People that "Just don't get it"

[sobrique]

How do you deal with someone, that as far as you're concerned, "Just doesn't get it.".
Every day, we have disagreements. Usually, they can be resolved by discussion.
Usually they are simply disagreements about methodology, but with a similar end goal. An example might be choice of a place to eat, or which route to take to get to work.

Every now and then though, you bump into someone who has a world view that doesn't really include your view.

Currently, there's a discussion on the SINergy board. For those that don't roleplay, it'll seem geeky and obscure. My 'conflict' is that there's one person who is insistant that rules are essential, everything should be codified, and in an ideal world there would be nothing at "ref's discretion".

I have trouble dealing with this opinion. I'm able to discuss relative merits of 'managing' roleplay/combat etc. But they all start with the fundamental concept that the Ref is the guy running the show. There's rules that exist to formalise the game flow, and provide a simple mechanism for combat etc. But they are tools to assist the ref in the storytelling, not the 'central point' of the game.

The issue is a wider one though. There's been several occasions at which I've come to the conclusion that a particular person I'm talking to 'just doesn't get it'. From discussions over Maelstrom about why percentages are pointless in a currency that doesn't have factors of 100, to whether debts and taxes exists as obligations to be paid, or inconveniences to be avoided.

So my question is this. With the people who 'Just don't get it', how do you deal with them?
Do you just write them off as "that arsehole that doesn't get it"?
Do you just ignore them, and hope they go away?
Do you talk to the 'person in charge' (obviously, assuming it's not this person who 'doesn't get it') and try and convince them of your opinion?
Do you just slap them upside the head, tell them to STFU and point at the door?

Skirting around some issues remain a possibility, except every now and then you are in a situation where that possibility doesn't remain open. In this case, the person who I'm having this with is a player in a roleplay game that I help run. And everytime he says (writes) something, I become increasingly convinced that he "just doesn't get it".

I'm also faced somewhat with the situation at work. Our new 'Active Directory' is going to be using a flat namespace across all of Europe and Asia. Yes, that does mean everything in the same domain (And DNS domain). Which means you get name clashes, and so have to make up stupid rules about what you're allowed to call your servers. Not realising, of course, that's precisely the reason why DNS hierarchy was invented in the first place.

Comments

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

hmm, how do you deal with some one who just doesn't "get it".. thas very hard it depends...

After many months of a similar problem with someone else i have finally reached the thought that if its got to the point where a person proves conclusively, that even if after your many attempts as describing the point your trying to get accross fail, then just give up put them in the "they don't get it" file and give up. I know its against all feelings of tryign to put ones point accross. but if you don't all you get is a blazing circular arguement, where people just fail to get it more and more.

Do you just write them off as "that arsehole that doesn't get it"?

depends on the person. They may "just not get it"cos they are missing some important information. or it could be becaus they are blinkered and don't want to look outside the box *shrug*

Do you just ignore them, and hope they go away?

That again depends on the person. Although soemtimes Ignoring them means they won't go away they will just keep labouring the point

Do you talk to the 'person in charge' (obviously, assuming it's not this person who 'doesn't get it') and try and convince them of your opinion?

Ah, now this is tricky. cos this is an opinion question:). you can state your case to "the person in charge" but make sure you have the relevant thread/arguement available so that he/she can see it. then maybe he can tell if its your writting thats causing the "i don't get it" or the person your disagreeing with just "not getting it"

Do you just slap them upside the head, tell them to STFU and point at the door?

Not unless they keep labouring the point even after the "guy in charge" has made his opinion on the matter known and has stated that the situation "is now closed". Just slapping people round the head cos they don' get it doesn't work and causes animosity:)


So far the problems i've had in the past is people who don't or can't understand the "discussion" part of a statement, post thread etc. And will labour a point without

A: reading your post, listening to your statement properly. or
B: listening to your follow up posts pointing out that they have missed your point.

at this point its a case of well leave em to it.. cos its their ulcer in the end..

at least i think it is:D

[karen2205]

Depends on who it is and what we're disagreeing about.

If it's someone who doesn't agree with me and we're arguing politics we generally agree to disagree 'cos we're coming at the problem from completely different angles/with different eventual aims.

A lot of the time I probably become a teacher and try to make people see using words of one syllable - sometimes work sometimes doesn't.

If I can't be bothered to do that I generally ignore them as best I can.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Agreeing to disagree I can deal with. The old line of "whilst I may not agree with what you say, I'll defend your right to say it".

My problem arises when their 'view' of how things should be is something I consider fundamentally wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a lot of topics where, provided everyone's starting with the same fundamental premise, there's plenty of scope for negotiation, disagreement and compromise.

It's when the fundamental premise (eg. what is a roleplay game) is different, that I have trouble.

[sebbo.livejournal.com]

with the guy on the sinergy boards:

he much prefers a style of play, that is directly opposed to what you intend to run. Now correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it up to the refs / organisers to determine the way the game is played.

I.e. the rule he is looking for that explains the game structure in all its details and intimacy is "THE REF IS ALLWAYS RIGHT"

Or maybe encourage him to come up with a draft "complete works of the rules", then upon receipt set fire of it commenting that its just too much to read and that you'd rather do other stuff with your free time, being as the ref position is ... unpaid ... and oh... its more fun to do it free style and ref discretion wise.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Herein lies the problem. Yes, he thinks that the rules should be complex and intricate, and everything that's possible (at least as a player) should be included.

