| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, in your opinion, does it take to be considered a Veteran Pathfinder within the roleplaying community? Either as a player or as a GM?
Do you need to have participated in the game for a certain number of years?
1? 5? 10?
Been around since the beginning?
The beginning of 2nd-Edition? 1st-Edition? 3.0? Have been a magazine regular?
Played/hosted a certain number of successful games?
As a society GM with enough purple stars?
Or perhaps even of whole campaigns?
Reached a posting benchmark of some kind on the official forums?
1,000?
10,000?
30,000?*
What is your personal metric(s) for determining if someone is or is not a veteran Pathfinder? Please discuss.
|
It depends on which meaning of Veteran you mean.
On one hand, it relates to being in a field for a long time and gaining experience from it accordingly. The other definition is simply to have at one point been part of an organized military which, to be fair, I think the PFS (the in-game/lore organization) probably qualifies as by almost any measure despite them not being singularly tied to one nation.
In-Character anyone that enlisted in the PFS would qualify given that they passed any introductory tests and membership requirements even if they never actually participated in any missions or combat. As for the meta meaning of a PLAYER participating in organized play, that's subjective but I'd say someone probably should have at least a handful of games under their belt, say five or more before one might usually classify them as a veteran.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is any sort of quantitative measurement. Its far more one of those "I know it when I see it" things.
A veteran of a system knows the system fairly well. They understand how characters work, how the rules work. They know most of the edge cases, they understand where the rules are NOT defined. They can discuss the nuances of the system intelligently.
I've seen players with a dozen years of experience who do NOT meet that standard. I've seen people who have read the rules thoroughly, looked at some things on the net, and played a few games who DO meet that standard.
To add on to that, I'd consider all of my longest-running players to be veterans, even the one with questionably good character builds that also doesn't know his rules quite as well as I'd like.
I think it's really just a matter of having enough experience to know what you're doing. You can't really put metrics on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What 'veteran' status are you looking for and what type of benefits would a person gain for having it?
Everything in the end is going to be subjective opinion, so I kind of figured it would be personal variance.
For me, I liken it to a master tradesmen who knows a plethora of job-related shortcuts and trade secrets by virtue of sheer experience. They might not yield better results than a younger tradesman, but they might have better tools from years of saving and could maybe finish a job much more quickly and efficiently. Acknowledging that in no way diminishes others striving to get there.
If you want a more precise definition, then perhaps this discussion could serve to narrow it down a little?
I think it would be easier to shift the conversation to an IC perspective. To be seen as a veteran of the Pathfinders, how many expeditions do you need to have gone on? I could see them grading within their chapterhouses, much the way that military units have done for centuries. Survived the battle of XXX, explored the caverns of YYY, and you're a veteran. Done 10 of these great deeds, you're seen as an ace of aces, or similar.
The pathfinders also have a history of grading your participation by what you did. Council of Thieves included venturing into a cursed and forgotten Pathfinder lodge, where the heroes learn all about some of the inner politics of venture-companies and what happens when people feel they've been dealt with unfairly.
That sounds like a terrific idea, but please make another thread for it.
Do you need to have participated in the game for a certain number of years?
1? 5? 10?Been around since the beginning?
The beginning of 2nd-Edition? 1st-Edition? 3.0? Have been a magazine regular?
I would definitely argue against time-based measurements. Someone who plays 2 games per year for 10 years and someone who plays 20 games per year for 1 year have the same experience.
Reached a posting benchmark of some kind on the official forums?
1,000?
10,000?
30,000?*
Definitely not.
Played/hosted a certain number of successful games?
As a society GM with enough purple stars?
Or perhaps even of whole campaigns?
This would probably be closest.
Qualitatively, it's someone who has played enough so they're familiar with uncommon and rare situations that gamers face. There's an element of quantity, because it's hard to argue someone has "seen it all" when they've only played a few games. But it also depends on how well people pay attention - engaged players will become experienced faster than those who nap through games.
There's a breadth element too - people who play the same characters with the same people under the same conditions will have blind spots that someone who plays with different people won't have.
As an example, I'd use the "X nat 1s in a row" test - how big does X need to be before someone says something? A new player might say something at X = 1. Some people might say something at X = 2. But those who have played enough to count as vets probably wouldn't say anything until X = 3 or even greater.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the question was pressed to my players, they responded with "surely it's the number of PCs the GM has brutally murdered."
