The Magic-Walmart myth

Shadeydm said:

Trying to reason with a brick wall is foolish on my part. If you want to be insulted by these or any other term I am sure you can find a way but that doesn't make the term insulting only the baggage you are adding in about munchkinism and edition wars adds insult. Things which aren't commonly accepted as meaning of the term but it sure does seem to float your boat to imply otherwise.

Click to expand...

What you are not understanding is that the original intent of terms such as "Magic Walmart" and "Pokemount" was exactly to convey what you term as "baggage". They were conceived of, and used, as insults by the same people who liked to throw about phrases like "3etard". I am not adding the baggage, I am recognizing that those words come part and parcel with it, and that such baggage was intended by the initial creators and users of the terms. The pretend innocence you and RC put on when you try to argue that they don't either demonstrates that you are disingenuous, or you have been sheltered in a gaming closet for the last five years.

Nellisir said:

Exampled above (and not just in my post), "ad infinitum ad nauseum".

Click to expand...

So, I am to understand that magic shop, magic shoppe, magic store, magic mall, arcane emporium, and divine depot all convey the same meaning as Magic Walmart, correct?

I am also to understand that these terms are inoffensive, right?

Yet, at the same time, I am to understand that "Words and phrases come with emotional and contextual meanings beyond their literal definitions." So, if any of the above phrases convey the same meaning as Magic Walmart, surely they must convey also the same emotional and contextual meaning, no?

Or is it the emotional and contextual meaning that is the problem?

IOW, I am not allowed to dismiss Pokemounts so lightly, because if "I mock, ridicule, insult, demean, dismiss, or otherwise denigrate something of your creation, which you have invested time and effort into and are proud of, it's not neurotic or disfunctional to take offense."

You cannot (rationally) say that two terms have the same meaning, but one term is preferable because it has a different meaning. Hence, it is the meaning that you are actually railing against.

Some people don't like Magic Walmarts. Some people don't like Pokemounts. They certainly do have the right to dismiss these as game mechanics, as you have the right to dismiss THAC0 or whatever it is you don't like.

There is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and dismissing people.

(Going back to the OP for a moment; if no one actually uses Magic Walmarts, as the OP contends, then who is it who has invested time and effort into and is proud of these Magic Walmarts, and who therefore takes offense at the term?)

RC

Raven Crowking said:

There is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and dismissing people.

Click to expand...

And there is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and the whole game itself. I suspect this is the root of their "hurt feelings" on the matter.

(Going back to the OP for a moment; if no one actually uses Magic Walmarts, as the OP contends, then who is it who has invested time and effort into and is proud of these Magic Walmarts, and who therefore takes offense at the term?)

Click to expand...

Those that see such terms as slams of the game system itself, and not just discrete parts of it.

I think it might help to picture Hussar and Storm Raven as the Geico Cave Man in the therapist's office.

Raven Crowking said:

Example these better phrases, please.

Click to expand...

The phrase you suggested, 'magic mart', is a bit better. 'Magic shop' better still but it does suggest an establishment with a large stock which is not necessarily the case. Even better is 'magic item trade'. It's a good phrase. It doesn't annoy people. It's neutral. It imparts information. Now that's good communication!

Because that's what people mean isn't it, when they say 'No Magic Wal-Marts in my game'? They mean there's no magic item trade. Or maybe limited magic item trade. They mean that they don't follow the 3.5 default. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

But the problem is the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term aren't happy with a neutral communication of the state of their games. Nah, that's not good enough. Cause they wanna diss 3.5 while they're at it, by exaggerating the position in the 3.5 rules. They want to make the default look ridiculous, which it isn't.

It's not a major thing. No lives are lost. But it's a bit annoying.

Raven Crowking said:

You cannot (rationally) say that two terms have the same meaning, but one term is preferable because it has a different meaning. Hence, it is the meaning that you are actually railing against.

Click to expand...

That depends on what you mean by meaning.

'TSR' and 'T$R' refer to the same company. But they don't have the same meaning.

Raven Crowking said:

In this case, the phrase should almost certainly be understood to mean "Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works for me in communicating with my target audience?"

