Exterminate! Exterminate!
don't terminate and haterate.
But especially don't terminhate?
It's indeterminate.
Banjoate!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we're on a rhyming scheme right out of the gate. Something this post will only exacerbate.
So...I posted this in the general forum, rather than the rules forum (which was probably an error on my part), but anyone who doubts the OP has a point is invited to peruse this little gem.
So...I posted this in the general forum, rather than the rules forum (which was probably an error on my part), but anyone who doubts the OP has a point is invited to peruse this little gem.
Reading over the link you posted there was a fair bit of escalation by you, as well. It's best to not rise to the bait, if possible.
Wait, my style is abrasive? Say it isn't so! ;-)
But in this case, I dunno. Seemed like a pretty harmless request to Paizo, followed by an unnecessary excoriation ("The problem is you") by third parties. For the record, the VO that originally posed the question (the one I allegedly made up) is a mutual acquaintance.
In any event, I think I'll just avoid any sort of rules discussion in the future. In fact, between this sort of thing and some unpleasantness at PCC, it may be time for a new hobby altogether. Or at least a new RPG. Did I mention I'm playing 13th Age this Saturday?
Wait, my style is abrasive? Say it isn't so! ;-)
But in this case, I dunno. Seemed like a pretty harmless request to Paizo, followed by an unnecessary excoriation ("The problem is you") by third parties.
Yeah, there was a lot of over the top responses to your initial post and it seemed to escalate quickly.
In any event, I think I'll just avoid any sort of rules discussion in the future. In fact, between this sort of thing and some unpleasantness at PCC, it may be time for a new hobby altogether. Or at least a new RPG. Did I mention I'm playing 13th Age this Saturday?
That's sad to hear, though 13th Age seems decent from what I recall of my initial read through last year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
13th Age seems decent from what I recall of my initial read through last year.
I like what I've seen so far. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure if it were the industry leader, it would have its share of "overzealous" fans. It's just that the vehemence with which people on the Internet (and on these boards in particular) defend their hobby preferences against any slights -- real or imagined -- can be a little...trying.
Don't drink the hatorade.Moderate and tolerate, don't terminate and haterate.
Or neglect... -ate?, or excuse-ate.
FRESH BATCH OF HATERADE...
BOTTLED RIGHT AT SOURCE IN RULES FORUM...SERVING...
NOW...
|
In any event, I think I'll just avoid any sort of rules discussion in the future. In fact, between this sort of thing and some unpleasantness at PCC, it may be time for a new hobby altogether. Or at least a new RPG. Did I mention I'm playing 13th Age this Saturday?
I'll have to tell you what happened afterwards if LT hasn't already. :)
If I wasn't signed up for Saturday I'd come play with you.
Wait, my style is abrasive? Say it isn't so! ;-)
But in this case, I dunno. Seemed like a pretty harmless request to Paizo, followed by an unnecessary excoriation ("The problem is you") by third parties.
You were pushing way too hard, and not accepting answers. This caused a reaction- and yes, some of the posts were too strongly worded. But the initial "harmless request" got civil answers.
You were pushing way too hard, and not accepting answers. This caused a reaction- and yes, some of the posts were too strongly worded. But the initial "harmless request" got civil answers.
The thing is, I wasn't asking for people's opinions. I was asking for an official response. There's a difference.
But whatever...I'm done with it.
You were pushing way too hard, and not accepting answers. This caused a reaction- and yes, some of the posts were too strongly worded. But the initial "harmless request" got civil answers.The thing is, I wasn't asking for people's opinions. I was asking for an official response. There's a difference.
But whatever...I'm done with it.
They are behind on their FAQ since Sean left and in any case, repeated requests don't help. Either they answer or not...however, if a good number of FAQ hits are marked, it gets in the queue.
You were pushing way too hard, and not accepting answers. This caused a reaction- and yes, some of the posts were too strongly worded. But the initial "harmless request" got civil answers.The thing is, I wasn't asking for people's opinions. I was asking for an official response. There's a difference.
But whatever...I'm done with it.
Part of the problem there is that there's no way to do one without soliciting the other, whether you intend to or not.
