Goodman rebuttal - Page 8

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noumenon

I searched for a while and found the thread by Orcus that people were talking about but I'm getting lazy now. Could anyone link to this "Mr Peterson" guy if his comments are something I need to read?

Orcus is Clarke Peterson.

Mark Plemmons · 21st June 2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

It's pathetic. I called up what is the only gaming store in CT, as far as I can tell, today to ask them if they were doing anything for Free RPG Day. The girl o the phone had no idea what I was talking about, but did say there was a guy who was a DM that came in last night looking to start a game, but no one was there. I guess they do mostly MtG there.

Yes, sadly, a bad game store experience can sometimes be worse than no game store at all.

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rounser

Based on my recent experience in the minis thread, I couldn't disagree more. Your "side" is desperate for legitimacy and proof of success, and prepared to hem and haw in the face of evidence to the contrary that you don't like, just as any other will. It's called the human condition, and you can't pretend you're exempt from it, or that the problem only lies with the other team.

I think the problem is that the "proof" in question is just more of the same anecdotal or 'soft' variety that 4e haters say is not enough to justify calling 4e a success. It's an impressive double-standard.

Twowolves · 21st June 2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carmachu

I have to slightly disagree. I know online dsicounters can and do hurt GLGS in regard to Games WOrkshop items. Gods know I never play full price of anything from tehm and know I'm not alone.

I'll assume there are similar places for M:tG.....Anyone who plays the game know?

I'm pretty sure gamers trying to get reasonable prices on GW stuff 15 years ago invented the online discount store model in the first place.

ProfessorCirno · 21st June 2009, 07:04 AM

Oh for the love of god, let's not degenerate into being on "sides."

rounser · 21st June 2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

It's an impressive double-standard.

People tend to take information they want to believe at face value, and turn their inner skeptic/critic on information they don't want to believe. We filter and process incoming information in a manner appropriate to our worldviews and egos. Of course this is the case, it's obvious. I was just taking exception at a claim of exemption or being more rational, when it's obvious both sides have vested interests in believing what they want to believe.

Quote:

Oh for the love of god, let's not degenerate into being on "sides."

You're worried about semantics? Maintaining a facade that we're all impartial agents? That you can accuse a group you don't agree with of being something, which was all that I was responding to when I used that word, and that there's no division when that's what's happening?

ggroy · 21st June 2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rounser

People tend to take information they want to believe at face value, and turn their inner skeptic/critic on information they don't want to believe. We filter and process incoming information in a way based on our worldview. Of course.

Better known as the "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rounser

. . . it's obvious both sides have vested interests in believing what they want to believe.

Normally I can't disagree with you more but you do, I believe, have a point when it comes to the self-proclaimed members of sides. OTOH, as somebody else just pointed out, everything isn't so black and white. I, for example, own no 4e books, have no interest in playing 4e, and don't have plans to buy into it — yet I am also sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, etc.

I have no vested interest in seeing 4e succeed, nor do I have a vested interest in proving the doomsayers right. I can be passionate, yes, but it has nothing to do with a love of 4e or hatred of other games — it is about liking or disliking individual arguments. I suspect that more consumers actually fall into this category than one of the two "sides" that are often talked about on Internet message boards.

rounser · 21st June 2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

yet I am also sick to death of all the hyperbolic accusations that WotC raped childhoods, destroyed D&D, etc.

I don't think you have to be that to be in the group of "denialists" that was deemed to exist a couple of pages before.

In other words guys, I didn't start this particular fire just because I used that word. Go talk to the guys calling people who don't agree with them "denialists". That was what I was responding to, and you let that go without comment.

ProfessorCirno · 21st June 2009, 07:48 AM

I thought of a lot of really long and awesome posts I could try to write, but they all boil down to this:

Let it go, Rounser.

rounser · 21st June 2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Let it go, Rounser.

Take your own advice, Cirno. You're the one who's jumped in with the accusation here based on semantics and something you think is implied that may or may not actually be there. I was just responding to an accusation based on calling anyone some other poster disagreed with "denialists".

If you're not going to engage in discussion, don't offer me unsolicited advice that you clearly need to take yourself. And kindly don't be patronising in that way towards me again.

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rounser

That was what I was responding to, and you let that go without comment.

