The games direction.

[Lizzie]

I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

Griefer still gonna grief. Former player with valid account gets all his other former player pals to log in and vote B. It's anonymous so - there ya go.

Zero accountability is always a bad idea, no matter who is doing the voting, no matter how "fair" the questions are, no matter who tallies the votes, no matter what the subject matter is. Always. Without exception. Bad idea.

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

They're not anonymous. You have to register to vote, and when you go to the polls to cast your vote, they check your name and your ID, to ensure that you really are you.

The vote itself is anonymous. But the casting of the vote is not. They don't know who you voted for - but they know it was you who voted.

[Heade]

I agree with you Lizzie. Anonymous complaints would be potentially problematic. That said, I would love to see a simple anonymous voting system implemented in the game to poll the players on issues staff is considering implementing. It wouldn't be complicated. Just make it a prompt that you have to select an answer to before it allows you in the game, with customizable question and A, B, C, D answer section. Then, if staff is considering changing something major in the game, such as removing elements of racism from elves, everyone in the game would get a prompt that says something to the effect of:

NOTE: Your vote will be ANONYMOUS!

"We are considering altering the game documentation to remove elements of human racism against Elves from the game. If done, this would also, by extension, remove the stigma regarding breeds from the game. There would no longer be any negative racial slurs, opinions, or racist behavior allowed. Do you:"

A. Agree with this idea.   B. Disagree with this idea.  C. Not care one way or the other.


By making sure the votes are anonymous, it removes shaming people for an opinion that doesn't necessarily match up with the individuals here that like to try to shame people, or frame their opinions in an unflattering way. This will remove virtue signalling from the voting process and give us a more raw sample of what people would prefer in their game.

We could also make it so that only accounts that are at least 30 days old get the voting prompt, so that people can't just create new accounts to sway the vote on a topic they are particularly passionate about.

Doing things this way would give you 100% participation in votes from the currently active playerbase, which is far more than you can expect when you poll people on the forums, or just try to gather community feedback from a discussion thread.

Griefer still gonna grief. Former player with valid account gets all his other former player pals to log in and vote B. It's anonymous so - there ya go.

Zero accountability is always a bad idea, no matter who is doing the voting, no matter how "fair" the questions are, no matter who tallies the votes, no matter what the subject matter is. Always. Without exception. Bad idea.

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

They're not anonymous. You have to register to vote, and when you go to the polls to cast your vote, they check your name and your ID, to ensure that you really are you.

The vote itself is anonymous. But the casting of the vote is not. They don't know who you voted for - but they know it was you who voted.

Sure, and that is exactly the system that I suggested. No one could vote without them already being an established account over 30 days old. Make all votes last 29 days or less so that no one can create accounts specifically to vote. Furthermore, you could even add a stipulation that an account must have been logged into within the last 6 months immediately prior to the vote being called for in order to receive the vote prompt.

This is a far cry from allowing the type of anonymous complaining that you described in your community. We're talking about only citizens in the neighborhood being able to vote. But do you really think that if they had such a thing in your neighborhood that it would be a good idea to publish the names of the people who complained about your neighbors paint job? That's how people die over paint jobs.

[Lizzie]

Not true at all. There is a reason US elections are anonymous. If you think anonymous votes encourages griefing, try public votes. People will get murdered.

(by me)
They're not anonymous. You have to register to vote, and when you go to the polls to cast your vote, they check your name and your ID, to ensure that you really are you.

The vote itself is anonymous. But the casting of the vote is not. They don't know who you voted for - but they know it was you who voted.

Sure, and that is exactly the system that I suggested. No one could vote without them already being an established account over 30 days old. Make all votes last 29 days or less so that no one can create accounts specifically to vote. Furthermore, you could even add a stipulation that an account must have been logged into within the last 6 months immediately prior to the vote being called for in order to receive the vote prompt.

