# "Nerd Rage" = Thinly-Veiled Flamebait



## Felon (Apr 16, 2009)

This "nerd rage" term is something I'm beginning to see quite often in the forums, and it always seems to be an ever-so-thinly-veiled insult towards people in another camp of thought. This PDF embroglio has the camp of WotC supporters throwing it out in one thread after another. It seems very disrespectful to dismiss a viewpoint as just being "nerd rage". As I can't see any positive way to use the term, I submit for consideration that categorizing other community members' viewpoints as "nerd rage" be considered inherently inflammatory and be treated as such by the moderators.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 16, 2009)

I think I agree - its only purpose is essentially to denigrate a view opposed to yours (unless someone is characterising themselves as suffering from 'nerd rage', I suppose).

Anyway - report it if you see it, and we'll look into it when it occurs.

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 16, 2009)

Looking into specific posts is okay, but a general "ban" seems inappropriate to me. We haven't restricted "dumbed down" "stupid" and many others words that will usually be used to express something negative and includes a "judgement" by the poster. But that's what we do all the time, right? Expressing our opinions on things? 

I think nerdrage is a pretty neat word, because it describes a certain "phenomena" commonly found online. 

Groups of people upset about minor issues and blowing the topic out of proportion - of course as perceived by the user of the term.


----------



## Dimwhit (Apr 16, 2009)

I think the term "Nerd Rage" is wildly inappropriate and anyone here using it should be embarrassed.

Clearly, we should be using the term "Geek Rage."


----------



## Wayside (Apr 16, 2009)

Dimwhit said:


> I think the term "Nerd Rage" is wildly inappropriate and anyone here using it should be embarrassed.
> 
> Clearly, we should be using the term "Geek Rage."



I prefer Fan Dumb.


----------



## Felon (Apr 18, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Looking into specific posts is okay, but a general "ban" seems inappropriate to me. We haven't restricted "dumbed down" "stupid" and many others words that will usually be used to express something negative and includes a "judgement" by the poster.



Here's the difference. Describing an edition of D&D as "dumbed-down" is a negative reference to the edition. Describing people's reaction as "nerd rage" is denigrating to those people.



> I think nerdrage is a pretty neat word, because it describes a certain "phenomena" commonly found online.
> 
> Groups of people upset about minor issues and blowing the topic out of proportion - of course as perceived by the user of the term.




Overemotional reactions are hardly new to the world. We just have a new word for baiting people who are upset. The fact that they're upset is somehow evidence that they're nerds.


----------



## hong (Apr 18, 2009)

Felon said:


> Here's the difference. Describing an edition of D&D as "dumbed-down" is a negative reference to the edition. Describing people's reaction as "nerd rage" is denigrating to those people.




No, describing people's reaction as nerdrage is a negative reference to the irrationality of their posts.

You know, "rage". Cf ragequit.



> Overemotional reactions are hardly new to the world. We just have a new word for baiting people who are upset. The fact that they're upset is somehow evidence that they're nerds.




No, it's evidence that they're raging. That they are nerds is already a known quantity by virtue of the fact that they're posting about a game where you pretend to be an elf.

You know, like you and I are doing now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 18, 2009)

Felon said:


> Here's the difference. Describing an edition of D&D as "dumbed-down" is a negative reference to the edition. Describing people's reaction as "nerd rage" is denigrating to those people.



And by association, people interested in playing a "dumbed down" game, because apparently they couldn't cope with the "smart" game.



> Overemotional reactions are hardly new to the world. We just have a new word for baiting people who are upset. The fact that they're upset is somehow evidence that they're nerds.




Describing peoples reaction as nerd rage is denigrating their rage, describing it as blowing something out of proportions. It tells. "You/They are way overreacting, as happens often with nerds." (And as hong points out, we are all nerds. Or maybe we're all geeks, and we just misuse the word in this context. The difference between geek and nerd is getting lost these days, I surely can't pinpoint it.)


----------



## Felon (Apr 19, 2009)

hong said:


> No, describing people's reaction as nerdrage is a negative reference to the irrationality of their posts.
> 
> You know, "rage". Cf ragequit.