In order to ask for an FAQ, you need to post to the messageboard. By making a post on the messageboard, you're asking for feedback on that post by the other members of the messageboard.
I'm starting to think the messageboard isn't the best mechanism for requesting answers in the first place, and certainly not when you're only interested in an official answer. A system where people can simply post their question and click for the FAQ request without any follow-up discussion could be far better (with the only allowed followup being to provide an unofficial answer), especially as that follow-up discussion tends to either miss the original point completely or descend into fighting between posters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to think the messageboard isn't the best mechanism for requesting answers in the first place, and certainly not when you're only interested in an official answer.
Its pretty good for weeding out the actually ambiguous wordings and rulings from cases of just derping on the rule or someone trying to rules lawyer their way into ultimate power.
You were pushing way too hard, and not accepting answers. This caused a reaction- and yes, some of the posts were too strongly worded. But the initial "harmless request" got civil answers.The thing is, I wasn't asking for people's opinions. I was asking for an official response. There's a difference.
But whatever...I'm done with it.
Part of the problem there is that there's no way to do one without soliciting the other, whether you intend to or not.
In order to ask for an FAQ, you need to post to the messageboard. By making a post on the messageboard, you're asking for feedback on that post by the other members of the messageboard.
I'm starting to think the messageboard isn't the best mechanism for requesting answers in the first place, and certainly not when you're only interested in an official answer. A system where people can simply post their question and click for the FAQ request without any follow-up discussion could be far better (with the only allowed followup being to provide an unofficial answer), especially as that follow-up discussion tends to either miss the original point completely or descend into fighting between posters.
Well, here's the problem with that. Let us say you have a question. If the answer is clear to every other player and poster on the boards, maybe you need to just live with their responses. It's really not the best use of the devs time to answer every single persons questions. FAQ's? Yes. but note that word "Frequently". I think the debs don't need to spend time on answering OAQ (Once Asked) or RAQ (Rarely Asked...)
OTOH, if your question generates a huge debate, with varied opinions, than maybe a FAQ reply is needed.
I have seen response by the devs here that indicated strongly to me they never thought there was an issue with the rule until they saw the debate.
So, the debate and response help. They help those who are willing to listen to the consensus of experienced players. They help the devs know what question is truly "Frequently" asked.
Well, here's the problem with that. Let us say you have a question. If the answer is clear to every other player and poster on the boards, maybe you need to just live with their responses. It's really not the best use of the devs time to answer every single persons questions. FAQ's? Yes. but note that word "Frequently". I think the debs don't need to spend time on answering OAQ (Once Asked) or RAQ (Rarely Asked...)OTOH, if your question generates a huge debate, with varied opinions, than maybe a FAQ reply is needed.
I have seen response by the devs here that indicated strongly to me they never thought there was an issue with the rule until they saw the debate.
So, the debate and response help. They help those who are willing to listen to the...
Yeah, I should have been clearer on that and referenced the StackOverflow system, which seems to be built for handling questions+answers in a much more organized and clearer manner, such as allowing people to vote up the questions they want answered and the answers they read (although including the ability to vote down would probably be a bad idea for this particular community)
They are behind on their FAQ since Sean left and in any case, repeated requests don't help. Either they answer or not...however, if a good number of FAQ hits are marked, it gets in the queue.You were pushing way too hard, and not accepting answers. This caused a reaction- and yes, some of the posts were too strongly worded. But the initial "harmless request" got civil answers.The thing is, I wasn't asking for people's opinions. I was asking for an official response. There's a difference.
But whatever...I'm done with it.
Don't say that, that's off topic!
Snark aside, I do appreciate that the removal of my (and other's) posts were now accompanied by a short synopsis of the content of the posts rather than simply "X was removed for rudeness/off topic/whatever".
More people clicking "add to FAQ" does indeed make a question more likely to get the attention of the developers.
Ah, I thought that was true only to a point. After so many hits, it didn't matter?
Bugley is just being irked that after 4 months there are just two FAQ clicks to his post ;)
You're darn tootin' I am!
I mostly just wanted an answer for PFS, but such is life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An idea came to me as I was flagging a post. It would be nice to indicate why or what you are flagging for outside of the pull down menu. What insult, what derogatory term, etc. There have been times where I think whatever the flaggable offense was got lost in the mix or the mod might not be sure what you are going on about. Being able to highlight the problem or an entry field on the drop down might help.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"It is better to employ an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."