Click to expand...

If the target audience all know what you mean, maybe the circle of people you game with, then use the phrase. But if the audience is ENWorld, that's not the case.

Doug McCrae said:

If the target audience all know what you mean, maybe the circle of people you game with, then use the phrase. But if the audience is ENWorld, that's not the case.

Click to expand...

The target audience is never, one imagines, all of EN World, for the simple reason that some folks on EN World will simply take things in the worst possible way.

If you go back upthread, I was clear that the meaning of MagicMart or Magic Walmart included a connotation of distaste (I believe I was agreeing with Hussar there) and suggested that it was this connotation of distaste that was the real objection.

So, here we are: Is there anyone on this thread who claims that they don't know what Magic Walmart means?

Is there anyone on this thread who claims that the word is understandable, but shouldn't be used for any other reason than its connotative meaning?

Because, right now, what we've got is a complaint that people shouldn't say they dismiss MagicMarts or Pokemounts. (BTW, I use MagicMart rather than Magic Walmart as my term of choice because it better defines where my particular level of dismissal lies, not because I think it wrong to dismiss game mechanics you don't like.)


RC

Doug McCrae said:

But the problem is the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term aren't happy with a neutral communication of the state of their games. Nah, that's not good enough. Cause they wanna diss 3.5 while they're at it, by exaggerating the position in the 3.5 rules. They want to make the default look ridiculous, which it isn't.

Click to expand...

(1) You are correct, the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term want connotative meaning. And it is, as I said long ago (and so many denied), this connotative meaning that is being railed against, rather than the descriptive value of the term. "Thou shalt not dis magic sales." "Thou shalt not dis Pokemounts." Etc.

(2) The term Magic Walmart may dis a part of some games not 3.5 itself.

(3) The way that the Core Rules are written can easily lead one to believe that some things are the default which, given best reading, are not.

(4) There are plenty of things in the default to dis without exaggerating anything. The easiest example is the skyrocket from 1st to 20th inherent in "Adventure Path" style play.

(5) Even if one disses the entire game (and most of these people we're talking about play the game, so that isn't too likely IMHO), it is still a game. Being distainful of a game mechanic, or of a game system, is not the same thing as dissing people. Pokemount I will cheerfully use. 3etard I will not (don't even like using it as an example). There is a difference.

Raven Crowking said:

You cannot (rationally) say that two terms have the same meaning, but one term is preferable because it has a different meaning. Hence, it is the meaning that you are actually railing against.

Click to expand...

Go read up on slang (which is what we're discussing), similes, metaphors, tropes, and generally figures of speech, then come back and argue that two terms can't refer to the same thing and yet impart different connotations.

There is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and dismissing people.

Click to expand...

There is. Unfortunately, terms like "pokemount" and "magic wal-mart" - in my experience - usually come out when someone stops arguing against a game mechanic and starts arguing against the person supporting it. Of those two terms, pokemount is probably the clearer and more technical - 12 pages of trollish discussion in this thread alone proves that "magic wal-mart" is not a particularly transparent phrase.

And 12 pages of a troll is enough for me. I'm done.

Nellisir said:

Go read up on slang (which is what we're discussing), similes, metaphors, tropes, and generally figures of speech, then come back and argue that two terms can't refer to the same thing and yet impart different connotations.

Click to expand...

Two terms can refer to the same thing and yet have different meanings, yes. As I said, it is the meaning that is being railed against. The demand to use another term with another meaning is the Ministry of Truth mindset referred to earlier.

Unfortunately, terms like "pokemount" and "magic wal-mart" - in my experience - usually come out when someone stops arguing against a game mechanic and starts arguing against the person supporting it.

Click to expand...

The "If you don't like my game mechanic, you are personally attacking me" argument.

Of those two terms, pokemount is probably the clearer and more technical - 12 pages of trollish discussion in this thread alone proves that "magic wal-mart" is not a particularly transparent phrase.

Click to expand...

Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word? Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear. If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.

There is a difference between folks trolling to attempt to "prove" that the no one should use terms they do not like, and those people actually failing to understanding those terms.


RC