This is a far cry from allowing the type of anonymous complaining that you described in your community. We're talking about only citizens in the neighborhood being able to vote. But do you really think that if they had such a thing in your neighborhood that it would be a good idea to publish the names of the people who complained about your neighbors paint job? That's how people die over paint jobs.

I'm not talking about new accounts. I'm talking about people who are ALREADY registered members of the community - but have not played in years, have a gripe against the game, and would love nothing more than the opportunity to vote for something they think would ruin it. Or just vote randomly to skew the votes, because no one can stop them since they're already registered and their accounts are still valid. This would be that opportunity.

[Vex]

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55908.0.html

Hey guys, as a POC, I'm just curious of the game's direction and influence on what's going on real life and real time today, and wanted to see what sort of cultural influences are there.  Anything you guys want to add, let's discuss it maturely.

Just posting, in support of Brokkrs response.

[mansa]

I would, however, like to point out that Mansa's entire argument against what I said is the exact argument I made for things staying as they are: It's the status quo. This is how things are.

My argument is this:
...You shouldn't have to experience the shit you get in real life in a made up fantasy game.

The game is constantly changing and evolving.  People are constantly evolving and changing.  My argument has nothing to do with status quo.

For example:
It was less than 2 years ago when gender definitions were expanded in the game.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49825.msg1022647/topicseen.html#msg1022647

Again, very recently the minimum age of characters was increased from 13 to 16
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,55105.msg1037893/topicseen.html#msg1037893

Again, very recently sexual torture was outright banned.
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,46717.msg998137/topicseen.html#msg998137

Hell, "Rape" was outright banned only in 2013.  That's 20 years after the game was launched.

Gender roles in Zalanthas still get debated, and I don't want to post threads on the GDB from 2016, 2012, 2009, 2006, 2002, etc.



The staff and the players will constantly be reassessing what sort of game we want to play, what enjoyment we can experience in the fantasy world, how we create a welcoming atmosphere for new players.  We should be able to bring up existing ideas and systematic issues that we disagree with, discuss them, and petition for change.

[Heade]

The staff and the players will constantly be reassessing what sort of game we want to play, what enjoyment we can experience in the fantasy world, how we create a welcoming atmosphere for new players.  We should be able to bring up existing ideas and systematic issues that we disagree with, discuss them, and petition for change.

But you keep going on like every change that is made that you like is something that is "welcoming" to the greatest number of players. That isn't the case. If I want to play a game with space pirates in it, and you don't want space pirates in your game, putting space pirates in the game, or not, inevitably satisfies one party while putting off another.

This is true with all of those elements that have been debated in the past, and with all that will be debated in the future. This isn't about inclusion. It's about deciding what kind of game you want to play, which, while including some, will inevitably exclude others who don't want what you're selling. Players who like that kind of game will stay, and players that don't like the new direction of the game will leave. That's it.

But you're right, it's been happening for years, and we've lost a LOT of players.

[Kankfly]

So part of the reason why I would consider signing on staff is the anonymity of it. If I submitted an application for staff, I don't want the rest of the player base to know who I've played. I just want to contribute to a game and a community that I've been a (on and off sometimes) part of since the past decade and a half in a meaningful way. How is this going to happen if people vote for staff candidates?

[Saiseiki]

Heade, you said you didn't necessarily agree with all of the above policies.  Rather than make assumptions, I'd like to ask directly, which of the four core polices do you disagree with?

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.
There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.
There is no rape in game.
There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

I have more to add, but I'll see if there's some clarity to be had before proceeding.

I'm not interested in derailing this thread from the original topic, which I think this side discussion is beginning to do. A direct answer to your question here will undoubtedly cause this discussion to go a direction that this thread isn't intended for. If you're interested in more than virtue signaling and would like to have a discussion on my opinion, feel free to PM me and I can answer you there.

Yeah, trying to get specifics, define terms, etc. so we can have an actual discussion.  If that constitutes "virtue signaling", we're not in a good place.

