I believe there's been grave miscommunication here.
Look at the comments quoted below.
Their post was re-read to double check the concerns raised:
The part that was admitted to be condescending:
The beginning statement that's "direct":
Note: these posts will read differently to you depending on how you're imagining this person. If it's an annoying person, then they'll appear disingenious. If it's an honest person, then they'll appear genuine.
Point being:
It's quite apparent that
@Phenom08 is not reading their comments in the same way as many others are doing in this thread.
There's a slight hint of sincerity I'm picking up and no obvious "troll" behavior, so I'm willing to bet there's something else at play here.
There could be several factors as to why people are perceiving the messages posted here differently:
- Language barrier: for a lot of people English isn't their first language, so a lot of undertones, metaphors/idioms, regional differences and phrases could be lost on someone coming from a different part of the globe. This can also lead to their way of speaking being perceived as "rude" when in their mind -- with their cultural background and mother tongue -- it's intended differently. This is very important to keep in mind as not everyone is from the US.
- Frame of mind: it's hard to detect sarcasm, undertones, and the intended way a post online should read, so jumping to conclusions based on what circles one engages in, what assocations/expectations one has for the setting (e.g. Reddit comments and Famiboards comments are based on entirely different merits!), and how one is feeling on a particular day, are all factors that go into how one interprets something online (it's really easy to be cynical online)
- Lack of Self-awareness: for whatever reason, some people may not have developed full introspection and haven't critically analysed their words and actions. This could be due to age, experience, or things like psychological traits:
- Psychological wiring: not everyone perceives or experiences the world in the same way, and this is very important to be aware of. For instance, people with ADHD might feel the need to blurt out everything unfiltered, might struggle with being interested in "boring" conversation, might have a hard time doing simple stuff like looking up facts/links/videos, and may have poor organizational skills (e.g. properly formatting their raw, unfiltered wall of text).
And then there are people on the spectrum who may view the world very differently, who may say things in a direct manner with good intention that may not be received so warmly, who may have a hard time reading the tones of conversations, who may lack the awareness of others perceiving their blunt remarks as rude, and who may deem it difficult to see things from others' point of view.
Whatever the case, Phenom08 seems to be a new user (registered 2 months ago, 32 posts) and this being one of their first activity in this thread, I believe cutting some slack and giving the benefit of the doubt is in order and might go a long way at welcoming new users who may not (immediately) conform to the expectations of this forum, and especially this thread
To be fair, Phenom08 did start off their first post by mainly focusing on their arguments, albeit in a difficult-to-read format and with a somewhat perceived "high-and-mighty" attitude, but their "wall of text" instead became a point of soft ridicule at first:
I understand it might be propelled by the perceived condescending attitude, and poking fun at such things is always fun, but to a relatively new user with ~20 posts (before the long chain of back-n-forth started), who's possibly coming from a different background than most, I believe that we as a community should strive for a warmer welcoming and have a positive mentality where we read in the best meanings until the opposite is proven
@Phenom08: Now, allow me to attempt to explain quite candidly why the miscommunication was happening
You didn't say anything wrong per se or come with faulty data. It was just the
wording you used; the words you chose, the straightforward phrases, and not holding back on describing things as directly as possible that was not so very well received by some members. You may have had good intentions, but it made others think you were looking down on them and that you were somehow better than everyone else, almost like a king. You didn't say it, but that's how you appeared to some.
No one likes an arrogant person. It's when someone who thinks they're better than everyone else. Even if they are, no one likes it that they proudly say they are better than everyone else. Being humble is a praiseworthy quality, and that means not praising oneself too directly, but saying it lowkey, like "I am glad that my speculation turned out to be true", instead of directly saying "I always knew it, and you all were wrong!".
Take your first post. I've highlighted the parts that make you appear "arrogant":
I understand that you may be upset that people might take any small hint and get their hopes up (which actually happened a lot right before the OLED model was announced), but the way you're saying it "people take any announcement and spin it as much as possible to fit their desires (but I certainly don't do it)" and "Like seriously (what is wrong with you??), stop bending reality to fit your desires (stop it, don't do it, I'm commanding you)" makes it appear aggressive and sounds like you somehow know
better telling people that they're doing something wrong. In certain cases it's okay
if what you're about to say makes a ton of sense, but I think your large text was lost on a lot of people, so most only read your first (arrogantly-sounding) sentence, didn't read the rest, and formed an opinio about your post and its tone.