X'D
Personally I've wondered at times if certain roleplaying YouTubers offering wisdom to the community were Veteran Pathfinders with lots of game experience and table time, or if they simply had a degree in psychology, or acting, or event planning, or whatever, and simply chose to focus their videos on tabletop roleplaying due to its growing popularity.
Regardless of their experience, skill set, or motivation, I sure do appreciate their creations. :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a gatekeeping term - the more precisely you define it, the more of an exclusive club you create, and the more you denigrate the value of those who don't fit the definition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't do this. Pathfinder is a game for all and there needs be no benchmark for what makes someone more skilled than another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't do this. Pathfinder is a game for all and there needs be no benchmark for what makes someone more skilled than another.
More experienced. (Which does not necessarily mean better, in my experience. New players and GMs often offer amazing experiences and perspectives that old grognards like myself--stuck in their comfort zones--rarely would.)
I seriously fail to understand what the big deal is. Why wouldn't you want to celebrate those that are particularly skilled, experienced, or accomplished in their chosen profession, sport, or other chosen field???
It's like calling the Olympics or an employee of the month program "gatekeeping." Sounds totally made up, or at least misused.
For it to be denigrating, it would have to be willfully used as such.
There's no one here doing that. The only problem here is that which you bring with you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are things that come with tangible benefits to the title (Olympian, Employee of the Month), while "veteran Pathfinder" is literally just ego. It accomplishes the same as saying "I've played this game a lot," while also telling people they have to respect your opinions. It's textbook gatekeeping.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The objective of the thread is to create a classification of players who know and understand the game better than other people. That is the goal and it's not a deviation from the thread to call that out as gatekeeping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The objective of the thread is to create a classification of players who know and understand the game better than other people. That is the goal and it's not a deviation from the thread to call that out as gatekeeping.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true.
There is no proof to support your assumptions about the intent of this thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need proof to define the term "gatekeeping," especially since most of the replies to your thread are explicitly calling it gatekeeping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need proof to define the term "gatekeeping," especially since most of the replies to your thread are explicitly calling it gatekeeping.
Except you haven't even bothered to explicitly define it. You guys just walked in saying "thread bad!"
If you don't like it, then stop posting in it. Leave it to those who hernestly wish to discuss the proposed topic.
This forum doesn't need any sort of thought police or speech inforcement beyond the developers themselves. If you want, flag the thread if you think I've violated the forum code of conduct, but please don't post here again unless you're willing to actually participate in the discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously fail to understand what the big deal is. Why wouldn't you want to celebrate those that are particularly skilled, experienced, or accomplished in their chosen profession, sport, or other chosen field???
It's like calling the Olympics or an employee of the month program "gatekeeping." Sounds totally made up, or at least misused.
A few things:
1) What is a typical hypothetical person who is awarded this title of 'veteran' player going to do with the title?
2) Things like the Olympics, skilled tradespeople, sport game winners, and such are all in constant competition with each other. Are you suggesting some sort of competition to see who should be awarded the title?
3) Things like 'Employee of the month' and other such popularity contest awards always breed resentment. They are handed out arbitrarily and with little regard to actual merit. People who actually deserve them don't always get them, and people who do get them often don't deserve them. I don't want to see such things on these boards or in other places in the Pathfinder community.
So again I ask: If gatekeeping isn't your point and intent, then what exactly are you hoping for? What is a 'veteran' Pathfinder going to be able to do with the title?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need proof to define the term "gatekeeping," especially since most of the replies to your thread are explicitly calling it gatekeeping.Except you haven't even bothered to explicitly define it. You guys just walked in saying "thread bad!"
So something like 'Your opinions are just opinions. Mine are much closer to the intent of the developers because I am a Veteran Pathfinder.'
If you don't like it, then stop posting in it. Leave it to those who hernestly wish to discuss the proposed topic.
I am honestly discussing the proposed topic. Just because I feel like it is a bad idea and am not afraid to tell you exactly why, doesn't mean that I am discussing in bad faith.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So something like 'Your opinions are just opinions. Mine are much closer to the intent of the developers because I am a Veteran Pathfinder.'
Thank you for posting a clear definition, but nobody has yet done what you describe. If they had, THEN the issue was raised, I'd likely be wholly in your court.
I am honestly discussing the proposed topic. Just because I feel like it is a bad idea and am not afraid to tell you exactly why, doesn't mean that I am discussing in bad faith.
Never said that you were discussingin bad faith; merely that some posters had jumped the gun a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing that something isn't gatekeeping without knowing what it is doesn't exactly make a sound endorsement of why your idea is a good one. Also, you can't say that no one has done this when YOU'VE created the idea of a "veteran Pathfinder." The concept isn't one that exists so there's no one to begin gatekeeping with it.