I would, however, like to point out that Mansa's entire argument against what I said is the exact argument I made for things staying as they are: It's the status quo. This is how things are. Mansa basically copy/pasted current staff policy on a few things. We could do the same thing with racism in game. It's supported by the docs. So, if the best argument for not changing things is that this is how it currently is, that argument applies to the OP as well.

Yep, a good ol' Inherency argument, for my fellow mega-geek debaters.  In this case, I think it's a fairly good one.  Arm certainly does more to tackle problematic topics than any other equivalent (analogous?) game I've seen.  I've had some truly magical experiences while playing here that would otherwise have been impossible but for those afore-cited rules.  I don't get the feeling Mansa is disgruntled, and neither am I.  That doesn't mean I can't listen closely to what others are saying, though, nor do my best to understand where their pain is arising.  I try to do that in real life, and that's at least as important (and often far more difficult) online than in-person.

Again, if you consider the above "virtue signaling", I would reply It's my attempt to contextualize the space I'm coming from.  I hope we can at least agree that neither of us is arguing these points in bad faith.  YMMV

As I respectfully disagree that a delve into core tenants of the "Rules of Engagement" are a derail, given that we're discussing the direction of the game, I'll sketch out some brief thoughts/reactions to each:

There is gender equality, and you can be any gender.

- As implied above, I find this hugely liberating, and in large part agree.  After what Valeria wrote, I may well have had a "outlier" experience with my one androgynous character.  I'm still a relative newb, and don't pretend to have the deep understanding of (potentially) shifting dynamics that the vets in these parts do.  Still, with my one data point, it was a powerful, moving experience, one that wouldn't have been possible without both the social 'okay' and the coded possibility.

There is no negative social queues of bisexual, homosexual, or polyamorous relationships.

- Again, I think this is largely true.  We might differ over NO negatives, but as stated, this is indeed the official staff policy, and from what I've been able to view/have experienced, holds up in the main once in play.  To be fair, my participation in ER is somewhat limited, so there may be entire facets/pockets I'm missing.

There is no rape in game.

- Check.  The docs are perhaps the most unequivocal and forceful here.  My very first reaction to this when I began playing was "But won't you need this to tell certain kinds of stories?"  (I'm not going to get into personal, RL experiences here, but rest assured this isn't a naive statement from me stemming from a lack of familiarity with the topic.) 

     Now with some time under my belt, I've revised my opinion.  First off, I can only imagine the staff-side nightmare trying to fairly adjudicate allegations of lines of consent, inappropriate storylines, etc. must have been.  There's really no winning, and almost any time a player complaint revolving around rape was filed, I'm willing to bet someone felt either burned or dismissed.  From an rp perspective, I've actually found that almost all of the same power differentials can play themselves out without being diluted, and without resorting to rp'ing out scenes that many players would or have found damaging.  I think back to the handful of scenes that could have led to rape for my character, and don't feel I've missed out on much of anything for not having played through that.  Instead, those scenes found other ways - some subtle, some brutal, some Kudo-worthy - of conveying the same power dynamic, and leaving me chilled in a good way.

There is no racism based on the color of your skin.

- Hopefully we can all agree this one is a no-brainer in terms of being supported.  The merits and flaws of Fantastical Racism aside, I don't see how direct, 1:1 analogs to RL racism would either facilitate meaningful rp, nor be supportive of the playerbase.

     In any event, I'm going to continue to play, continue to enjoy the game, and continue to attempt to rp my ass off.

[NinjaFruitSalad]

I've been silent since I started this and I feel I need to elaborate as to the why behind my ask the staff thread and me asking all of you collectively to voice your opinions on this matter.

I'm of the firm belief that demographically, if there IS discussions about race inside of our community and our game world, we need to be sure that those in power are even capable of empathizing with the playerbase concerns. And it's a fact that this has been a recurring topic regarding race, inside the game world.