The last two sentences here appear
really condescending. "You don't run Nintendo (so what do you know, you incompetent fool? I run Nintendo, so I know), so your rule is completely irrelevant (but my rules are valid, because I said so, and I'm not giving your rules a chance). Relying on leaks for confirmation is foolish (and so you you must be foolish for following such a rule), how you still haven't learned that is something else (because I have learned that and I know they can't be trusted, so I'm better than you for having learnt that!)".
Yeah, you didn't really give the other person a chance here and disregarded their point just because of your own rule: that leaks cannot be trusted. You might be right, but the financial data you pulled from Nintendo is just raw data. You still have to interpret it and give it meaning and speculate on what the future holds from that data. So really, you're two posts actually appear as you saying: "Personally, I only believe that public Nintendo financial data can be used to predict what the company will do in the future. Anyone who believes differently is wrong! If someone hears news about Nintendo releasing new bundles, then they cannot predict Nintendo's future because you can only do that with public Nintendo financial data. If anyone hears about leaks, they're never correct because I personally believe they're never correct, so the only way to know about Nintendo's future is through their financial public data. That's my personal belief, but I still believe it's the only way, and everyone has to follow this rule".
I don't know if you intended it this way, but that's how it appeared :/ It doesn't seem like you were giving the other person's point of view a chance. A better way would have been to acknowledge their point of view and then
explaining why it doesn't make sense to you to listen to leaks. Something like this: "Thanks for your input. I dont believe leaks can be used to accurately predict the future of Nintendo, so I'm careful of them. The reason being that a lot of leaks have been posted throughout the years and almost none of them have been accurate. We can use them carefully as hints, but never as confirmation, which is why I choose to rely on the publicly available data."
I think explaining this with a picture will be better:
This one sounds really condescending. "You say some goofy mess" sounds very negative and very straightforward (like going to someone and telling them they're ugly), and these parts: "your made up speculation" (you're saying that was they're saying is false just because they're speculating, and it makes you sound arrogant because you're also speculating but somehow are judging others' speculation to be false), "My favorite part is how you suggest..." (it's like you're publicly shaming someone and this is the nail in the coffin, as in, it's their "worst" point according to you, you who possess more knowledge), "me speculating on their financial state will allow me to be more accurate than your speculation based out of thin air and insiders" (it sounds like you're competing with other people and that you already think you're the winner. People speculating for fun without wanting to be right aren't here for a competition, but it sounds like you are attending a championship and doing whatever it takes to win), and the constant use of "lol" which sounds like you are somehow better and "laughing" at others' speculation (while sitting on your horse and looking down). I'm not saying this is how you intended it to be, but you're "directness" can really make it appear so.
Also, you seem to keep bringing up how speculating on Nintendo's financial state is more
accurate than any other method, "me speculating on their financial state will allow me to be more accurate than your speculation based out of thin air and insiders". If we forget the directness of your comment, when you say something like that, you generally need to also
bring proof of why you think one method is better than another. Otherwise, it makes it appear arrogant, like your theory is better just because you say it is. It would be better to say: "I understand your point, but there's not enough conclusive data to support it. An event can indicate so many different things, so narrowing it down to mean Switch 2 announcement is a bit of a leap in my opinion. Personally, I believe looking at the financial data gives us a much safer prediction of Nintendo's future actions,
because they're obliged to publicly share and cannot fake the data, and it gives us insight into what decisions they have in store for the fiscal year. Leaks often tend to be wrong and it's hard to distinguish an accurate leak from a fake one. And reading into the significance of events isn't reliable.". You're essentially saying the same thing, but you're also respecting the
human being who posted their speculation at the same time
This is the post that riled people up. Upon reading it carefully, I believe what you're saying is that people here should have more confidence in their own speculation, just like you have so much confidence in yours, and not to be easily wavered by other people's speculation (like yours). That's a positive message, to be honest. But the way it's presented makes it seem like everything else :/
Instead, at a glance, it sounds like you're 100% certain that
your theory is the correct one and everyone who's reacted to your posts has only done it because they know your theory is the correct one, and they're too afraid to admit that you're right. And the way you say it with such certainty makes it look like you're pretending to be an angel high above human beings, when you're just another human being like everyone else. And that's what bothered a lot of people here. You seem to have missed that point as you thought people were having a hard time accepting your theory, but it was the "pretentious demeanor" (thinking you're an angel among humans) that many users reacted to here, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY -- that's how it appeared to many.
