed the meaning those strategies conveyed.

Good-faith discussion means that when a person expresses themselves one should respond to what they meant to express, not pounce on their expression for every possible misinterpretation it could have conveyed, much less to pick a misinterpretation and pretend like it's their intended meaning. That ends otherwise good discussions, transforming them into twisted caricatures of discussion that waste everyone's attention.

[Rudometkin]

"I have noticed in my experience, lately we as a community in general favor shallow discussion and discourage deep discussion."

40 minutes ago, Steel General said:

False

No you do not have the insight to know whether that is my experience.

Whether it is the objective community attitude is not my claim. That is why I prefaced my claim with "in my experience". You are replying "false" to my claim, which is concerning what my experience is.

It is true that I have noticed in my experience, lately we as a community in general favor shallow discussion and discourage deep discussion.

Edited July 3, 2025 by Rudometkin

[Rudometkin]

1 hour ago, Steel General said:

False: principles are personal choices. To try to enforce them upon the community is a short, Puritanical path to evil. 

When the context is "community standards", healthy principles are "truth" and "meaning".

You are putting into question whether truth and meaningful communication is essential to a healthy community. This is a fatal flaw in your argument, as these are fundamental principles of civilized humanity.

In fact, in your objection to me, you are trying to refute me, a part of the community, by enforcing the principles of "truth" and "meaning" that you think coincide with your viewpoint. You are especially trying to enforce them on me by telling me, "you should examine your approach to conversation" on the basis that your point is true and meaningful.

Therefore, by your own standards, you are on the path to a "short, puritanical path to evil".

It took me about 30 seconds to see that fatal flaw in your argument. I encourage you to think deeply about it. I have already spent years reflecting and refining my own worldview, being my own harshest critic on the fundamental principles I adhere to. And it's not merely about me trying to be the "right" one in a forum. I was led to this viewpoint by years of experience, consideration, being open to being wrong, open to changing, refining my thoughts, and by being my own harshest critic. It's about fighting for what is true, healthy, accurate and fair. And if that makes me appear like an arrogant narcissist like others have claimed, then that is the cost I am willing to pay.

You seem to have a rather intellectual grasp with vocabulary. I expect you to appreciate this post in the name of coherence, truth and meaning, and maybe we can be friends.  

Edited July 3, 2025 by Rudometkin
Refinement

[Enjen]

34 minutes ago, Steel General said:

Deep discussions tend to make people keenly aware of the limits of their knowledge and ability, and most doubt the quality of their own speculation, so the deepest of discussions tend to bottom out relatively quickly. The only discouragement in this is individual choices to not blindly dig.

If this is the case then I can see only two options for the individual who doesn't want to blindly dig: Express their limit on the topic or choose not to engage, whether that's done silently or stated openly. It's okay to have a position and back track later on.

At least for me, my qualm was when an idea was presented and critiqued, the critique was met with rebuttal and the rebuttal was not met with the same decorum. So, while not necessarily aligning with OP's statement of "Deep Discussions are not as favored as shallow discussion" (Because there were many long replies from participants), I think there is a lack of wanting to consider new ideas, as it pertains to adding features to the game. In my opinion entertaining such ideas should be encouraged! or if not agreeable for yourself, tweak it, edit it, and help the idea evolve. Engage in debate of why should it vs why shouldn't it and collaborate.
 

I digress. please carry on

[Thorfinn]

1 hour ago, Enjen said:

At least for me, my qualm was when an idea was presented and critiqued, the critique was met with rebuttal and the rebuttal was not met with the same decorum.

Let's just leave it as I did not perceive it as you did.

 

1 hour ago, Enjen said:

I think there is a lack of wanting to consider new ideas, as it pertains to adding features to the game. I

From my point of view, quite the opposite is true. Look at the mod page. There are a couple hundred that have been updated to 1.20.12 alone, and that's not counting the fact that there are mods that have not been updated since they written for 1.13, and they still work. Yes, they are mostly rebalancing or tweak mods, but each of those represents not just considering new ideas, but more importantly,  implementing them.

[EDIT]

Rather than just jawbone an idea, it's almost always better to go see the actual thing, and see if your idea works as well in practice as it did in theory. A lot of stuff sounds great on paper, but turns out not so much.

In less time and a whole lot less acrimony, those with strong opinions could have tried out the existing implementations and said, "Hey, this would be a great addition to the game as is" or "This is close, but it needs this thing different." Prevents a lot of misunderstandings if the idea is clearly defined and doesn't morph like molasses all the time.