To give example, I don't think a man can empathize with a woman giving birth. They could never be in their shoes, so, how could they possibly understand? And their reactions, in a situation they cannot understand, could come off as very ignorant. Just like Brokkr posting a very opinionated response about race in a thread that was locked due to the topic of race, they clearly were not empathetic, so it provoked the bigger question. Can our staff accurately represent our diverse playerbase. If it's a council of dominantly middle aged white males, I say not regardless of intentions. So that's why certain demographics do matter. We have a diverse playerbase. Of men women, LGTBQ, non-binary individuals, people of color. But is our true standings represented in our staff? Presently, from what I have witnessed, I think not. A level of empathy and responsibility needs to be represented, and our staff taking opinionated responses on a public, scale is unacceptable. We need people who consider the consequences of their actions, the message they portray. Especially in high-risk topics such as race, sexism, rape etc.

So does our staff have voices, or is it a closing ranks frat boy conglomerate? Pardon my French.

So you're basically saying that our staff here, who run an intense role-playing game, and have not only roleplayed, themselves, for decades but have also judged other players by how they roleplay...  cannot empathize being the opposite gender? My, that is shocking. Tell me, how does one empathize with and properly roleplay being an elf, a dwarf, or a mul without ever having been one, either?

Ignoring the sheer ignorance of what you post, I'll say this again: first, staff demographics are none of your business.  And as Brokkr said, they don't even poll their prospective staff members for such information.

Second, the staff are not here to "represent" certain demographics. They are here to manage the game. And guess what? They don't know your real race, gender, religion, or whatever either as they handle your complaints, or award you a kudos, or ban you for multiplaying. As long as staff members are being chosen on merit without asking them for irrelevant personal details, this works perfectly well.

[Vex]

Ignoring the sheer ignorance of what you post, I'll say this again: first, staff demographics are none of your business.  And as Brokkr said, they don't even poll their prospective staff members for such information.

Second, the staff are not here to "represent" certain demographics. They are here to manage the game. And guess what? They don't know your real race, gender, religion, or whatever either as they handle your complaints, or award you a kudos, or ban you for multiplaying. As long as staff members are being chosen on merit without asking them for irrelevant personal details, this works perfectly well.

That, I feel, is a more polite version, of what I'd have said.

Staff do no press us for demographics, or inquire about or political, sexual or religious leanings. Nobody asks/cares. I'd wager, they'd rather not know to begin with.

Why, then, should they be expected to reveal their personal demographics? No, their privacy matters, as much as ours.

[Bebop]

I haven't read this whole thread, I don't stop by too often anymore.

I will say part of the reason I've quit is I believe I experienced flagrant sexism in the game.  I am convinced that what I experienced in game would have not occurred if either both I and my PC were both male.  I also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

On top of that, we are living in hellish times in the US.  I don't feel like role playing the effects of tragedy, hardship, pestilence,racism, nepotism, xenophobia and poverty because those are all things that are painfully close in reality right now.  I am located blocks from where George Floyd was murdered.

The game was supposed to be a place to escape sexism both IG and hopefully within the community, but I haven't found that to be the case.  All of the aforementioned things I want to avoid IRL seem to seep out of the game.  The culture here needs a huge overhaul.  It's what's pushed me away before and it's what's pushed me away again.

And before anyone even starts if you are a cis het white guy, I really don't want hear how a) you don't think sexism is a problem or b) that women actually get treated BETTER in the game because guess what... that's still sexism.

I could say more about my recent experience with the game but I'll leave it at that.  All it takes is a few bad apples, and the lack of transparency to "protect story" is actually a smoke screen that enforces zero accountability of rules and the safety of the players.

[Vex]

I also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

Take it to reddit. Take it to the alt forums. If it is, how you say it is, it's exactly the kind of thing, that needs to be exposed. It matters.

Especially things like torture and rape, it's only an amusement, to people who have never had to survive them.

[Khorm]

I also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

Take it to reddit. Take it to the alt forums. If it is, how you say it is, it's exactly the kind of thing, that needs to be exposed. It matters.

