Goodman rebuttal

[jdrakeh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rounser]

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.

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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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.