What? I responded directly to your assertions regarding objective evidence and the acceptance or denial thereof by the "sides" of your proposed all-encompassing conflict. Right here. I think something else that I said may bear repeating, too: "I can be passionate, yes, but it has nothing to do with a love of 4e or hatred of other games — it is about liking or disliking individual arguments."

[Edit: In case it's not clear, in this instance, I dislike the argument that the hobby is divided into those who like D&D 4e and those who don't and that one of these sides is right and the other wrong.]

rounser · 21st June 2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

What? I responded directly to your assertions regarding objective evidence and the acceptance or denial thereof by the "sides" of your proposed all-encompassing conflict. Right here. That said, I can clearly see where this is going with your suggestion that I deliberately ignored something in favor of boosting 4e, so I think it best that you and I just end our discussion on the subject.

I'm saying that you didn't respond to their claims, not mine. I'm completely aware you're jumping down my throat, and letting their claims of denialism and the way the anti-4E group acts completely off the hook.

The fact that I pointed out they were doing this is apparently objectionable. Implying that there are opposing groups engaged in "denialism" is seemingly A-OK in your book, but calling them out for it isn't?

You're both attacking me, when I didn't start this, I'm just responding to it, and pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm not suggesting you're boosting 4E, nor that you're part of some sort of team you don't consider yourself to be part of. Heck, I don't.

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rounser

I'm saying that you didn't respond to their claims, not mine. I'm completely aware you're jumping down my throat, and letting their claims of denialism and the way the anti-4E group acts completely off the hook.

You're both attacking me, when I didn't start this, I'm just responding to it.

First, I didn't attack you at all, I commented on perceived "sides" of your proposed conflict, but not on you. Second, I didn't ascribe motives to you, where you have now all but called me a liar and suggested that I have some kind of hidden agenda as a secret 4e booster. Let me clarify things for you. I don't like 4e. If you think I'm lying, then say so, but please — grow a spine, quit hiding behind abiguities and misdirection, quit playing the victim card, and speak your convictions or shut up.

rounser · 21st June 2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

First, I didn't attack you at all, I commented on perceived "sides" of your proposed conflict, but not on you.

I'm telling you I'm responding to people who set that ball rolling through implying it rather overtly, I didn't do it myself.

Quote:

Second, I didn't ascribe motives to you, where you have now all but called me a liar and suggested that I have some kind of hidden agenda as a secret 4e booster.

No, I haven't called you a liar, nor do I consider you a 4E booster. I'm just trying to tell you that I'm a respondent to the "sides" issue, not an instigator, and I'm saying "hey, you let that part pass without comment, so since I'm just responding to them why don't you go pick a fight with them?"

Quote:

Let me clarify things for you. I don't like 4e. If you think I'm lying, then say so, but please — grow a spine, quit hiding behind abiguities and misdirection, quit playing the victim card, and speak your convictions or shut up.

You've really misread things between us here, none of that applies. I'm responding to this post and more directly, this post. I've been trying to say that if you find the sides thing objectionable, go pick a fight with those guys, because they started it.

And you're being really rude. There was no need for any of that snark, you're reading things into my words that weren't there.

Jack99 · 21st June 2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

Orcus is Clarke Peterson.

Clark.

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rounser

BS

You specifically accused me of victimizing you and deliberately giving 4e supporters leeway where I gave you none. When I told you to either stand behind those accusations or stop making them, you instead went back and edited your post substantially to downplay your previous position, but not before playing the victim even more. I see that you edited your post again to add a bit about my being unnecessarily rude. Nice. I guess growing a spine wasn't an option. Now that was an attack on you. See the difference?

jdrakeh · 21st June 2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack99

Clark.

Thanks for the spelling correction, Jack.

S'mon · 21st June 2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

I'm curious about hard data, too. I'm just reiterrating what Mr. Goodman said, a great portion of which S'mon ignored in his attempts to get on with the doomsaying.

No I didn't.

S'mon · 21st June 2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

You seem to be taking his post entirely out of context on purpose, going so far as to ignore very specific parts of it. Mr. Goodman very specifically says that 4e is doing as well as D&D was from 1974 to 1981, 1983 to 2000, and from 2002 to 2008. Or, in other words, D&D 4e is doing as well as D&D ever has, with the exception of two. . . er. . . exceptional years.

Why is 4e a year after launch not comparable to 3e a year after launch?