Especially things like torture and rape, it's only an amusement, to people who have never had to survive them.

i can appreciate the sentiment but the only thing that's exposed on the alt board is toxicity and a startling lack of self-awareness.

there are much healthier ways to try and address player concerns than to turn to a group of players/ex players that can't stop obsessively wringing their hands about a game that they love to hate.

[Doublepalli]

And before anyone even starts if you are a cis het white guy, I really don't want hear how a) you don't think sexism is a problem or b) that women actually get treated BETTER in the game because guess what... that's still sexism.

I concur and also apply that to rascism, and why I believe we need to be sure Staff can accurately understand the why behind these threads surfacing, and the manner in which they need to handle them.

[Malken]

And before anyone even starts if you are a cis het white guy, I really don't want hear how a) you don't think sexism is a problem or b) that women actually get treated BETTER in the game because guess what... that's still sexism.

I concur and also apply that to rascism, and why I believe we need to be sure Staff can accurately understand the why behind these threads surfacing, and the manner in which they need to handle them.

You have options if you don't want to deal with racism.. Play a human? I mean.. If you play an elf and you get upset that you are facing racism in the game because of it, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know -anyone- who would care about the color of your skin in game. Heck, most players don't even bother reading your desc.

What do you want, exactly? A lot of female players have been terrible staffers on Armageddon, just like a lot of male players have been terrible staffers on Armageddon. It's not because you put a female on staff that everything solve itself.

[Vex]

i can appreciate the sentiment but the only thing that's exposed on the alt board is toxicity and a startling lack of self-awareness.

there are much healthier ways to try and address player concerns than to turn to a group of players/ex players that can't stop obsessively wringing their hands about a game that they love to hate.

I listed an alternative. I even listed it first.

It doesn't matter where, really, its about their being able to say what they need/want to say, without the fear of biased moderation or censorship. That's it.

[Lizzie]

i can appreciate the sentiment but the only thing that's exposed on the alt board is toxicity and a startling lack of self-awareness.

there are much healthier ways to try and address player concerns than to turn to a group of players/ex players that can't stop obsessively wringing their hands about a game that they love to hate.

I listed an alternative. I even listed it first.

It doesn't matter where, really, its about their being able to say what they need/want to say, without the fear of biased moderation or censorship. That's it.

Taking it to reddit is not productive for someone experiencing personal trauma who has an obsession with a game that reminds them of their personal trauma. A psychiatrist, a therapist, an emotional support group, a social worker - that's where they need to go.

[Vex]

I was in no way advocating healing. Their mental well-being isn't my problem, nor would I take it upon myself to make it my problem, uninvited.

I was suggesting if there was such a glaring misconduct, especially in regards to the rules of consent being ignored, or hand waved for someones protection, it should be exposed for what it is. Otherwise, they'll continue to think they're able to get away with it, and do it to someone else.

[Harmless]

through the proper channels, like a character complaint. those types of complaints WILL get acted on as they break the rules.

[tapas]

I suspect the complaint is being reviewed. If it has been dismissed like Bebop has described, then it is a concern for everyone.

[Vex]

through the proper channels, like a character complaint. those types of complaints WILL get acted on as they break the rules.

I also recently experienced torture by a leader PC in the game that I did not consent too and was told my character being flayed with a barbed whip did not constitute as torture when I placed a player complaint.  As a victim of abuse I felt sick at the lack of consent there.

[Rathustra]

For the sake of discussion, the complaint was regarding a PC (Bebop's) being codedly subdued and then codedly whipped using a whip object that utilizes a script. The PC performing the whipping and the PC subduing Bebop's PC performed no additional emotes pertaining to the action of the barbed whip (the barbed nature of the whip being described in both the object's sdesc and its mdesc). The complaint was based upon the question: does coded, base gameplay in the game ever require asking consent?

