Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 22:37:32 GMT -8
Gotta say, I feel like Probie Tim when microscope is brought up. I don't know much about it, but dislike what concept I have of it (which is probably wrong) for some reason. I think I heard it too much and got sick of hearing about it. Care to expand on this comment? Clarify a bit? I want to make sure I have all my facts straight before I make my next post. Sure thing. You've mentioned previously (I believe it was in a mote of sin thread) that one of the reasons you dislike PbtA is that you feel like it's being shoved down your throat. This is exactly how Microscope felt to me for a time (i've since had distance from it and the people recommending it, so it's not quite such a hot button thing anymore). I played in a couple games with people who were in an indy story game group (less rpgs, more fiasco, microscope, etc), and they just went to town on it.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 7, 2017 5:48:57 GMT -8
Care to expand on this comment? Clarify a bit? I want to make sure I have all my facts straight before I make my next post. Sure thing. You've mentioned previously (I believe it was in a mote of sin thread) that one of the reasons you dislike PbtA is that you feel like it's being shoved down your throat. This is exactly how Microscope felt to me for a time (i've since had distance from it and the people recommending it, so it's not quite such a hot button thing anymore). I played in a couple games with people who were in an indy story game group (less rpgs, more fiasco, microscope, etc), and they just went to town on it. Hmm. I was referring more to the "I don't know much about it, but dislike what concept I have of it (which is probably wrong) for some reason." part of it, and I think you know that. I'm going to take this to PM, because we don't need to drag down yet another thread.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jun 8, 2017 0:05:18 GMT -8
FWIW, @stevensw , though I see a similar tendency to believe one's opinion to be objective rather than subjective, I haven't seen your behavior approach Saelorn's. To my eyes, it feels like you have even made an effort to curb your more curmudgeonly habits in order to maintain a more peaceful tone on the forum.
On some level, you recognize that if you want to exist in a group, you have to abide by the social contract of the group, one of which is to not constantly insult people, which was Saelorn's bread-and-butter. Saelorn wasn't interested in getting along with anyone, and was fond of ad hominem attacks to precede their actual logical arguments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 1:36:51 GMT -8
FWIW, @stevensw , though I see a similar tendency to believe one's opinion to be objective rather than subjective, I haven't seen your behavior approach Saelorn's. To my eyes, it feels like you have even made an effort to curb your more curmudgeonly habits in order to maintain a more peaceful tone on the forum. On some level, you recognize that if you want to exist in a group, you have to abide by the social contract of the group, one of which is to not constantly insult people, which was Saelorn's bread-and-butter. Saelorn wasn't interested in getting along with anyone, and was fond of ad hominem attacks to precede their actual logical arguments. I've gotten frustrated and said things to people. Most of us have, to one degree or another. Long form text communication is not an ideal form of communication. It tends to create rifts and drive people apart, in my experiance. I think it's very similar to being a tough guy when the other guy isn't there to see you. It's so much easier to write cutting things then it is to say them. The other person can't interrupt and can't often really retaliate (or at least that's the perception). All this is to say that it takes some ammount of effort to replace that filter. Given that my relationship to everyone on happyjacks is nill and I expect that it will stay that way for the most part, I have less reason than normal to care who gets offended. While the rational part of my brain knows there is a person behind each account, the emotional side doesn't really care. This entire effect goes up to eleven, by the by, when people start to get snippy. I've often wondered what I might say if I went to a convention and someone told me they are so and so from the forum. "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on?" "Oh cool, I'm that guy you hate." Or "Happyjacks? Yeah, I listen to it from time to time." So not only are the majority of you 'not people' to the side of me that cares about such things, but some of the forum members have moved from 'not people' to 'royal dickbag'. The only people who I have a way of separating from the general populace are the hosts. Not only have I heard their voices, but I've seen their faces. All of which causes a kind of one sided relationship (which is more than exists with everyone else). Case in point. I disagree with Stork's views quite a bit, but I think he's a cool guy. He's the kind of person I would set asside being 'right' with, because I value him as a person more than I do what is true. Here's the thing though: I don't necessarily dislike the fact that I don't know the most of you. I don't need a second set of friends who I'd be willing to compromise for. I already have friends. Sometimes I want a straight up disagreement without any emotional baggage. I want someone to tell me why D&D is better than I give it credit for. I just want it from a logic based angle (which I fully understand is not always possible or desired). To me its not mutual respect that drives proper discourse. It would be better if it was double blind. You can't respect a person you can't see. All you have is their arguement. And that's what you'd have to respond to. Maybe go triple blind. I don't know you. You don't know me. The audience/moderator doesn't know either of us. Ideally it would be populated with people of differing viewpoints who are committed to logical discourse. Do I want to get along? Not in the sense of sacrificing message for warm fuzzies. I'm sure a lot of people would like me better if I was willing to go along and get along. But I'm not looking to get along. I'm also not looking to have debate devolve into name calling. That said, I'm not perfect. As such I try to ignore small jibes. I don't think I've ever used the report feature on someone, even when it might have been warranted. Having things become personal is the antithesis of my intentions. Good discussion stops when people start throwing dirt at each other. I wish I could say I'd always been successful at ignoring jibes. I wish I could say I had never gotten frustrated and allowed that to push me into picking up dirt to throw. It would make pushing for this sort of discussion easier. Alas, I am who I am.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jun 8, 2017 5:22:53 GMT -8
I hear you. Thanks for explaining where you're coming from. I don't think you and I process information the same way. I agree that mutual respect doesn't drive discourse; argument does – however respect is critical in an environment which is so limited in its expressive medium: text.
For me, as an American expat with neither roleplayers nor fluent English speakers at hand, this and one other forum are my most common access to those interests. To me, just about everyone here is a treasure in some form or another. This includes you, because your outlook is unusual… and confounding.
I suspect this virtual community is more important to you than you seem to be implying. I feel that, if the other voices here were really beneath your consideration and didn't register as people, you wouldn't commit so much time and energy to responses here — and perhaps the jibes would not bother you as much as they do.
|
|