Edited July 3, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Enjen]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

In less time and a whole lot less acrimony, those with strong opinions could have tried out the existing implementations and said, "Hey, this would be a great addition to the game as is" or "This is close, but it needs this thing different." Prevents a lot of misunderstandings if the idea is clearly defined and doesn't morph like molasses all the time.

I can agree with that. It's much easier to consider a proposal if you've got a prototype. Why have the discussion prematurely if you can talk about it after it's been demonstrated. One thing I'd say to counter that is to incite the creation of the mod in the first place. If someone says an idea and gets shot down (exaggerated. More like "That'd make a better mod than a feature") instead of engaging with it and building and expanding upon it, I can't imagine anyone feeling inspired enough to create a mod. Of course this is my opinion.

I think ideas like, add Super Mario or a Star Fox Arwing to the base game should just strictly be mods. BUT by engaging in suggestions such as those, could create ideas for Future implementations like Blue Overalls as a new clothing item. Or Flying Machines way later in development and the conversations can continue to evolve from there. Perhaps someone gets inspired by all the talk and actually develops a mod for it, or however it'll transpire. I'm speaking purely optimistically but you get the idea.

Edited July 3, 2025 by Enjen

[Teh Pizza Lady]

8 hours ago, Steel General said:

Good-faith discussion means that when a person expresses themselves one should respond to what they meant to express, not pounce on their expression for every possible misinterpretation it could have conveyed, much less to pick a misinterpretation and pretend like it's their intended meaning. That ends otherwise good discussions, transforming them into twisted caricatures of discussion that waste everyone's attention.

The point of communication is to convey an idea. If you know what I mean and choose to correct what I said, then you are intentionally engaging in pedantry. It's like if I were to mispel a word. You know what it means, but if your only contribution to the discussion is to corect the speling, then you have aded nothing of valyou.

[Tom Cantine]

1 hour ago, traugdor said:

mispel

Oh, you did that on purpose, didn't you?

[Teh Pizza Lady]

On 7/4/2025 at 12:40 AM, Tom Cantine said:

Oh, you did that on purpose, didn't you?

mebbe

[idiomcritter]

much like the adage, many hands lighten the work (or could)

I find often depth is something that very much also occurs from the building by many upon a seed idea.  (one line at a time?)

much like this thread at this point, the depth wasn't really with the first post.... to me

[Steel General]

On 7/3/2025 at 1:23 PM, Rudometkin said:

No you do not have the insight to know whether that is my experience.

The meaning of your experience is determined by the context you bring to the interpretation of it - this is where biases rear ugly heads and can most certainly lead to falsity. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that your experience is based in objective reality, but I have every reason to expect your interpretation of your experience to favor your prior conclusions.

Some people's interpretation of their experience of a solar eclipse was that a dragon ate the sun and spat it back out. Other people, upon hearing them exclaim "I saw a dragon eat the sun!" are entirely justified in saying "False."

In this case, we agree that deep discussions are much less frequent than shallow discussions - why that should be so is not really a part of either of our direct experiences, so identifying the cause must depend on interpretations of experience.

On 7/3/2025 at 1:35 PM, Rudometkin said:

When the context is "community standards", healthy principles are "truth" and "meaning".

Meaning is not a principle, it is the foundational habit of thought from which sapience arises. There is no avoiding it.

I sound so clever when I deliberately neglect the context necessary for me to make a clever point, but it was bad for the discussion. To be charitable about interpreting your statement I have to recognize the greater context in which that sentence occurred: by 'meaning', you are referring specifically to establishing a common meaning for words and phrases, which most certainly is a principle of clear communication. It's a pretty good one too, when it's well-applied. However, key to applying it well is recognizing that meaning, even of words and phrases, varies with context, and there is no reason to imagine the meaning one ascribes a word is fundamentally more 'right' than that which another would ascribe it. Establishing common meanings is a tool to be engaged mutually; asserting meaning and demanding adoption is a weapon for rhetorical abuse.

Of course, weapons are tools too, and just because they're collected doesn't mean they're used for violence - a rhetorical crossbow makes a fine pointer, as long as everyone's reaction to its use doesn't preclude giving their attention to that at which it's pointed, rather than the way it gets pointed.

On 7/3/2025 at 1:35 PM, Rudometkin said:

You are putting into question whether truth and meaningful communication is essential to a healthy community. This is a fatal flaw in your argument, as these are fundamental principles of civilized humanity.

This is tautological: 'healthy' and 'civilized' are, in this context, just synonyms of 'good', which is to say that they promote and express your values (truth and meaningful communication). There are civilizations that do not value these things for their own sake (though they may make use of them in certain settings), and while we might well regard them as unhealthy or uncivil, objectively they succeed at perpetuating their civilizations through generations in competition with our civilization. There is no cause to imagine our values are objectively necessary to 'health'.