Like I said earlier, nobody likes someone who thinks they're better than everyone else. Especially if they believe them to be equal. The general expectation is that all human beings are equal, so someone appearing as they're superior than others will not be tolerated. There are exceptions, but this is the general "rule". And even if you didn't mean to appear superior, some people perceived you as thinking you were superior (better than everyone else).
It really seems like you're, again, saying that
your theory is better, and that everyone else speculating on anything else is weak and just wishful thinking. That
may be correct, but it's not respectful, and not giving respect to other people will never bring about healthy conversations
A much better approach would be to
demonstrate why you think your theory is more solid instead of "criticizing" other people's speculation (this is where you're needlessly criticizing: "I'll rather point to the actual data
instead of hopes, dreams and wishful thinking", the "hopes, dreamd and wishful thinking" sounds condescending, because it seems like you're saying their speculation is inferior to yours and that they're just blindly hoping for things, which isn't nice to say directly even if it were true).
That admission was great
You are also speculating, you admit that you don't have enough data. But seemingly putting down others' speculations harshly isn't the way to go. Present your data, present your speculation, and then discuss on that. If you believe others' speculation is a bit of a stretch, then engage in a discussion, present your counter-arguments (in a nice manner) and
ask them for their counter-arguments as well.
DO NOT: "I can't believe you people are so dumb that you're blindly believing that announcement of Switch bundles says that Switch 2 is coming H1 2024. That's just wishful thinking, dreams and hopes and so, so stupid. Looking at financial data like me is much better!" (directly calling people dumb, calling their ideas stupid, and saying your idea is better)
DO: "I believe concluding that Switch 2 is coming H1 2024 simply based on announcement of Switch bundles is a bit of a stretch. It may hint at something, or it may be nothing at all. It most likely is nothing. We shouldn't irresponsibly get our hopes up when bundles are a normal yearly occurrence. Personally, I believe looking at the financial data provides better insight to the business decisions Nintendo are going to make in the future." (no name-calling anyone directly, just generally criticizing the
idea, and explaining why you think your theory is a better indicator without praising yourself too much)
^ This is generally the sentiment some users were perceiving from your posts here.
You're actually very right when you said that. You made a post about your theory and people were indeed free to ignore your post or move on, but instead you were met with some meme-ing and teasing. Like I said at the beginning, any community should be more welcoming towards new members, so there's definitely an area of improvement there.
But it really was some of the blunt statements and the way you said stuff in your posts that didn't sit well with some people, and so they felt the need to call you out on it because your posts could appear to be condescending, disrespectful towards others and this community, and make it seem like you were full of yourself (aka arrogant). I hope your intentions weren't so, and you should've been met with more understanding and been given the benefit of the doubt, in my personal opinion, but I'm glad at least some people replied to your arguments and entertained your ideas
However, if your intention was indeed to look down on people and make yourself and your theory appear to be superior, then I can understand the replies you received. But I hope I'm wrong about that.
Maybe it's just the over-zealousness of speculating and trying to be right? I know I've been there when it comes to predicting Smash characters, and I may have gotten a bit over my head
but you need to remember that sharing one's speculations with others is a form of validation seeking. We're really seeking validation from others about our ideas and wanting to show off to others that we were right, as a form of seeking approval or praise. So one needs to keep oneself in check before reality hits one in the head
Yeah, there's no way around that one. That sounds
extremely condescending and disrespectful. Even if there might be some truth to your statement, telling other people directly to their face that something is their fault is very bad manners. It's like going up to a girl who's crying because no boys want to date her and saying "It's your fault that you're ugly". That's extremely hurtful, disrespecting and completely disregarding the feelings and dignity of the other person you're talking to.
Your comments would actually work really well on Reddit as these types of snarky and straightforward stuff is popular there. But hopefully people are trying to have a civil and respectful conversation here, and no one's going to tolerate a respected person (Nate Drake) being disrespected like that, because you're blaming them for deluding people into believing anything. Even if that were true, if the person you are talking to is being respectful and having respectful conversations, you should also engage them with respect. The way you said it will never lead to any product conversation at all :/
Sorry for this long post. I just sensed that perhaps you really are being genuine about not getting why people were riling up about your post and reacting like they did, because it's
not by your theory. And I really hope your intentions were pure and that what you
really wanted to convey was something different than what was perceived. I really believe we shouldn't be too quick to judge people and always give people a chance, especially new ones to a community. So hopefully you can clarify so we can have proper understanding instead of people talking over each other
God bless