People are saying, "Hey, this could create a gatekeeping situation," and your response is "Well, they haven't yet." That's not the point. The point is to NOT exclude people from the hobby. You're attempting to create an exclusion for the purposes of... What? To have the exclusion?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we want to think about this positively:
A veteran Pathfinder would be someone with a high degree of skill and experience in the system/s.
That's pretty simple, but why are we trying to determine this? It should be a means to an end.
That end should thus be that a veteran is someone who can then serve as a resource for someone seeking to develop those skills for themselves.
Someone who when asked for their advice can provide good advice and articulate their reasoning. Someone who can fairly adjudicate and arbitrate rules and player disagreements.
I don't know if veteran is necessarily the right name for this, but it's certainly the right aim and tone for this kind of discussion.
The other thing is that it's not a clear boundary, and it's not something that you can claim for yourself. It's a position that the community puts you into, and your either live up to it or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we want to think about this positively:
A veteran Pathfinder would be someone with a high degree of skill and experience in the system/s.
That's pretty simple, but why are we trying to determine this? It should be a means to an end.
That end should thus be that a veteran is someone who can then serve as a resource for someone seeking to develop those skills for themselves.
Someone who when asked for their advice can provide good advice and articulate their reasoning. Someone who can fairly adjudicate and arbitrate rules and player disagreements.
I don't know if veteran is necessarily the right name for this, but it's certainly the right aim and tone for this kind of discussion.
The other thing is that it's not a clear boundary, and it's not something that you can claim for yourself. It's a position that the community puts you into, and your either live up to it or not.
A well-reasoned post lacking toxic condemnation. Thank you for that breath of fresh air.
Would it help if we came up with a different term that more clearly syncs up to the notion of a more inclusive mindset?
It was never my intention to exclude or demean anybody. Only to create a thread where we could celebrate personal achievements and milestones with like-minded fans of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to quote Breithauptclan a bit because you're either not explaining yourself well or refusing to explain.
"So if that isn't what you are meaning by this post, maybe try again. What 'veteran' status are you looking for and what type of benefits would a person gain for having it?"
"So again I ask: If gatekeeping isn't your point and intent, then what exactly are you hoping for? What is a 'veteran' Pathfinder going to be able to do with the title?"
Without any explanation, you're making up a title for no reason that will only have a negative impact.
What, in your opinion, does it take to be considered a Veteran Pathfinder within the roleplaying community? Either as a player or as a GM?
Do you need to have participated in the game for a certain number of years?
1? 5? 10?Been around since the beginning?
The beginning of 2nd-Edition? 1st-Edition? 3.0? Have been a magazine regular?Played/hosted a certain number of successful games?
As a society GM with enough purple stars?
Or perhaps even of whole campaigns?Reached a posting benchmark of some kind on the official forums?
1,000?
10,000?
30,000?*What is your personal metric(s) for determining if someone is or is not a veteran Pathfinder? Please discuss.
** spoiler omitted **
Years played isn't the same as the number of sessions played, which is where the real measurement of experience comes from. If a group plays for 2 years, but only every other week, whereas another group plays for 1 year, but every week, they are equally experienced, assuming they are the same exact players doing the same exact things and having the same exact outcomes, playing the same exact amount of time in each session. Just FYI, that's a lot of assumptions that can, in no way, be totally transferable from table to table. Dice might roll differently, affecting outcomes. Houserules may be implemented which change how certain interactions pan out. And plenty more.
Just as well, consistency and frequency play a big part too. By comparison, a lot of people saying "I played X game for Y years" doesn't translate very well if they play, for example, once per month. 12 sessions over the course of a year is not much compared to someone who plays weekly for the same amount of time, assuming each group adheres to an agreed standard of how much time a "session" takes, which I believe is defined in the rulebook as somewhere from 4 to 6 hours on average. On top of that, said player who plays weekly is more likely to retain knowledge compared to someone playing bi-weekly or monthly, for example, since they may be more frequently exposed to gameplay and the rules.
The point in time of which you showed up to the hobby isn't particularly important either, since the important thing is knowing what the rules are now, in this current state of affairs, especially if certain builds from the Playtest or previous printings of the Rulebooks are no longer valid due to rules changes or game expectations from the gaming group you're playing with. Similarly, if some groups have had old houserules that have been changed, that point in time doesn't matter except for recalling the old rules and the changes behind them. Which can be important, but you don't have to actually participate to know or understand those things. More often than not, a simple Google (or forum) search will turn up most of the information you need, and most likely an explanation behind the change. (Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant here, the point is that it exists beyond the moment it was introduced, and it changes and evolves just like a living thing does.)