That said, within the scope of our community, those are certainly good things (maybe not essential). However, for any person to present themselves as an objective arbiter of truth and meaning is bad for the community (certainly not ruinous). For example, the phrase "uncompromising game" has a vague meaning that is marginally useful to this community's discussions; it can be useful to an argument to establish a very specific meaning to that phrase, and it's not necessarily a deal-breaker if that specific meaning diverges significantly from the sense in which the community uses it, but to then assert this was the only meaning the words should ever have had is quite unreasonable. Maybe the community could benefit from a more specific meaning to that phrase, but to insist that everyone adopt the one that's useful to a specific argument is... specious.

On 7/3/2025 at 1:35 PM, Rudometkin said:

Therefore, by your own standards, you are on the path to a "short, puritanical path to evil".

Use of principles is not equivalent to enforcing them upon the community. Trying to get you to not enforce your principles upon the community is not the same as enforcing my principles upon the community. Setting aside the Paradox of Intolerance, you are not the community, and I'm not enforcing: I am trying to get you reevaluate your principles in a greater context, not presuming you to be unprincipled and offering the light of my wisdom to fill that void.

On 7/3/2025 at 1:35 PM, Rudometkin said:

It took me about 30 seconds to see that fatal flaw in your argument.

You find what you seek, and you seek to dismiss, but in choosing what you seek you neglect that part of the context which isn't useful, and so full meaning eludes. I've seen such 'useful' negligence in many of your dismissals. Easy outs do not serve the discussion, though I'm sure there's comfort in your rhetorically fortified position - just because someone presents their argument right in front of your murder-hole does not make the crossbow the best tool for engagement.

[Facethief]

11 minutes ago, Khornet said:

Tyron doesn't take any feedback - he does what he wants and exclusively what he wants.

Hey, @Tyron, can we get a fact check here?

[Echo Weaver]

Generic game forum justification for bad behavior #1: "We're just expressing an opinion. Nobody can handle negative options. Everyone here is just a shill/sycophant." The same, almost word-for-word, whenever a thread gets toxic, no matter the ratio of negative to positive comments on the thread, usually by the individuals being the rudest and most insulting.

Generic justification #2: "It's all a money grab."

I'm curious -- what IS wolf bait supposed to signify. I kind of figured it was a teasing, "You are a noob" reaction, but I'm not sure.

[Tyron]

10 minutes ago, Facethief said:

Hey, @Tyron, can we get a fact check here?

Fact checked. Said user does not belong on this forum with this kind of language. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

3 minutes ago, Echo Weaver said:

Generic game forum justification for bad behavior #1: "We're just expressing an opinion. Nobody can handle negative options. Everyone here is just a shill/sycophant." The same, almost word-for-word, whenever a thread gets toxic, no matter the ratio of negative to positive comments on the thread, usually by the individuals being the rudest and most insulting.

Generic justification #2: "It's all a money grab."

I'm curious -- what IS wolf bait supposed to signify. I kind of figured it was a teasing, "You are a noob" reaction, but I'm not sure.

It can signify many things including "this is bait" or "you're trolling", but it can also be used to indicate that something was funny like if you did a noob thing in the game like dying to wolves repeatedly... I've seen in influx of users using it to indicate that they disagree with someone without coming right out and saying what it is they disagree with or why.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

15 minutes ago, Facethief said:

Hey, @Tyron, can we get a fact check here?

Didn't Tyron patch sailboats after this guy made an incredibly long thread about how they don't work???

[Rudometkin]

Meaning and Truth:

5 hours ago, Steel General said:

...within the scope of our community, those are certainly good things...

Thank you for helping to prove my point, bud!

[Thorfinn]

5 hours ago, traugdor said:

Didn't Tyron patch sailboats after this guy made an incredibly long thread about how they don't work???

True. Sailboats and story travel distance. So it's not exactly uncompromising...

[Rudometkin]

1 minute ago, Thorfinn said:

True. Sailboats and story travel distance. So it's not exactly uncompromising...

One of my favorite things about Vintage Story is that it offers customizable difficulty options. It can't be said to be only uncompromising therefore!

[Rudometkin]

On 7/3/2025 at 1:46 PM, Steel General said:

...ones own values are not universal, no matter how 'obvious' they seem.

Is this in itself universal?

---

You say meaning isn't a principle, but it is. Regardless, it is a value.

A value you say is unavoidable. How would this not be universal? And how do you define universal?

Edited July 9, 2025 by Rudometkin
Refinement