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Describing peoples reaction as nerd rage is denigrating their rage, describing it as blowing something out of proportions. It tells. "You/They are way overreacting, as happens often with nerds." (And as hong points out, we are all nerds. Or maybe we're all geeks, and we just misuse the word in this context. The difference between geek and nerd is getting lost these days, I surely can't pinpoint it.)




This is just equivocation. "I'm not denigrating a person, just denigrating a person's feelings. I'm not violating any rules by labeling you as stupid, I'm just labeling your point of view as stupid".

Botom line: is it an intentionally inconsiderate term? Yes.

The persons experiencing said nerdrage probably don't see their behavior as irrational, and likely aren't swayed by having others call it nerdrage. And I suspect the person throwing the term out knows perfectly well that he's just waving a red flag.



> And by association, people interested in playing a "dumbed down" game, because apparently they couldn't cope with the "smart" game.



That's a much less direct association. You produce your feelings, other people produced D&D. The implications of calling a game "dumbed-down" is not necessarily calling the people playing it dumb. Case in point: I play 4e, I do feel it's intentionally designed to be dumbed-down, and yet I don't think my group of players is dumb at all.


----------



## hong (Apr 19, 2009)

Felon said:


> This is just equivocation. "I'm not being rude to you, just saying rude things about your opinion. I'm not violating any rules by labeling you as stupid, I'm just labeling your point of view".
> 
> Rude is rude. The person(s) experiencing said nerdrage probably don't see their behavior as irrational, and likely aren't swayed by having others call it nerdrage. More likely, it's just baiting them.




Quite possibly. In which case, it would be just the same as "dumbing down". Or "videogamey". Or "rollplaying not roleplaying". Or....



> That's a much less direct association. You produce your feelings, other people produced D&D. The implications of called a game "dumbed-down" is not necessarily calling the people playing it dumb. Case in point: I play 4e, I do feel it's dumbed-down quite a bit, and yet I don't think my group of players is dumb at all.




"I'm not being rude to you, just saying rude things about what you like" does not seem that far removed from the above. And if you don't feel insulted by it, there's no reason you should be insulted by nerd rage either; they're both similarly distanced.


----------



## Felon (Apr 20, 2009)

hong said:


> Quite possibly. In which case, it would be just the same as "dumbing down". Or "videogamey". Or "rollplaying not roleplaying". Or....
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm not being rude to you, just saying rude things about what you like" does not seem that far removed from the above. And if you don't feel insulted by it, there's no reason you should be insulted by nerd rage either; they're both similarly distanced.



No, they are not similary distanced. I can be derisive towards General Motors without any inherent derision towards people who drive a GM. I could even belittle a specific model of car without any inherent disdain towards those who drive that model. 

Of course, it's possible to couch such derision so that there's explicit or implicit derision towards GM owners. It's also possible that some people are so fond of the GM brand that they regard any derision towards the brand as a personal attack. Similar scenarios exist for brands of video game consoles, sports teams, alma maters--you name it. There's a middle ground where the speaker has some onus to be considerate of people who are passionate about the subject, and the listener likewise has some onus to separate his identity from a subject that actually has no inherent connection to him. 

However, feelings and opinions are integral to a person, and there's not much middle ground therein. To belittle them is to belittle the person possessing them.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2009)

Felon said:


> No, they are not similary distanced. I can be derisive towards General Motors without any inherent derision towards people who drive a GM. I could even belittle a specific model of car without any inherent disdain towards those who drive that model.




The fact that you are on a board where ppl can nerdrage about some pdfs being withdrawn should point you to the flaw in that analogy.


----------



## Felon (Apr 20, 2009)

hong said:


> The fact that you are on a board where ppl can nerdrage about some pdfs being withdrawn should point you to the flaw in that analogy.



There might be a flaw if the paragraph you quoted was the only one issued, but the ones following it actually do address the distinction between a slight that's explicit and a slight that's the result of not being able to separate your personage from things that are peripheral to it.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2009)

Felon said:


> There might be a flaw if the paragraph you quoted was the only one issued, but the ones following it actually do address the distinction between a slight that's explicit and a slight that's the result of not being able to separate your personage from things that are peripheral to it.