To be fair, though, there have been an awful lot of topics which, upon getting a FAQ or other definitive answer, proved that the "absurdly strict" camp was actually completely right while the "as they are intended to be played" camp was wrong; that is, sometimes what gets labeled as an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules actually IS how the rules were intended to be played.
Is it any wonder, then, that folks who have perhaps been right before are now inoculated against people saying they're being too pedantic or ignoring the clear intent? Why should they believe that THIS time they really ARE being too pedantic, when last time it turned out they were right despite having faced the exact same accusations/protests?
The Rules forum is for asking and answering rules questions, even if some portion of the community finds the answer to be absurd. A great deal of that forum's hostility would be reduced, I imagine, if people would respect the way Paizo has chosen to organize its messageboards.
"It is better to employ an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."To be fair, though, there have been an awful lot of topics which, upon getting a FAQ or other definitive answer, proved that the "absurdly strict" camp was actually completely right while the "as they are intended to be played" camp was wrong; that is, sometimes what gets labeled as an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules actually IS how the rules were intended to be played.
Name three.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interest in "who has been right before" is so slight that the most sensitive scientific instruments could quest for it in vain. We don't keep records of who was right and wrong on every occasion, so 'statistically likely rightness' would be impossible to determine anyhow. At least not without several months of dedicated board perusal, careful record-keeping, and a surprising amount of hard liquor. The point I was trying to make is that the RQ forum needs to improve its standards of courtesy and give up notions like "I have been right about an unrelated matter before, therefore I am right now" or "Your ruling is based on subjective reasoning, therefore you should never have posted." Just because obnoxiousness is not a flaggable offense doesn't mean we should be embracing it.
I don't think you understood my point.
Name three."It is better to employ an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."To be fair, though, there have been an awful lot of topics which, upon getting a FAQ or other definitive answer, proved that the "absurdly strict" camp was actually completely right while the "as they are intended to be played" camp was wrong; that is, sometimes what gets labeled as an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules actually IS how the rules were intended to be played.
Bastard sword and Speed weapons immediately come to mind.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Name three."It is better to employ an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."To be fair, though, there have been an awful lot of topics which, upon getting a FAQ or other definitive answer, proved that the "absurdly strict" camp was actually completely right while the "as they are intended to be played" camp was wrong; that is, sometimes what gets labeled as an absurdly strict interpretation of the actual wording of the rules actually IS how the rules were intended to be played.
Just three? Too easy. Here's seven.
On every one of those topics, the people who interpreted the rules correctly were called all sorts of nasty things by the folks who believed the opposite to be the obvious intent. All the folks who were wrong about the rules on those topics believed themselves to be witnessing what Lincoln Hills described, when in fact they were witnessing skilled adjudication of the rules.
And that's just topics from the Core Rulebook that I personally followed and that ended up in the FAQ. If we were to include other books, topics I didn't follow, and topics answered with designer commentary, the list would expand quite a bit.
Anyway, the point is not who's right most often. The point is something else that I'll get to when I have more time, because I've spent long enough on this post already. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you understood my point.I grudgingly admit that that is always possible. Hold on, let me re-read your post.
OK, back. Maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying that the RQ forum has these tendencies toward abrasiveness and discourtesy because the FAQ rulings in favor of overly literal interpretation encouraged a sense of infallibility in certain posters who defended that interpretation? Or that discussing intent of a rule is outside the purview of the Rules Questions forum and should only take place in Advice (starting a new thread instead of continuing the existing one)? Your post came off to me as a general "our customs are right; don't question them," so I would be glad to be corrected as to its intent.
My point is that the argument of "You're wrong because you're being absurd and my view is obvious" (as opposed to "You're wrong because of this rule I'm citing") is not helpful, because you can't back it up, not even with past history.
Think of it this way: suppose someone challenges a belief you hold, tells you it's absurd, and that their different belief is obviously correct in spite of what evidence you've seen. He can't explain any reasoning or cite any evidence to support his position, he just says it's obvious. Then when irrefutable proof comes along, it turns out your allegedly "absurd" idea was right and the person who thought their idea was obvious turned out to be wrong.