Define "successful," because this is subjective even among those who are largely agreeable with definitions of a "successful" session. Even common definitions, like "Everyone had fun" or "We managed to complete the AP/Encounter/Chronicle/Session/whatever," can be varied. Some players may have completed a session, but didn't like certain mechanics or implementations, and thus didn't find it fun for themselves. Conversely, some players may have had fun even though their character died, their party failed the objective, or a complete and utter TPK occurred. Heck, just recently, our GM got a little upset that they couldn't get another fight in that would end our now-upcoming hiatus on a crucial cliffhanger to keep us hyped and engaged in the meantime. That doesn't mean we didn't play enough or that we won't play in the future, merely that a personal preference wasn't met, which led to some personal disappointment, which can lead to a personal sense of failure, even though the rest of our group probably doesn't/won't care about it too terribly much. I've had personal gripes with how I've handled certain content myself, and parts of me have regret on wondering how much better and enjoyable the session could have been if I had handled it better, but regardless, the session finished as it always has, with people saying their goodbyes and planning for the next session meet-up.
That last one is a non-sequitur. Plenty of people can post utter gibberish and reach the same amount of post counts as someone who spends that much time and effort (and possess that much charisma and prestige) to create worthwhile posts that others appreciate and enjoy. You can take a guess as to which category of poster I fall into. My suggestion? Quantity is nothing. Quality is everything. Plenty of people have singular favorited posts that dwarf all of the favorites of my posts combined, which is what matters these days. In fact, typing this out is most likely a waste of time. But struggling in futility is about all we can do besides abandoning and moving on, since it's in our instinct to always fight until we can't anymore. (At least, that's the assumption. A poor one, at that.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol the Painbringer and Watery Soup both make excellent points!
Darksol: I didn't want to define or codify definitions very strictly because I was hoping for people to define it FOR THEMSELVES. I didn't want to tell others what was needed to take pride in something; I wanted the community to decide that (kind of like how a town takes pride in its sports team because they win a lot, or are known for their good sportsmanship, or other desirable, agreed-upon trait).
Honestly, I think the only mistake I made here was phrasing it in a manner that made it seem like I was asking people to define it for others in the OP, causing people to incorrectly suspect the intent was gatekeeping; and engaging with people who seemed determined to keep the thread off topic (which I'm done with).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With respect, I think the community is telling you that no such definition is really applicable or needed.
Because of how the hobby is set up, comparing different people (at least outside PFS - you can get a more objective metric there), is like comparing apples to oranges to tomatoes. PFS to home games vary so wildly that you can't draw a consistent line.
The best I can give you is the extremely unhelpful "do others consistently have fun playing with this player", which even itself isn't very helpful - one player that knows their rules very well isn't going to do as well at a table that plays fast and loose with the rules. You might be able to swing "do others look to this player for guidance", but that seems like a circular argument based on what you appear to be trying to get out of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the only mistake I made here was phrasing it in a manner that made it seem like I was asking people to define it for others in the OP, causing people to incorrectly suspect the intent was gatekeeping; and engaging with people who seemed determined to keep the thread off topic (which I'm done with).
If you've decided to stop engaging, that's fine. The topic of gatekeeping is an important one, I feel, especially when these forums are often the "first face" that potential players get to see outside of their own home groups.
Here's some further reading material on the topic!
Specifically talking about speaking from a position of knowledge or authority about the correct way to play based on your experience.
A critical eye turned towards what our perceived notions of "proper Pathfinder" actually says to communities outside our own.
Exploring the harmful effects of excluding people from your hobby when you speak from a (limited) position of experience.
So yes, it's a good topic to explore and one that probably shouldn't be glossed over casually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The topic of gatekeeping is an important one
Maybe. But is this the thread to discuss it?
I suggest you create another thread, one with "gatekeeping" in the title, so that everyone interested in the term can find it easily.
As to a question asked several times ...
If it's not gatekeeping, what is it?
One of Ravingdork's daily brain farts? I mean, no offense to Ravingdork, but he creates a ton of threads.