There is no difference. You are not your opinion. Calling your opinion wrong, or your reasoning process invalid, does not constitute a personal attack. It might be undiplomatic or disrespectful, but there is no blanket ban on undiplomatic or disrespectful language, if only because defining this would be problematic.


----------



## Felon (Apr 20, 2009)

hong said:


> There is no difference. You are not your opinion. Calling your opinion wrong, or your reasoning process invalid, does not constitute a personal attack. It might be undiplomatic or disrespectful, but there is no blanket ban on undiplomatic or disrespectful language, if only because defining this would be problematic.



"Wrong" and "invalid" are not slurs intended to inflame. "Nerdrage" is. I can definitely think of plenty of words that would get you banned in a heartbeat, and they don't have to be part of a formal blanket ban list.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 20, 2009)

hong said:


> ...but there is no blanket ban on undiplomatic or disrespectful language, if only because defining this would be problematic.




But, on the other hand, much of what we have to moderate is, in fact, people being disrespectful and/or undiplomatic.  

The difference between something being derisive or not is a matter of degree and context.  I would be hard pressed to imagine a use of "nerdrage" to describe the behavior of another poster such that it was not either derisive or dismissive and personal.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 20, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But, on the other hand, much of what we have to moderate is, in fact, people being disrespectful and/or undiplomatic.
> 
> The difference between something being derisive or not is a matter of degree and context.  I would be hard pressed to imagine a use of "nerdrage" to describe the behavior of another poster such that it was not either derisive or dismissive and personal.




Dumbed Down, Rollplaying or Nerdrage are all typically used or can be easily understood as insulting. 

If someone feels insulted, and insulted enough to call on the mods, it needs to be dealt with. 

No need to ban any words for it. 

"I've tried to get into chess, but it's a little to complex for my tastes and parties seem to take too long. Is there some kind of "dumbed down" game I could play instead on the board?"
"Sure, you could try checkers."

"I played chess a lot, but I eventually found that checkers is way faster and more fun."
"Basically, Checkers is a dumbed down version of chess."

"I feel nerdrage building up in me about people restricting my vocubulary. I try to be constructive, but... Arrgh. Someone feels the same way? "

"I love roll-playing. Really, if I don't get to roll the dice, what's the point of having mechanics and a character sheet? "


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 21, 2009)

Give me a way of concisely expressing my distaste for overly emotional exaggerated reactions to WOTC actions.  I don't care if the term is nerd rage or something else.  But I should be able to, along with others, use relatively polite but clear and firm written public peer pressure to try and persuade people to stop behaving like drama queens every time someone at WOTC does something different from what they did the day before.


----------



## Mark (Apr 22, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> drama queens





Yup.  That helps things along.  Well done.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 22, 2009)

Mark said:


> Yup.  That helps things along.  Well done.




I am not dismissing any group of people as drama queens.

However, I am saying SOME individuals have reacted as drama queens, and I think it's disingenuous to deny that.  And, I am saying there should be some relatively POLITE means of exerting peer pressure on those folks to try and tone it down, aside from the mods.

The phrase "Nerd Rage" was one means of doing that, but if folks think it was not polite enough sometimes, then fair enough.  I'm just saying, leave some reasonable means of applying that peer pressure in an effective yet polite manner.  

The community should not all have to sink to the lowest common denominator to completely accept and tolerate a couple of individuals who overreact to news in such an egregious manner that it distracts whole threads into a spiral of arguments.  On some level, the community should be able to react in a relatively polite manner to try and discourage that sort of stuff, aside from moderators, through normal communal peer pressure.  

A little playful and relatively polite teasing to demonstrate that perhaps someone is overreacting a bit can go a long way to helping with that sort of stuff.  It can sometimes function better than a moderator intervening and leaving someone feeling even more isolated and likely to express a sense of unfairness towards the moderators.


----------



## Mark (Apr 22, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I am not dismissing any group of people as drama queens.
> 
> However, I am saying SOME individuals have reacted as drama queens (. . .)





You'd better hope not.  You'd have to give up your tierra. 