Now suppose that same thing happened again with another belief you held: you're again told you're being absurd, and that the truth is obviously different than what the evidence you see suggests, but then it turns out you're right after all.
After a few times, are you still going to be carefully considering the position of the next guy who gives no support for his idea other than "it's obvious and you're absurd"? Or are you going to tune it out as white noise? It doesn't matter if this guy is actually right; it doesn't matter if the next TEN guys are actually right; you've already stopped listening to anyone whose argument is just "this is obvious".
You know something else I've seen happen numerous times in that very same Rules forum? I've seen someone assert an interpretation, fail to be convinced by claims of obvious intent, but then respond to someone laying out why the rules say they're wrong.
Yes, I've seen lots of people let themselves be corrected in the Rules forum.
But the willingness to be wrong never seems to result from someone declaring how absurd their view is and how obvious the truth is; it results from someone proficiently wielding the rules to show the person what those rules actually mean.
The hostility of the Rules forum is the result of people trying to engage rules topics without proficient use of the rules and expecting others to yield to the confidence with which their own beliefs are held.
It doesn't matter if you're right; it matters if you can show why you're right. A good deal of the arguments arise from people who may very well be right but can't show how, and then get offended when people don't abandon their own beliefs based purely on the speaker's word.
ZMOG Jiggy, why didn't you just say "Indeed, I agree," in your first response? :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, it isn't just the Rules forum that this is going on in, although it is pretty bad there. A number of other threads all across the boards are just uncomfortable to even read, let alone talk in.
I echo some comments from above where it is better to just not ask questions or enter into the debates. I've erased a number of entries because it is just too depressing to get involved in the commentary or have a simple question turn into a thousand posts of "This is why you suck for even asking the question."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If it had begun with the phrase "One cause of..." I'd agree. As it is I think Jiggy makes a good point but draws an incomplete picture.The hostility of the Rules forum is the result of people trying to engage rules topics without proficient use of the rules and expecting others to yield to the confidence with which their own beliefs are held.Well said.
I was replying to a specific poster who said "There's hostility because of X" by saying "Actually, it's because of Y". The scope of my comment extended only as far as the scope of his, which itself referred to only one breed of hostility.
"It is better to employ an absurdly strict or improbably permissive interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."
Honestly this is very misleading.
The general attitude of the rules forum is "Go by the RAW, except where intent is KNOWN (either by explicit dev commentary or a FAQ)".
Because 10 people arguing 10 different subjective opinions on how the rules MIGHT BE INTENDED to work is pointless, whereas 10 people debating on what the rules actually SAY is likely to come to some sort of consensus without interference from the people in the first bunch.
And then coordinating to FAQ things when the answer to the question "What do the rules SAY?" comes up with something that seems overpowered, underpowered, nonfunctonal, or simply unintended.
Is it perfect? No.
But it's better than arguing intent, which by its very nature is impossible for anyone not on the Design Team to accurately determine except by coincidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It is better to employ an absurdly strict or improbably permissive interpretation of the actual wording of the rules, than to attempt to come to a rational understanding about the rules as they are intended to be played."Honestly this is very misleading.
The general attitude of the rules forum is "Go by the RAW, except where intent is KNOWN (either by explicit dev commentary or a FAQ)".
Because 10 people arguing 10 different subjective opinions on how the rules MIGHT BE INTENDED to work is pointless, whereas 10 people debating on what the rules actually SAY is likely to come to some sort of consensus without interference from the people in the first bunch.
And then coordinating to FAQ things when the answer to the question "What do the rules SAY?" comes up with something that seems overpowered, underpowered, nonfunctonal, or simply unintended.
Is it perfect? No.
But it's better than arguing intent, which by its very nature is impossible for anyone not on the Design Team to accurately determine except by coincidence.
Not to mention all the rules that are submitted by free-lancers with a specific intent and then work differently after FAQ/"clarification."
There should be a rule banning your account after your 5th "Why do people think the Fighter sucks", "Which is better, Ranger or Fighter", etc. thread.
Could imagine size of the list of hot topics to fill that though?