I'd consider a "veteran" of ttrpgs to be someone that's welcoming and inclusive, brings people into the hobby, hosts and/or dms some games, provides buy in or otherwise is a team player for the dm, and keeps things kopasetic for everyone at table. If you can do a handful of those things I'd call you OG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, no offense to Ravingdork, but he creates a ton of threads.
Why would I be offended by that? I absolutely do create a ton of threads (if I did my math right, I've averaged just over 7 posts each day for nearly 12 years).
I'd consider a "veteran" of TTRPGs to be someone that's welcoming and inclusive, brings people into the hobby, hosts and/or DMs some games, provides buy-in or otherwise is a team player for the DM, and keeps things copasetic for everyone at table. If you can do a handful of those things I'd call you OG.
Sounds like a great definition to me.
...not sure which "roleplay community" Ravingdork meant...
I was referencing people who participate in Paizo's Pathfinder Roleplaying Game in a general sense.
Obviously, this also includes stuff which is currently unclear, as there are plenty of discussion, even on this forums, about topics which can't be answered because they are not entirely covered by raw.
This leads to a confrontation between different users who know the game, we might call them experts or if you like even veterans, but even after dozens of comments, the best we can afford could be:
- Assuming what the creators meant to write.
- What's the best deal (comparison between different or similar mechanics).
- What might be the correct interpretation (unfortunately, and I hate this, it's not rare to see flavor description mixed up with mechanical rules, and this leads to issues too).
Anyway, although if in some occasions there won't be a neat agreement between the whole participants, I think that being able to understand the rules and participate in the conversation (showing its own point of view as well as making comparison) shows an above the average understanding of either the ruleset and anything game related (for example, being able to remember different stuff whether it's from class or skill feats, monsters, rules and even some niche stuff, like subordinate actions).
I wouldn't stick with names here, since a forum is a place to share information and points of view, and there might be days somebody might provide the best answer, while other days is the same person the one requiring assistance with a new topic (Apart from Waldham. Jk).
Some good points there.
As someone who only did home games for about 2 decades before getting into public play, the thing I appreciate the most about the public play experience is the diversity of play styles. So for me the importance/ impact of being a veteran is the combination of lore and rules knowledge as well as flexibility to appreciate the game in a variety of different ways. It's very easy when only playing with a small group to get a very narrow focus of how to approach things. I could certainly see primarily home group folks getting similar experience over time if they played with a lot of groups.
I wholeheartedly agree with this! I spent over ten years hosting for and playing with the same small group of players, and didn't realize how--as you say--narrowly focused in our approach until I made the leap into Society play for a couple of years. It really blew my mind how people played differently. I picked up tons of new methodologies and not-quite-house-rules to incorporate into my own games (such as asking a player making a Knowledge Check what kind of knowledge they were hoping for). Being able to play with numerous people of varying ages, cultures, and physical capabilities. (Did you know some blind people play the game with grail character sheets made from Lego boards and Lego pegs?) Had some fascinating experiences.
It also made me realize how painfully slow and internally disrespectful my home group has become with our years of comfort. In stark contrast, organized society games are overly polite and fast-paced more often than not and some of those GMs go above and beyond to make sure everyone is having an amazing experience (such as by building a handmade sailing ship model with a break away top deck for example).
A GM with lots of experience with several different groups and environments is absolutely worth their weight in gold.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, given some of RD's other threads, this sounded to me like an attempt to get a community defined/agreed upon term to use as a marketing label on their pay to play sessions/recruitment. -- or a way to get a 'stop arguing with me, I'm a Veteran Pathfinder' card to play.
Neither of which are helpful to the community, IMO.
If the marketing label was your goal, I don't think it would be useful anyways, better to list your qualifications and experience as a short set of bullet points, generally tailored to the audience your recruiting for, possible good metrics: Hours GMd, # of unique players GM'd for, # of unique players who have played in more than one campaign with you, # of long-form campaigns completed (probably broken down into Adventures & Adventure Paths as they have different challenges), # of characters deaths at your tables, etc. These are things that let players make a decision about a GM's likely depth and breadth of experience; and there's no way you'd capture that in any one-word adjective, even one with a meaning codified somewhere.
If you were after a term to give your arguments greater weight, that's a part of the gatekeeping problem.
I'll be honest, given some of RD's other threads, this sounded to me like an attempt to get a community defined/agreed upon term to use as a marketing label on their pay to play sessions/recruitment. -- or a way to get a 'stop arguing with me, I'm a Veteran Pathfinder' card to play.
Neither of which are helpful to the community, IMO.
I don't pay enough attention to all the thread Ravingdork creates, but I agree that if this is a label he intends to slap on his own back, it's not helpful to the community and questionably helpful to themselves.
