I really want to know why we as a community cannot discuss:
-Tweaking some classes that folks believe there's a balance issue on.
-Discuss making the game a little less more female friendly.
-Approach talking about the Paladin's restrictions and morality.
Maybe we can agree on some basic principals?
-No one is out to ruin the game we all love.
-Yes men struggle too no one is saying that, some have noticed that the general perception of our hobby is "girl kryptonite" and that's by people who know what krytonite is.
-Before gaming together individual groups should discuss their collective take on paladin restrictions, evil characters and what it means to be a rogue.
I think if we can collectively agree to these things maybe we can have rational discussions that don't turn into post after post of quotes and replies that turn off the reader or devolve into a flame war.
What do you mean by "endless"? Because really every thread eventually ends. o:-)
j/k -- It's the internet. People with strong opinions and/or little else to do like to discuss ad nauseum certain issues and/or think others aren't playing the game right unless they're doing it in a particular fashion. Actually, that's not just the internet... that's life. Not excusing it; I've just long since accepted it. But I agree... it's kind of frustrating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta say old boy, think part of the issue is that no one likes to be wrong, and some will strive to extreme lengths to ensure they are not. And if someone should prove them wrong, or make a valid counter point, that's when the thread devolves into chaos or gets closed. Human nature really.
|
I'm up for those topics. Certainly I like to make sure my definition of something matches those of others, but that's because (as a friend puts it) I'm fond of my own definitions...much to the detriment of the English language.
So...who's up for quoting Superman II as supporting evidence?
But in all seriousness, why can't we try to make this thread the one that doesn't have to involve all the other stuff?
Oh my god!
No... Zod!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't human beings civilly discuss their differences in an (for whatever reason, even though it shouldn't be) emotionally charged setting? The partakers of countless wars throughout history might ask the same question. Political negotiations often fail for the exact same reasons that two gamers can't calmly discuss their own differing perspectives on a Paladin's moral obligations. If you can pinpoint why this takes place, you can write a book, and become a millionaire, and maybe prevent all unwanted conflict in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt we will be able to agree on why it is we can't agree.
Wouldn't you agree?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The internet is driven by semantics.
wait I thought it was tubes
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt we will be able to agree on why it is we can't agree.
Wouldn't you agree?
I disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The internet is driven by semantics.wait I thought it was tubes
No no it's THROUGH tubes. Like the tubes are the road, and semantics is the guy behind the wheel.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No no it's THROUGH tubes. Like the tubes are the road, and semantics is the guy behind the wheel.The internet is driven by semantics.wait I thought it was tubes
no, no, no ... the tubes are the road, the thread is the car, the concept and/or thought behind the creation of the thread is the guy behind the wheel and semantics is the dude in the passenger seat who is constantly distracting the driver by hurling Cheetos, ice cubes, shoes, etc. at him until the car wrecks (or the thread derails ... or both if you are browsing while driving ... SHAME ON YOU! EYES ON THE ROAD, MISTER!).
no, no, no ... the tubes are the road, the thread is the car, the concept and/or thought behind the creation of the thread is the guy behind the wheel and semantics is the dude in the passenger seat who is constantly distracting the driver by hurling Cheetos, ice cubes, shoes, etc. at him until the car wrecks (or the thread derails ... or both if you are browsing while driving ... SHAME ON YOU! EYES ON THE ROAD, MISTER!).No no it's THROUGH tubes. Like the tubes are the road, and semantics is the guy behind the wheel.The internet is driven by semantics.wait I thought it was tubes
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is that Hitler banned paladins in Nazi Germany.
;-)
|
|
On issues like "what is sexist" and "what are 'good morals'", they are not questions confined to the game, they are larger issues in the real world. There once was a time that segregation was considered a good thing, beneficial to both the majority and minority. Then that shifted and the prevailing opinion was that integration was the right thing and segregation was wrong. Now the pendulum is swinging back a bit and segregation is seen as positive in some cases again. But not everyone is going to agree on that. And one person's opinion of good morals may be another person's evil, so what if the GM and player disagree? Who should get to decide what counts as "good morals" for the paladin?
Something like "balancing classes" doesn't have that larger context, usually, but that can still vary dramatically from 1 game to the next and universal agreements and solutions will thus be harder to achieve.
|
|
So, what? Rather than do the hard thing, the thing that helps to better those involved, we'd rather avoid doing anything? That really doesn't sit right with me personally.
How does anything ever change if everyone avoids the hard stuff?
I'm not saying don't discuss them, I agree they are important discussions to have. But he asked why are they hard, why do they break down into semantics and why can't there just be general agreement on them, and I gave the answer why, IMO. So just go into such a discussion forewarned and fore-armed, and realize that not everyone is going to agree with you, and debate the issues from your point of view without expecting to reach a definite consensus. Because you might as well be asking "why doesn't everyone in the world agree with me on issues relating to gender, morals, and other contentious issues that mankind has debated since first developing culture?"
That's an outrageous claim! Define "semantics."
(rim shot)
I'll show you 'some antics'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I spend most of my time trying to calm everyone down and help us move on when those threads become essentially useless.
Nobody ever listens to me.
I said NOBODY EVER LISTENS TO ME!!
I SAID---!!!
-Discuss making the game a little less more female friendly.
Because that topic gets wrapped up into a term thats one tangled timey whimey ball that has threads extending throughout the entirety of society.
