I can't XP you, but I agree strongly, and I do find it unpleasant behaviour to be trying to stop people using a term like "powergamer" because you've decided it's pejorative, with no real attempt to understand what people mean when they use the term. Like an American womyn who visits Yorkshire and freaks out when the locals call her "love", claiming she's being harrassed, ignoring that 'love' in Yorkshire is traditionally used by anyone to anyone (including men to men) as a greeting.
Being non-judgmental about play styles
- Thread starter OnlineDM
- Start date
I can't XP you, but I agree strongly, and I do find it unpleasant behaviour to be trying to stop people using a term like "powergamer" because you've decided it's pejorative, with no real attempt to understand what people mean when they use the term. Like an American womyn who visits Yorkshire and freaks out when the locals call her "love", claiming she's being harrassed, ignoring that 'love' in Yorkshire is traditionally used by anyone to anyone (including men to men) as a greeting.
Funny, for me it's the opposite: I tend to use 'Optimizer' (or rather 'COBoard guy/gal') as a pejorative and consider 'Power gamer' a neutral term
I would tend to think this, too - Optimiser to me tends to imply someone who trawls charop for the perfect build, and can shade into munchkin if he starts demanding the DM allow Windrise Ports background for his non-FR Eladrin feycharger PC. A powergamer might be happy with just Heroes of the Fallen Lands + pencil & paper, seeing how combat effective he can make a PC with only the tools at hand.
This is closer. Actually, I rolled out the flip reply because you clearly don't always talk about the paladin's mount as a "pokemount".
As regards this term, I'm not so sure about the linguistic practices. It used to have a definite meaning for a certain ref tactic (overuse of which was the sign of a bad ref), but with the prevalence of scripting in the New School, it could descend into a mere term of abuse for refs who prefer that style.
While I do understand the way you're using the terms, and don't consider it illegitimate, my banner was raised against people who only ever use the terms p-------rs and m-------ns. It's because of them that I think these terms are best retired.
Seriously, if you ask me about letting Tom into your game, and I say, "Well, he has a history as a problem player," you're either going to take my word as good coin and keep Tom out, or ask for specific information. The middle ground, where I explain what's wrong with his play using a convenient handle that happens to be used as a pejorative for whole styles of play doesn't seem to get us any further.
I don't think you should feel guilty. I just don't think these are helpful terms. They just add fire to an argument. Problem players and refs are a problem for everyone. Play styles are a matter of taste.
Raven Crowking
First Post
If you say "I don't like strawberries", I can take you at your word, or I can look to see if there are extenuating circumstances that might make you say that now (even if untrue), and I can look to your past behaviour to see if it is consistent with the statement.
Nothing about that requires prejudice; nothing about that is different than your statement about Tom.
In the case you bring up, I am not "pre-judging" Tom; I am judging what I know about you to determine whether or not I think I am likely to agree with your assessment. That judgment then helps me decide how much effort I should make to make an actual judgement about Tom.
I.e., if I accept your word as good coin, that means that I have decided that the balance of probability is that I shouldn't spend the effort to investigate further. However, and this is an important caveat, if I choose not to investigate further, I have made no actual judgment about Tom. I don't imagine that I actually know anything about Tom. My mind remains open, and if additional information comes to light, I can revise my decision to spend the effort to make an actual judgment.
Nothing makes me grit my teeth on a message board more than "I just don't think these are helpful terms". Attempts to control content and meaning in this manner are....offensive.
RC
They're statements of a different kind. My dislike of strawberries doesn't typically convey any advice to you not to eat them. Indeed, it's routine to say things like, "I don't like strawberries, but you might." If I say Tom's a problem player, I am at least giving you a warning that he could disrupt your game.
Yes, I know that's the way you approach this question. That's what I meant when I wrote, "I do understand the way you're using the terms, and don't consider it illegitimate". I note that in your reply you've failed to establish how it would be better for me to have used the terms in dispute, rather than "problem player". (i.e. you haven't explained to me how they're helpful terms)
Well, if you find that sort of talk offensive, I guess I shouldn't use it on a message board.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Yes. But the point has nothing to do with the type of statement, and everything to do with how information is parsed, and judgments made. And there is no difference there, despite being statements of different kinds.
"Better"? Would it be "better" for me to say "cheddar" or "cheese"? Would it be "better" for me to say "problem player" or "munchkin"? Would it be "better" for me to say "message board" or "EN World"? etc., etc., etc.
When you speak, you decide what words you are going to use....what words you think will best convey your thoughts. When I speak, I do the same.
Only if your goal is specifically not to offend me. Again, when you speak, you decide what words you are going to use....what words you think will best convey your thoughts. When I speak, I do the same.
However, I have seen the argument about "better", "more accurate", "less offensive", etc., terms float around this little corner of cyberspace many a time. And the root problem has always, always, always ended up being "I don't like what you are trying to convey" rather than the method of conveyance. Always.
When I use the term "pokemount" I mean it to have a negative connotation. That is part of the message. "3.5 paladin's mount" doesn't mean the same thing. And it is that negative connotation that attempts to remove the term (back when 3.5 was king) were all about.
Sorry, but No. Some people are going to view some things that you like as negatives. Some people are going to view some things that I like as negatives. That's the way life is.
RC
"Best convey"? What does that even mean in this context? How can one method of conveying thought be better than another?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Frankly, I don't even know what you are trying to ask me here. I mean, I simply cannot believe that you are unaware that various methods of conveying thought can be more effective than one another based upon situational context?
And, if that is not what you mean, then you have provided an example. You must use another method to convey the questions, because I have no idea how to answer at this point without writing a dissertation.
RC
I think you've managed to corner the market here, champ.
edit: Sorry, word-traps hardly improve the tone. My main point is just that we've been talking past one another for the last couple of exchanges - time to call it a day!
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
I think you've managed to corner the market here, champ.
edit: Sorry, word-traps hardly improve the tone. My main point is just that we've been talking past one another for the last couple of exchanges - time to call it a day!
No worries.
In a way, though, I'm sorry you editted. If you had not, I might have some idea what "word-trap" you're talking about!
Similar Threads