Further to the discussion, here is what the whip script displays to the player being whipped:

Code Select Expand


[PC complaint is about] raises a wickedly barbed whip and lashes out at you.

*CRACK* Fiery pain dizzies you as the blow savages your back.

(Both of these echoes are automated).

The complaint was dismissed as it was determined that the requirement for consent regarding torture did not apply to the game at large - it is assumed consent is given to the coded game when a player chooses to play Armageddon. The are echoes within the code that describe being backstabbed (to death), being kicked and trampled (to death) and in very specific cases: vomiting one's insides out, being dragged beneath the sands and suffocated and being devoured by parasitic worms.

With these elements of the game being non-consensual (especially when enacted by NPCs with no human oversight), it was assessed that the scene in question, ironically because it was performed without any human elaboration (no emotes detailing the paring of the skin, nor the flensing of flesh), fell into the same category, and so didn't require consent -but certainly could benefit from it. Indeed most players would request consent before whipping - though such really only leaves death as an alternative.

As 'help consent' read at the time:

Code Select Expand


If you act out a graphic sequence without first obtaining the other
player's consent, and the player then complains within a reasonable
amount of time (so that the runlogs can be checked and the complaint
verified), you will be banned.


The argument that the complaint be upheld hinged on what constituted a graphic sequence due to the help file, as read, requiring consent in the following situations:
~ Sexual/Adult RP
~ Torture that results in functional damage to a character (e.g. eye loss)
~ 'Graphic sequences'.

The semantics around what defines a 'graphic sequence' was deemed too vague to enforce. But it was assumed to cover situations where a player is using emotes to describe, in graphic detail, the injury (that is not resulting in functional damage) to your character. So, in the case of a whipping this would be a PC forcing their victim to read emotes about their flesh being shredded, the action of their spilled blood, etc. - for a captive audience, this would be deemed unfair and in-line with our other consent rules which seek to retain the reality of the game world while allowing players to not engage with parts of it that resemble the real-world we are playing a game to get away from.

As the scene did not involve such 'graphic' emotes and was instead relying upon base elements (hard-coded) of the game that the accused had no control over, we assessed that they were simply using the mechanics available to them and no action was taken beyond asking said player to consider asking for consent in the future - in case emotes from others involved occur.

This all said: I do not believe this complaint precludes a staff complaint about certain hard-coded elements that staff is responsible for crossing the line in terms of 'graphic content'.

[X-D]

Nice answer.

And to make sure nobody missed that part...By playing the game you are giving consent to the coded aspects of the game. One would think that is self evident but....meh.

[Dresan]

I hate these threads myself and rather not post in them.

Still I can't help but find it amusing since it shows how close minded and bias people can be when it comes to proper RP within the game.

This type of close minded mentality also exists within staff, and caused me to just walk away from the game years ago after a particularly bad conversation with various staff members all at once after encountering a Staff PC, lover or good buddy who had some really minor issues with my RP. To give some context the worst offense was they did not like my to ask to go train archery since archery was a name of a skill. Umm, sure. 

Oh how times have changed, the even the language staff used in that conversation would probably not have well gone now in this new era of 'Woke'. lol 

[Khorm]

I hate these threads myself and rather not post in them.

Still I can't help but find it amusing since it shows how close minded and bias people can be when it comes to proper RP within the game.

This type of close minded mentality also exists within staff, and caused me to just walk away from the game years ago after a particularly bad conversation with various staff members all at once after encountering a Staff PC, lover or good buddy who had some really minor issues with my RP. To give some context the worst offense was they did not like my to ask to go train archery since archery was a name of a skill. Umm, sure. 

Oh how times have changed, the even the language staff used in that conversation would probably not have well gone now in this new era of 'Woke'. lol 

dismissing and deriding an entire point of view only feeds into the problem that you identify as having an issue with.

a different perspective is an important and critical part of any conversation. i don't think you have to agree with it, but you should at least make an intellectually honest attempt at understanding or empathizing.