What keeps getting up my arse about current detractors is they either:
A) Spout theory as fact, saying stuff like:
"The $27,000 Legotits package is a clear example of greed! Only a developer bent on squeezing every penny out of it's invested player-base would stoop to such a thing!"
The above was swept away by the fact some backers had politely asked for the package or there would have been no need for it. When a party spouts theory as fact, just ask them to substantiate their claim and if possible provide proof to the contrary. Nothing kills this faster than simple, undeniable, set-in-stone facts - but it's still annoying as all balls when they reach 100k people with falsities and you only reach 8k with corrections.
These are easier to deal with as you can provide a proven counterpoint.
or...
B) When burnt with facts some detractors may then continue with the same line, but say:
"If X, then that means Y, so you should be concerned because Z"...
Thats their opinion and they are entitled to it, everyone is, but unlike Joe Bloggs spouting his opinion down the pub these people have a sizable following and are opinion leaders, they are influencers. So what "if" X isn't the case, opinion leader? What does that mean about Y? What Z should I think then? You didn't cover that eventuality so i'm just going to think about what you did cover in depth, the "if" scenario.
By only putting the one thought in an audiences head and telling them they should feel a certain way about it, they may as well be making the same base statements as fact. "You trust me, you like me, I've never steered you wrong before - why would I be wrong now?" More often than not it will be on a subject that no once can substantiate in one direction or another, avoiding the effects previously explored in example a) and basically leaving it in limbo until it either happens as specifically outlined or more generally doesn't happen (Remember the "X means Y so it'll collapse in 90 days!" thing years ago...?).
They may as well say "If an extinction level asteroid strike occurs that means at best civilization will crumble and at worst the whole human species will be wiped out, so you should be concerned about that in respect to this game and how it progresses." Well, yes, thats true, if humans as a species are all killed that will effect the progress of the game. IF. Care to substantiate? Is there a sizeable space-rock on the way and that it will strike in the next five to ten years? Well no one knows. The claim sounds plausible - it may even be true. But is it? They don't know. You don't know.
The Ifs and Shoulds do promoters of the project just as big a disservice as the detractors spouting their theory as truth, but with the advantage for them of being able to put the act of investigation and finding proof back on those questioning them:
"We are going to start a rumor, get people saying Politician X slept with a pig once"
"Woah, sick fuck! Did he?!"
"Pffft I dunno - but watch the bastard try to deny it!"
Get enough people all saying the same rumor and it stops being "Maybe" and starts being "Probably".
All we can really respond to an opinion leader giving out a theory like that is say "If..." and let people make up their own minds, or try to convince people that although Yes, the opinion giver may be right... they may also be wrong...
Or perhaps a better way to respond is to say "Well, you say If X means Y then Z... But what if X mean K? What then...?" Mmmmm, one to think about.
If you find a way to be able to counter an if opinion giver then your debate channel might do okay, but if you've ever seen any late-night TV debate shows, you'll know it usually descends into everyone acting like children demanding that their point of view is the right one.
Nothing good can come from mass-debating.
And thats what twists my tits on a Sunday Morning. How are you?