Did I do that right, Sweetheart?


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I am not dismissing any group of people as drama queens.
> 
> However, I am saying SOME individuals have reacted as drama queens, and I think it's disingenuous to deny that.  And, I am saying there should be some relatively POLITE means of exerting peer pressure on those folks to try and tone it down, aside from the mods.




Why? Just try not to get bent out of shape.


----------



## Arnwyn (Apr 23, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Why? Just try not to get bent out of shape.



Agreed. There may be some irony in this thread...

Pretty much, if you feel the need to get bent out of shape ("politely" or otherwise) about other people getting bent out of shape, then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2009)

Where's the bent out of shape? Unless you think complaining about the term "nerd rage" was itself getting bent out of shape?

The board is having trouble right now.  The edition wars have not gone away, and a lot of people say they just don't like the atmosphere around here anymore because of it.  And yeah, I can back up that "a lot of people".  Check out all the threads on CircvsMaximvs of people leaving because they just don't have the time to filter through all the noise.

The mods can only do so much.  If a few individuals are a common source of the negative atmosphere due to frequent overreaction, but they are not technically breaking the rules, shouldn't peer pressure be an acceptable means of dealing with them?

The peer pressure isn't out of some extreme exaggerated emotion.  Nor am I saying it should be done right away, or always.  I just think it should be allowed sometimes when it is appropriate, because it can be helpful.


----------



## Mark (Apr 24, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Where's the bent out of shape? Unless you think complaining about the term "nerd rage" was itself getting bent out of shape?
> 
> The board is having trouble right now.  The edition wars have not gone away, and a lot of people say they just don't like the atmosphere around here anymore because of it.





Dude.  Relax.  It's not worth getting all worked up over this.  Take a deep breath.

If the moderators feel a particular word is a source of trouble they can certainly decide to remove it from those allowable on these boards, just like they outlawed the rolly-eyes smiley.  Whatever makes their jobs easier.

And your idea of sanctioning vigilantism seems like it would cause even more cliquishness and problems for moderators.  That's just silly and a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2009)

Mark said:


> You'd better hope not.  You'd have to give up your tierra.
> 
> 
> Did I do that right, Sweetheart?



Utterly uncalled for - AND you spelled tiara wrong.

Please either contribute, or find something else you're interested in. Insults, from anyone, aren't okay.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 24, 2009)

Mark said:


> Dude.  Relax.  It's not worth getting all worked up over this.  Take a deep breath.




I am not all worked up about it, and I am relaxed.  If there is anything in what I have written that implies I am frantic over this issue, please quote it.  We're just talking here.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 24, 2009)

Enough.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 25, 2009)

For what is worth, I also strongly dislike the term "nerd rage". As the OP stated it's quite simply a derogatory term for those who disagree with something that the user is fine with.


----------



## jdrakeh (Apr 26, 2009)

The term "nerd rage" is, IMHO, far _less_ offensive than overt put-downs such as "videogamey," "roll-playing," et al. Before we worry about making the term "nerd rage" verboten, we probably need to take a look at more caustic, overt, insults.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Apr 26, 2009)

I'm fine with nerd rage as a term. It works just fine, and alone doesn't rise to flame baiting status.

Still, the use of "nerd rage" examined in certain tone and context I have seen easily rises to inappropriate flame baiting.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 26, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> The term "nerd rage" is, IMHO, far _less_ offensive than overt put-downs such as "videogamey," "roll-playing," et al. Before we worry about making the term "nerd rage" verboten, we probably need to take a look at more caustic, overt, insults.






Eric Anondson said:


> I'm fine with nerd rage as a term. It works just fine, and alone doesn't rise to flame baiting status.
> 
> Still, the use of "nerd rage" examined in certain tone and context I have seen easily rises to inappropriate flame baiting.




+1 on both of these.

There are, frankly, far more offensive terms bandied about on a regular basis, and the use of those terms is judged case by case.

If we want "nerd rage" to be a flag that says, "Hey, mods, take a closer look," that's fine. But I think preemptive banning of said phrase is not only inappropriate, but should frankly be far lower down the priority list than many other common idioms.


