Unpopular opinions go here

[innerdude]

Correct way of writing dates is using the ISO8601-format. That means YYYY-MM-DD.

Absolutely correct. Life would be much better if everyone on planet earth understood that this method of date rendering 1) completely disambiguates dates across cultures (in Europe, most people represent DD/MM/YY, whereas in North America it's MM/DD/YY), and 2) writing dates this way automatically sets dates into exact numeric/alphabetical order.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sure, but it also leads to glaring omissions and intrinsic bias because, importantly, not everything is written down at the time it happens. It also assumes everything written down is honest and true, when that's not always the case.

The real answer is that both techniques should be used together, rather than favoring one over the other.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, but it also leads to glaring omissions and intrinsic bias because, importantly, not everything is written down at the time it happens. It also assumes everything written down is honest and true, when that's not always the case.

You can verify various primary sources against each other. Obviously, a drawback of this style is that it is much more demanding of the researcher, and that there will be times when the record is unclear and you can't comment- and, again, I think Peterson does a great job of saying when the record is incomplete or contradictory.

To me, this is infinitely preferable to relying on people recounting stories after more than forty years. Is it possible that the contemporaneous sources aren't correct? Sure. But the contemporaneous sources have the major advantage of being ... contemporaneous. Unaffected by the passage of time. Of accurately recounting events of that time- as opposed to what people say decades later.

Simply put, it is beyond bizarre for someone to say that there is more intrinsic bias in using contemporaneous primary sources than there is in asking people to recount their personal experiences from decades ago. But again, you can see the advantages of this when you're looking at, inter alia, Game Wizards. It is much more instructive to see how Gygax and Arnerson wrote about each other at that time than it would have been to get an oral history from them 40 years later, when both would have been motivated (to the extent that the accurately recalled all the events) to shade the history in ways that flatter each of them in the present.

 

[Celebrim]

Correct way of writing dates is using the ISO8601-format. That means YYYY-MM-DD.

There are two basic ways in English of saying a date:

"January the First Two Thousand and One" and "The First of January Two Thousand and One".

Either ends up as an appropriate date construction 01/01/2001 or 01/01/2001, and as long as you know what the cultural convention was you are fine.

But no one says "Two thousand and one January 1st". So while your ISO standard is a valid way to write dates, it assumes that no one is going to read them.

 

[Reynard]

Simply put, it is beyond bizarre for someone to say that there is more intrinsic bias in using contemporaneous primary sources than there is in asking people to recount their personal experiences from decades ago. But again, you can see the advantages of this when you're looking at, inter alia, Game Wizards. It is much more instructive to see how Gygax and Arnerson wrote about each other at that time than it would have been to get an oral history from them 40 years later, when both would have been motivated (to the extent that the accurately recalled all the events) to shade the history in ways that flatter each of them in the present.

And if I recall correctly, The Game Wizards points out how Gygax's later writings and interview responses are markedly different than things he said or wrote at the time.

 

[Ulfgeir]

There are two basic ways in English of saying a date:

"January the First Two Thousand and One" and "The First of January Two Thousand and One".

Either ends up as an appropriate date construction 01/01/2001 or 01/01/2001, and as long as you know what the cultural convention was you are fine.

But no one says "Two thousand and one January 1st". So while you ISO standard is a valid way to write dates, it assumes that no one is going to read them.

True, but it is a difference between how you say something and how you write it. The spoken variant will automatically clairify wether you use month or day first. Like "January first" or "1st of January". But in written anything but the ISO-standard is ambigious, unless you really spell everything out as for example "January 1st, 2001".

But with the short-format with just AA-BB-CC you have absouletely no idea if it is YY-MM-DD, DD-MM-YY or MM-DD-YY. so for stuff like food or medicine or other stuff that are perishable that can be dangerous...

Here in Sweden we used the ISO-standard, before we joined the EU. Sadly the EU incorrectly uses the format DD-MM-YY. I blame the Germans for that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And if I recall correctly, The Game Wizards points out how Gygax's later writings and interview responses are markedly different than things he said or wrote at the time.

I feel like anyone who read the Sorcerer's Scroll columns could have told you that.

 

[Theory of Games]

WoTC's version of D&D is TRASH! Garbage! Basura! Not only is it trash but they set the trash on fire with their STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID company moves every. fkn. month.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WoTC's version of D&D is TRASH! Garbage! Basura! Not only is it trash but they set the trash on fire with their STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID company moves every. fkn. month.

I don't think alignment arguments will do it, but straight-out edition warring will get the moderators in here, throwing red text around and potentially shutting the thread down.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Morrus' RPG products are vastly better then WOTC products and most of you would have better games if you used Morrus's stuff instead of Wizard's.