I don't.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

It depends, too, on how relevant the situation is to myself. For example, there are many ways of playing the game. Some ways may be more suited to some personalities than others. Therefore, someone who wants to play a more rules-bound game with other people who enjoy that, too, don't bother me at all. I don't see it as "not getting it" but as having a different but valid opinion. Even if I hate that style of play, that doesn't make someone else's enjoyment of it any less valid. Even if I feel very passionately about something, that doesn't mean that other people have to, or have to agree with my viewpoint.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I dislike turning a roleplay game into a 'rules fest'. And so I won't play in one. This works fine, in the sense that it's up to you what 'kind' of game you want to play.

Agree to disagree, and then avoid the problem in future.

My conflict has come from an established game, where someone is continually wanting rules for this, rules for that, rules for the other, above and beyond the fairly basic system we use (because it's a LARP).

I guess the core question is: "Which is the 'final arbiter' of the game. The Ref (Team) or the Rules?"

To me, that's about as fundamental to a game as I've encountered.

Obviously the question is broader, in the sense that conflicts of opinion are fine and normal. I vote one way, you vote the other, that's democracy.

But occasionally, their world view collides with yours in an unavoidable fashion, at which point you have to consider your stance on it.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Something to remember. When you think someone "Just doesn't get it", there's a good chance that they think exactly the same about you on that issue.

With the guy on the SINergy boards, he's coming at it as a wargamer, and if SINergy was a wargame (or a CCG for that matter) he'd have a point. Everything I see about the guy makes it clear that SINergy is his first LARP, and his tabletop looks restricted to something like KODT school D&D. He hasn't cottoned on to how LARP is different by it's very nature.

He'll learn. It may take some time, perhaps longer than he'll be in the hobby, perhaps it'll take him seeing his way in action, and how it doesn't work. Until then, I don't think there is much you can do...

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

'Something to remember. When you think someone "Just doesn't get it", there's a good chance that they think exactly the same about you on that issue.'

Yeah, he's probably well aware that I don't see it the same way as he does. Maybe he's had this same conversation with others.

Then again, in this particular case, I'm one of the guys running the show, so it's largely academic.

I'd rather get to a 'happy point of enlightement' where at least if we agree to disagree it's from a position where I'm confident that he has some clue what I'm talking about. (And vice versa, but I think I follow his train of thought, I just don't agree)

But that's not always possible I guess.

[malal.livejournal.com]

I suspect it all boils down to you both giving different things different weights. You belive A) is more important than B), and him vice versa, not much you can do about that.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

In all three examples you give of situations in which somebody 'doesn't get it', there is a wide variation in definitions of its that there are to get about the situation.

A percentage wouldn't be useful to stockbrokers in a currency that didn't work in hundreds, but to somebody from a country whose currency did work in hundreds, saying "A shilling is about 8% of a pound" would be very useful. Your take on the concept of debts and taxes is entirely dependent on whether you're a company manager or the NHS.

I have a feeling that the people you are writing off as not getting it do in fact get a completely different it and are wondering why this strange man doesn't get their it...

[warmage.livejournal.com]

In general, when you have someone that "don't get it" it's usually the reuslt of one or two factors:
1) Actually does not understand.
2) Does not want to understand.

for 1) give it your best shot at clearly explaining your position, the pros and cons, and perhaps a comparative from their position. If they still don't get it, they're probably category 2.

For 2) The other guy believes he's right, everyone that disagrees is wrong. He's an asswaffle with shitbucket garnish and has no interest in hearing you say anything other than "Yeah, you're right. Gee you're smart!"

Off the cuff, this specific person sounds like they've been crushed by people who "get away" with a "more creative interpretation" of the rules - aka "cheating!!" and if I had to guess, he's alienated a lot of refs and so he loses a lot, because he's acting like he's entitled to an opinion more important than that of the GM. Wrongo. The dude needs to get off the playing field if he thinks simpering about an INCREASE in ruleplay will enhance the game.

It might, but probably only for him and the other whining farktards obsessing over their characters and feeling viscerally the loss of each hit-point.

Bleh. He's probably a dork.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Off the cuff, this specific person sounds like they've been crushed by people who "get away" with a "more creative interpretation" of the rules - aka "cheating!!"

Yeah, he's friends with some people who are bending the rules a bit. While it's not crapping on him personally, I bet he gets tired of hearing about it.

"because he's acting like he's entitled to an opinion more important than that of the GM."

As far as I can tell, he's a pretty big time wargamer. He's written the odd supplement for a game I've vaguely heard of. He recons he's pretty good at rules stuff, and to be honest, if it was a wargame and not a LARP a lot of the stuff he's said would make a lot more sense.

But what's good for wargames isn't the same as what's good for LARPs. A lot of his suggestions I've looked at and gone "Well, it's a nice idea, but it's too complicated to pull off in a LARP...".

[warmage.livejournal.com]

Right, I can understand the devil in the details. Sounds like what this guy is pleading for is a "Legislature of Common Sense" wherein the latitudes of chance and circumstance are done away with.

That's just not LARPworthy gameplay. Again, not RTFA, I can only imagine the nightmares so proposed.