----------



## baphomet68 (Apr 26, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> Give me a way of concisely expressing my distaste for overly emotional exaggerated reactions to WOTC actions.  I don't care if the term is nerd rage or something else.  But I should be able to, along with others, use relatively polite but clear and firm written public peer pressure to try and persuade people to stop behaving like drama queens every time someone at WOTC does something different from what they did the day before.




 Isnt the point of these type of forums to allow an outlet for that type of drama? To enjoy finding others who reinforce our personal preferences, and lock horns with "the other side" ? It seems childish to take "nerd rage" as a serious inflammatory slight. Baiting people is an effective means of hiding a weak argument, and most of us can do it without resorting to popular phrases. But Nerd Rage as a serious inflammatory term? Come on! I mean really, folks, if for no other reason than that I post on a PNP RPG forum, Every time I rage it is by nature Nerd Rage! Cruelty, meanness, or deliberate stomping on feelings is lame and worthy of censorship. 
     I do not think that "Nerd Rage" is  inherently inflammatory. It has a place in reasonable, respectful conversation.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 27, 2009)

"Nerd rage" doesn't particularly bother me, and I don't think we're going to ban it. Mind you, it can be used as a directed insult - "It's fun watching you overreact. Look at your nerd rage!" - and we have no patience for that sort of thing. But overall, don't expect it to disappear.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 27, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> The term "nerd rage" is, IMHO, far _less_ offensive than overt put-downs such as "videogamey," "roll-playing," et al. Before we worry about making the term "nerd rage" verboten, we probably need to take a look at more caustic, overt, insults.



Well, to be fair, it's not like that I like any of those terms...


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 27, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> But overall, don't expect it to disappear.



Too bad...


----------



## darjr (Apr 28, 2009)

Hmmm...

Just a point of fact, I put that term in my post, in part, because of my own issues with WotC's decision.

Context. I was not very happy about them pulling the PDF's either. I was as much describing my own actions as the general response of others.

The term nerd is not derisive to me, I realized, after a clue by four, that it could be taken as such, and changed the post.

I do also happen to think that many went WAY overboard on this topic.


----------



## Rechan (May 14, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But, on the other hand, much of what we have to moderate is, in fact, people being disrespectful and/or undiplomatic.
> 
> The difference between something being derisive or not is a matter of degree and context.  I would be hard pressed to imagine a use of "nerdrage" to describe the behavior of another poster such that it was not either derisive or dismissive and personal.



So, how exactly are we supposed to criticise a point of view or opinion if the very act of criticizing a point of view or opinion is derisive or undiplomatic? 

And quite frankly, I do think that some views _should_ receive derision. An attitude of "all viewpoints are equal and should be respected" is all well and good - until someone comes along and says, "The earth is flat," with complete conviction.


----------



## Dyson Logos (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> until someone comes along and says, "The earth is flat," with complete conviction.




But.

But...


ARGH.


(the earth IS flat)


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So, how exactly are we supposed to criticise a point of view or opinion if the very act of criticizing a point of view or opinion is derisive or undiplomatic?




True critique and critical analysis can be done without being derisive or undiplomatic.  Many folks simply fail to put in the small amount of extra work required.



> And quite frankly, I do think that some views _should_ receive derision.




Whether or not a view "deserves" it is not material.  Derision is simply a lousy tool for these environs.

You see, derision is an emotional tactic, an implicit assertion of authority - intimidation, bullying.  Derision basically says, "I am more important than you, so I will make you _feel bad_, and you will stop saying such things."  

On the internet, it is very difficult to intimidate someone into shutting up.  If the target does not recognize your authority, you fail, and typically polarize the conflict further, rather than resolve it.  It turns a rational discussion into a contest of egos.

So, not only is it a weak rhetorical tactic in general, but it tends to make arguments worse.


----------



## Mark (May 15, 2009)

Umbran said:


> On the internet, it is very difficult to intimidate someone into shutting up.  If the target does not recognize your authority, you fail, and typically polarize the conflict further, rather than resolve it.  It turns a rational discussion into a contest of egos.





Indeed.


----------

