A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Dannager]

Naw. This isn't the N word or the C word or the R word or anything that rises to the level of meriting that sort of censorship, self or otherwise. This isn't a case, except in some isolated instances of misuse (which I agree should be eliminated) where someone is purposefully trying to attack another person's sensibilities. It then becomes a baby and bathwater situation where a relative few might be overreacting and broadbrushing a commonly accepted shorthand that in limited situations gets abused. Asking others to understand the situation and avoid hurtful uses is fair enough, asking for broad abolishment is another thing entirely.

I don't think you read Fifth Element's post very closely. We're not asking for abolishment because sensibilities might be offended. We're asking people to curb their use of the term because it contains an inherent level of vagueness that, among other things, leads to people being confused, frustrated, and insulted when none of that is the intent.

Simply by changing the language you use in a very minimal way (a way that will probably result in you having to explain less in the long term), you can ensure that your words are better understood by a wider audience. There's very little to disagree with, here. Skipping over terms like "videogamey" in favor of meaningful explanation is a win-win, which is why so many of us are frankly flabbergasted as to why it's received such resistance.

 

[Dannager]

You people are whining about videogamey being too vague and a poor way to start off a conversation, yet if I were to say, "4e is awesome!" I guarantee you would have no problem with that.

It is troubling that you seem to be unaware of the difference in role criticism and compliment play in discussion.

When you compliment something, it is generally accepted that you can do so without making that compliment constructive, and that's okay.

When you criticize something, it is poor form to do so without including constructive commentary.

 

[Mark CMG]

We're not asking for abolishment because sensibilities might be offended. We're asking people to curb their use of the term because it contains an inherent level of vagueness that, among other things, leads to people being confused, frustrated, and insulted when none of that is the intent.

Oh, I get it and if you read my post more closely you will understand that the very few people who advocate your shared position and request self-censorship are finding me in the camp that believe they are overreacting and unlikely to find much traction in their efforts.

 

[billd91]

I would be really interested in examining how many of the posters here - defending the idea that their method of communication isn't automatically derisive or insulting and that they should therefore be given a pass - are the same posters who have in the past decried WotC's initial 4e marketing campaign as insulting and derisive despite the many times they've been told that said campaign was not automatically insulting and derisive, and backed it up with many examples.

I mean, clearly they expect you to be able to infer the intent behind their posts (especially when that intent is not obvious), while at the same time they pretend that it's not possible to do exactly that when it comes to anything WotC puts out.

I was wondering if this topic would come up (and be used as poorly as it is here). I don't think anyone ever said that WotC's method of communication would automatically be derisive or insulting. In fact, I remember quite a few people who thought that the particulars of their 4e marketing weren't intended to be insulting but were amateurish and could have been done much better and much more professionally, and therefore not been perceived as insulting at all. That's fair a fair criticism of WotC, after all, they are supposed to be the professionals trying to put a positive spin on their products to encourage us to buy them. They failed to do so in a number of cases and rubbed people the wrong way. But allow me to repeat myself - I can't think of any critics who said that their method of communication was automatically derisive or insulting nor that everyone should be expected to feel the same way about it either negatively or positively.

 

[billd91]

But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while also pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.

WotC was dumb for engaging marketing that some might consider insulting because it could affect their bottom line, their market share, and the perceptions of their target customer base. They have much higher stakes in their official communications.

Message board discussions of hobbies - completely different league. Completely different intent behind the communication. We're not professionals engaging in official representation of a corporation here. We're not selling things. We're not dependent on our marketing setting the perception of our customers because, as semi-anonymous posters in a discussion thread, we don't have any customers.

 

[Umbran]

But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy...

You might want to reconsider suggesting that people are hypocrites at this juncture. I mean, in a discussion about being insulting, that'd be an ironic one.

...in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while also pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.

You can cuss up a blue streak playing basketball with the boys, but you'd not use the same language in front of your prospective mother-in-law, right? So, propriety is situational - what you can say without offending people depends on who you are, and in what context you're saying it.

So, maybe people officially representing WotC in a business matter ought to comport themselves differently than some random unknown goon on a message board.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while also pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.

There is a difference between a marketing campaign done by a company to promote it's product and a critique of the product by the users.

Marketing prof after marketing prof will tell you it is bad practice to badmouth your prior popular products to make your current product look better. Doing so almost always damages brand image and goodwill in the short term, and may carry over into the long term. It's simply bad business. Why? Because it assumes that the customer base is essentially monolithic in opinion, often before the public gets to experience the product. And when those of dissimilar sensibilities see that, they're going to look at the product just as much prejudiced as they feel they were prejudged.

Criticism, OTOH, lets current and prospective users and creators know where problems may exist within a product or service, based on their personal perspectives, experience, reading/analysis and possibly, use.

 

[Dannager]

So, maybe people officially representing WotC in a business matter ought to comport themselves differently than some random unknown goon on a message board.

They ought to. I'm all for holding companies to a higher standard than random unknown message board goons. But when said message board goons decide to be personally insulted by someone saying something that wasn't intended to be insulting (e.g., WotC pooping on trolls) and then pivot on their heels to say that it's silly to be insulted by something that wasn't intended as insulting when they do it, I don't know how else to view that except as hypocritical.

 

[Bluenose]

Is it wrong to believe video games are mindless?

Yes, it is.

I suppose I could go to the trouble of looking up the literature on the use of video games in education, seeing how much of it is online and easily accessible. But I'm lazy, so I'm not going to. It's sufficient to say that anyone who considers video games mindless is ignorant of certain topics in recent education theory.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, it is.

I suppose I could go to the trouble of looking up the literature on the use of video games in education, seeing how much of it is online and easily accessible. But I'm lazy, so I'm not going to. It's sufficient to say that anyone who considers video games mindless is ignorant of certain topics in recent education theory.

Well stated.

I spent a year working on testing and field research evaluating the efficacy of the MIND Institute's educational video game software suite in public schools located in some of Southern California's most economically disadvantaged districts. The idea of mindless video games does not line up with the research I've taken part in.