The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[overgeeked]

There are ways to do things.
+ thread on turtles being great.
"I think turtles are great! They are warm and fuzzy and cuddly!"
"Um, turtles are great, but... they're not mammals - they are cold blooded reptiles and have no fur."

Is not arguing over the premise, which is that turtles are great.

Mind you, one of the issues here is that what some people call "facts" aren't so factual as they think. They are often interpretations. So busting in to correct "facts" may not turn out as one thinks.

Right so the premise I was asking about is “designer X is awesome and deserving of adulation because they invented these things [+]” when in reality the designer did not invent those things and is a troll who directly attacked and insulted the vast majority of gamers for years.

 

[Morrus]

And sorry, no, “case by case” is not clarification.

That's something you're just gonna have to live with, I'm afraid, because some things just can't be precisely dilineated.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Right so the premise I was asking about is “designer X is awesome and deserving of adulation because they invented these things [+]” when in reality the designer did not invent those things and is a troll who directly attacked and insulted the vast majority of gamers for years.

I think the mods are being pretty clear that you should report it.

 

[Umbran]

Right so the premise I was asking about is “designer X is awesome and deserving of adulation because they invented these things [+]” when in reality the designer did not invent those things and is a troll who directly attacked and insulted the vast majority of gamers for years.

So, let us lay out a couple of things there.

"Troll" is a personal assessment, not a "fact". That they "attacked" (or at least said negative things about) others might be established as fact.

That a person said bad things about others does not factually make it that they shouldn't also be viewed with some respect for their accomplishments. Most people are flawed. We each have some personal guidelines as to when those flaws dump someone in the dustbin of history. As those are personal guidelines, they are not "fact".

As for invention - the existence of a prior example of a thing does not establish that someone else didn't come up with largely the same thing on their own. Two people can both invent the same thing, and in fact this happens often - Moderna and Pfizer both invented mRNA covid vaccines. Newton and Leibnitz both developed calculus separately, and so on.

"I was not the first do do this" does not mean "I didn't comes up with it on my own", which is the core of invention. It would take some evidence to factually establish that the person explicitly used the prior example for their own work.

 

[overgeeked]

So, let us lay out a couple of things there.

"Troll" is a personal assessment, not a "fact". That they "attacked" (or at least said negative things about) others might be established as fact.

That a person said bad things about others does not factually make it that they shouldn't also be viewed with some respect for their accomplishments. Most people are flawed. We each have some personal guidelines as to when those flaws dump someone in the dustbin of history. As those are personal guidelines, they are not "fact".

I’d say the person repeatedly asserting that ”people who like X are brain damaged” is fairly far into the “yep, dude’s a troll” category.

As for invention - the existence of a prior example of a thing does not establish that someone else didn't come up with largely the same thing on their own. Two people can both invent the same thing, and in fact this happens often - Moderna and Pfizer both invented mRNA covid vaccines. Newton and Leibnitz both developed calculus separately, and so on.

"I was not the first do do this" does not mean "I didn't comes up with it on my own", which is the core of invention. It would take some evidence to factually establish that the person explicitly used the prior example for their own work.

We’re not talking about scientific development of drugs during a pandemic, we’re talking about game mechanics and the use of literary, theatric, and cinematic techniques in games. If someone says they invented “roll 2d6” or “frame you RPG scene like it’s a movie” in 2000, we know it’s BS because both existed long before and, importantly, the RPG space is so tiny you‘d have to have been willfully blind to the hobby to make those assertions.

 

[Umbran]

I’d say ”people who like X are brain damaged” is fairly far into the “yep, dude’s a troll” category.

And it is fine for you to say. But that doesn't make it "fact". That makes it your opinion.

We’re not talking about scientific development of drugs during a pandemic, we’re talking about game mechanics and the use of literary, theatric, and cinematic techniques in games.

So? It still holds. Classic Deadlands used a normal deck of playing cards for initiative. If some game designer never saw Deadlands, or another game that used normal playing cards, they can still independently develop a similar system.

We are not here to litigate your particular example. I'm simply noting how, broadly speaking, "fact" isn't as clear as one might think, so that being "Someone is wrong on the internet" Guy has pitfalls, and maybe it isn't worth your time.

 

[Emoshin]

(To nobody in particular) I was reading someone's thesis about internal antagonism in online forums. While not black-and-white, here is the darker side of it:

Internal antagonism is common across many online-centered fandoms and communities to varying degrees, and manifests as one of the most aggressive facets of callout culture. Call-out culture is a feature of the social internet where users feel the need to call out other users for being problematic and offensive in some way. It is often accused of oversimplifying both issues and users, being overzealous, and being excessively performative.

Those are not descriptions that I would want to be applied to my online behavior!

If people can't be kind to each other in a general forum, maybe they can be kind to each other in a + thread. Isn't that at least worth trying??

Or as Waymond said:

 

[overgeeked]

We are not here to litigate your particular example.

I started my thread to ask for guidance from the mods on this.

So? It still holds. Classic Deadlands used a normal deck of playing cards for initiative. If some game designer never saw Deadlands, or another game that used normal playing cards, they can still independently develop a similar system.

There's a world of difference between "I invented this unique card-based system" and "I invented the idea of using cards in RPGs." I'm not talking about the former, I'm talking about the latter.

I'm simply noting how, broadly speaking, "fact" isn't as clear as one might think, so that being "Someone is wrong on the internet" Guy has pitfalls, and maybe it isn't worth your time.

Maybe its that dying ember of optimism I still cling to. It's not "someone's wrong" it's "people are actively spreading misinformation in a community I've been a part of my entire life" and some part of me hopesd that as a community we'd maybe not let it continue to happen. But sure, screw it, entropy wins because we refuse to even resist it a little.

 

[Campbell]

Right so the premise I was asking about is “designer X is awesome and deserving of adulation because they invented these things [+]” when in reality the designer did not invent those things and is a troll who directly attacked and insulted the vast majority of gamers for years.

The purpose of the thread I started was to talk about the game in question rather than to speak to its author. Criticism of the actual game and its place in history are meant to be fully on topic. If you have a personal issue with this feel free to PM me.

 

[Umbran]

I started my thread to ask for guidance from the mods on this.

We can give general guidance here, and have been trying, but in order to speak specifically to your example, we'd need the details - which would then develop into a discussion of that topic, rather than this one.

But sure, screw it, entropy wins because we refuse to even resist it a little.

If folks feel a need to interject every time they see what they think are inaccuracies, then no discussion ever gets anywhere, because there's always someone who thinks you are inaccurate.

Discourse is a social interaction. Folks sometimes have issues remembering that there is little point with correction if the subject you are trying to correct isn't in a state to receive that updated information - just confronting people with "You are wrong!" has a very high failure rate for that task. When the subject you're correcting has specifically stated they don't want to have to defend their premise is exactly the wrong time to try to correct that premise.

It is a matter of reading the room, and picking your battles. Since the text medium and people-on-internet are bad at discretion, we have some formalism around it.