The internet is driven by semantics.And it doesn't help that one person's semantics is another's subtle point.
Also doesn't help that often subtlety is lost on most people, and yet we keep trying it, presumably because those that go for blunt ("too quickly" in the opinion of the one being spoken to usually) are seen as rude, crass, or insulting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, humanity is not likely to change. When this is encouraged by people spouting stupidities like "there is no objective truth, only different viewpoints", that is justifying the behaviour of "I am right", simply because there is no truth to be had.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, no, no ... the tubes are the road, the thread is the car, the concept and/or thought behind the creation of the thread is the guy behind the wheel and semantics is the dude in the passenger seat who is constantly distracting the driver by hurling Cheetos, ice cubes, shoes, etc. at him until the car wrecks (or the thread derails ... or both if you are browsing while driving ... SHAME ON YOU! EYES ON THE ROAD, MISTER!).
Roads don't have rails. Railways do. You don't derail if you are not on a rail.
Check & mate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Cause gamers.
And 'cause people take stuff said personally when it wasn't meant that way.
And 'cause people don't read carefully and take stuff out of context and then a fight starts over the stuff out of context.
In conclusion, we should probably all improve our reading comprehension and get therapy. And probably also get laid.
Not gonna happen though.
I think you are all using the word semantics wrong, and I am totally right because wikipedia = flawless. Nevermind I didn't even use wikipedia or anything.
Am I doing it right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does every thread on certain topics devolve into endless semantics?
Because you've written something, and it's wrong. So I wrote something back to show you why you're wrong and I'm right. However, you still think you're right, so obviously you didn't understand what I wrote, so I now I have to teach you what all the words really mean. Duh.
Why does every thread on certain topics devolve into endless semantics?
Because you've written something, and it's wrong. So I wrote something back to show you why you're wrong and I'm right. However, you still think you're right, so obviously you didn't understand what I wrote, so I now I have to teach you what all the words really mean. Duh.
All joking aside, THIS is my biggest pet peeve of anything I've seen on the Internet ever. "You don't agree with me? OBVIOUSLY you didn't read/didn't understand my point. I'm going to keep reiterating it at you until you agree, because clearly anyone capable of reading and comprehending language will agree with me!" With the not-so-subtle implication of, "If you disagree with me, you're obviously too stupid to understand."
shouting past the other.
This is one of the most interesting things to me about the internet argument, the idea that large bolded letters convey both importance, and a certain amount of volume. Text can only convey volume if both the author and the reader agree that large bolded letters connote such.
Apparently one can yell with the alphabet. :)
|
I really want to know why we as a community cannot discuss:
-Tweaking some classes that folks believe there's a balance issue on.
-Discuss making the game a little less more female friendly.
-Approach talking about the Paladin's restrictions and morality.Maybe we can agree on some basic principals?
-No one is out to ruin the game we all love.
-Yes men struggle too no one is saying that, some have noticed that the general perception of our hobby is "girl kryptonite" and that's by people who know what krytonite is.
-Before gaming together individual groups should discuss their collective take on paladin restrictions, evil characters and what it means to be a rogue.I think if we can collectively agree to these things maybe we can have rational discussions that don't turn into post after post of quotes and replies that turn off the reader or devolve into a flame war.
To the first part, the answer is simple:
Because we disagree.
To the second part, I'll go one at a time
"-No one is out to ruin the game we all love."
It depends on how you define ruin. People on each side of the arguments believe that if the suggestions of the other side became the game, the game would be worse. That is, in a sense, ruining the game.
"-Yes men struggle too no one is saying that, some have noticed that the general perception of our hobby is "girl kryptonite" and that's by people who know what krytonite is."
And many of us think that it is just as patronizing to say we need to change the game so "girls" will like it. Many of us think women are people, and if you play an enjoyable game they will join. The problem isn't the game, it is the players of the game who still think of women as "girl" and more specifically "Them".
"-Before gaming together individual groups should discuss their collective take on paladin restrictions, evil characters and what it means to be a rogue."
And they do. This isn't a problem of your game, it is a problem of people advocating for "The" game.
Which is why the threads are long and heated. Some people want the game to be one way and some people want the game to be another way, and this is where those arguements are hashed out.
Not at your home game. At your home game, presumably everyone is fairly like minded. Otherwise they would be in another home game.
Not at your home game. At your home game, presumably everyone is fairly like minded. Otherwise they would be in another home game.
This is kind of the crux of it - 99% of the arguments going on here online probably don't happen in most gaming groups, as most groups have their understandings and compromises already set up. Those that don't or won't fit in typically leave or are kicked out after a while of frustration, after which the group goes back to "normal".
It's only when you get to these online collectives and start trying to put two (or more) very different groups together that these clashes really happen on any kind of recognizable scale.
|
|
Not at your home game. At your home game, presumably everyone is fairly like minded. Otherwise they would be in another home game.This is kind of the crux of it - 99% of the arguments going on here online probably don't happen in most gaming groups, as most groups have their understandings and compromises already set up. Those that don't or won't fit in typically leave or are kicked out after a while of frustration, after which the group goes back to "normal".
It's only when you get to these online collectives and start trying to put two (or more) very different groups together that these clashes really happen on any kind of recognizable scale.
And frankly, this is the forum for that debate and discussion to happen in.