"Veteran" status wouldn't stick in peoples' craws if it implied more service. If there are a pile of characters to choose from and the "veteran" grabs the best one, claiming they'll play it better than anyone else, that's terrible. If it were the exact situation and the "veteran" lets everyone choose first because they know they can make any character work, that's great.
I would suggest referrals as a better mechanism for expressing experience for P4P GMing - get a bunch of people who enjoyed your games. Their references will imply that you've got plenty of experience without focusing on the numerical quantitation of experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't pay enough attention to all the thread Ravingdork creates, but I agree that if this is a label he intends to slap on his own back, it's not helpful to the community and questionably helpful to themselves.
My formal title is actually Rules Lawyer from Hell, as once bestowed upon me by the game creators of the Star Wars Saga roleplaying game (presumably for my uncanny ability to find loop holes and corner cases).
They also once said: *
I don't recall how many posts I had on their forum by the end, but I'm confident it was over 20,000.
You're only a Veteran Pathfinder if you fought in the pathfinder wars, duh.
LOL XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that's the terms, consider me a grandmaster, not a veteran :PWhen the question was pressed to my players, they responded with "surely it's the number of PCs the GM has brutally murdered."
X'D
Damn if those are the terms, despite 20 years of being a GM, I'm a rank amateur. I've killed more PCs as PCs than I ever have as a GM.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I've wondered at times if certain roleplaying YouTubers offering wisdom to the community were Veteran Pathfinders with lots of game experience and table time, or if they simply had a degree in psychology, or acting, or event planning, or whatever, and simply chose to focus their videos on tabletop roleplaying due to its growing popularity.
Regardless of their experience, skill set, or motivation, I sure do appreciate their creations. :D
Are they veteran Pathfinders or just outsiders here to capitalize on the growing popularity of the hobby for the views?
Sure…. No gatekeeping there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I can think of when I look at this thread is people like Aw3som3-117, who when I look at post history, has been on these forums for about three months - since April 12, 2021. Certainly not a 'veteran' by any of the metrics that have been presented. But is there anyone who has been on these forums for the last three months that seriously thinks that Aw3som3-117 isn't a useful and valuable contributor?
So any metric or measurement that is giving accolades to members of a community that is also excluding awesome people like that isn't going to get my backing.
And probably the best thing for me to do now is to stop looking at this thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Veteran Pathfinder is a character who is around level 8-9 who is ready to retire from The Society, They've seen hell and wrote several books about the dangers to teach the new adventurers. OOCly on the other hand. there are too many factors to take into consideration to even assign a classification and it is inherently only there to segregate ideas instead of welcome and celebrate new and wonderful mindsets that the less experienced players have.
I for one feel that if anything. We should celebrate those join us, instead of pin medals on those that remain throughout the years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I can think of when I look at this thread is people like Aw3som3-117, who when I look at post history, has been on these forums for about three months - since April 12, 2021. Certainly not a 'veteran' by any of the metrics that have been presented. But is there anyone who has been on these forums for the last three months that seriously thinks that Aw3som3-117 isn't a useful and valuable contributor?
So any metric or measurement that is giving accolades to members of a community that is also excluding awesome people like that isn't going to get my backing.
Has anyone in the thread done anything but flat out reject any time-based or postcount-based measurements? Has Ravingdork expressed any interest in fighting those rejections, as if he really wanted to implement one of them?
I say no, to either question.
Frankly, that's why it's so baffling (to me) that you're so adamant this is some form of gatekeeping.
---
Might I also say, it's also a little weird to me that you're so vocally against post counts meaning anything and yet are so aware of them. I didn't know Aw3som3-117 was a "new" poster. I don't know if you're a new poster; I don't think so, but I couldn't tell you whether you had 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 posts (I just looked it up). I know Ravingdork is not a new poster (but wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between 1000, 10000, and 100000 posts prior to him bragging about having 30,000 in the OP).
For that matter, without looking (and I didn't/haven't), I can't tell you exactly how many posts I have. I'm pretty sure it's more than 500. It's probably not 5,000 (I had 5,000 on another board and think I have posted way less here). I make notoriously long posts; maybe I have more words posted than other longtime posters. Maybe not. That's the beauty of the Internet, someone bragging they have 30,000 posts utterly and completely fails to impress me. It's totally meaningless. We get the egalitarian utopia that we all want, so long as nobody takes the extra step of clicking on someone's name to see how many posts they have.