Board Thread:Debate of The Week/@comment-28112409-20171002232846/@comment-28112409-20171105095547

ProfessorArceus wrote: Being a minority doesn't invalidate my point. I know you didn't mean it, but pointing out that I was minority implied it. I'm often a minority because I'm a critic. I help communities through - what I hope is - constructive criticism. I'm often that 'one guy' who complains about everything. But I don't see a problem, unless I am talking nonsense. Sometimes people just look over a flaw because they're lazy, or unsure if it is a flaw. But if it passes you, why not point it out? If they fix it, you've helped. If not, you haven't harmed anything. Being a minority means nothing.

I'll take a look at that part of the debate. Being in the minority formed of just one person DOES invalidate your point, because as I see it, it seems like a you problem more than a general problem. You haven't convinced me that it is an actual problem that a good portion of debaters suffer from, all I see is you complaining about something that doesn't suit you or you can't handle effectively.

It is true that minority doesn't mean being wrong, but I perceived what you said as just one person having a problem with something that no one else has faced an issue with. Maybe no one else has seen this and there's actually a lot more suffering than what is actually visible, but people have argued about "swingy roles" before and nothing much went wrong.

In the end of the day, this activity is not as high up in level of professionalism as some would think. Doc vs. BG was a horrible debate topic that was supposedly one-sided according to some BG members including you, but the difference in numbers wasn't massive, BG's points weren't impressive at all, Team BG didn't dominate the debate, none of what was expected of a "one-sided" debate happened. Team BG regurgitated their points more than any other Team in DoTW's history, leading to their performance being much more underwhelming than expected and implied.

If this debate was made in the forums where the experts, pros, and veterans of the game dwell more than in the wiki, Team Doc wouldn't have stood a chance. It took place in the wiki however, and the debate had fair grounds and fair results. You need to remember that this is not the forums, we don't have seasoned, dedicated, amazingly experienced players going on for a debate here. Your criticism can become subjective and biased from your view if you start talking about aspects that are too advanced or too unimportant for the community here, and it doesn't suit them either. No one has ever cared about the swinginess of roles so far or even used that term in this wiki's debates, except you.

The entire point of what I'm saying is not bashing you or disregarding your criticism. My point is, swingy role debates are not a problem in this community's debates, and there are things that can and already have been different from your expectations in practical work. You can complain freely all you want, but don't talk about such miniscule issues being real problems, because they aren't. Remember to take a look at how others are handling the problem in question before calling it out, that greatly improves criticism. In the end of the day, debates are an activity made suitable enough for some people of the community in it's standards, they are not made to be perfect for everyone. If only one person complains about something that was never even mentioned as a problem at all, then of course people can perceive that person as a whiner who can't handle such a trivial issue.

One of the important aspects of a debate is being able to handle the difficulties you're given with, a problem graciously reduced by the option of picking a team without number limits or balancing. All this is just theoretical talk though, it is much better to prove this point right or wrong by producing a proper debate about swingy roles and seeing how it goes, if you agree to it of course.