Are we, as a wider community, nasty?

[Alzrius]

Once we're discussing that, we're just discussing language, not the topic at hand.

That's somewhat necessary; there is a difference between a qualitative evaluation of something, and a quantitative evaluation, especially when the evaluation is comparative in nature.

The size or structure of something has a metric that can be objectively stated, regardless of comparing it to something else. By contrast, how "nasty" some person or group is or is not has no quantitative aspect to it, only a qualitative one; ergo, trying to answer a question about it - especially when a primary method of evaluation is via comparison to others (e.g. you mentioned football fans in your initial post) - is going to involve a discussion about what the language used is intended to mean.

This isn't "dismissing the validity" of adjectives; rather, it's a rejection of the dismissal of relativism. If you're going to posit that comparisons don't matter in considering this question - presumably because there's an objective criteria for what constitutes nastiness - then it'd behoove you to outline said criteria (ideally in your initial post) and ask if anyone can point to an instance of it in this community. If so, then the answer to the question in the thread title is "yes," and if not then the answer is "no," and there's no need for further discussion...at least not based on the criteria you're using.

 

[Guest 85555]

That article had no threats involved (as there are in some of the other communities I post in - the only suggestion I recall reading that someone be mutilated over RPGs was The RPG Pundit talking about Monte Cook) - r.

This is a bit misleading. I really like Monte Cook. He is a great designer and an absolute gentlemen, so Zi don't necesarily agree with the critique Pundit was leveling but I did read the post on his blog when he originally made and it was clearly meant to be facetious. This quote makes it look like he was calling for actual violence and that just wasn't the case. Pundit was expressing frustration at Cook's description of next and was basically saying Mearl's shouldn't have him be the voice of the design team because he felt there were communication issues.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, as a proponent of relativism, surely you recognize that needs are only defined relative to stated goals.

Would you stop with that misrepresentation "Proponent of relativism"? Some things are absolute some are relative. And needs are not only defined relative to stated goals. If someone is starving to death they need food to survive whether or not it's stated. And survival is an implicit overwhelming need. You can say that an act is nasty because that comes with the implicit context of the word. But a community?

Whether we need to or not depends on what purpose, if any, was intended in the original question.

And now we're going into Death of the Author territory. Is what the author intended to ask as important as what the author did ask? The question why it was asked is also useful, I agree.

 

[Umbran]

And now we're going into Death of the Author territory.

We aren't talking about literary criticism here. The dude asked a question, looking for opinions. As I noted, needs are only meaningful when tied to a goal - you need X to get Y. Whether we need to go down a rathole of definition to give the OP what he wanted rather depends on what the point of the exercise was. We have not, collectively, defined any other point to the exercise.

So, let me rephrase: Maybe you want to have what amounts to a discussion of definition of "nasty". That doesn't translates into a need for anyone else. Thus, I say that we don't "need" to do much of anything other than what we feel like.

Propose a purpose that will be served by that discussion, and anyone who wants to serve that purpose can enter the discussion.

 

[Guest 85555]

And now we're going into Death of the Author territory. Is what the author intended to ask as important as what the author did ask? The question why it was asked is also useful, I agree.

Since it is a message board, i think what he intended to ask is what's important, not what he might accidentally indicated or suggested. It sort of strikes me as responding to "Can i go to the bathroom" with "I don't know; can you?". If there is any confusion over Morrus' intent, we can ask him directly.

 

[Ulrick]

The "nasty" aspect of the gaming community once led me to believe that we're living in a "Dark Age," where gamers are fragmented by Edition Wars and petty disputes.

But now I've leaned more toward relativism and say that D&D is Like Pizza.

Everybody has an idea of what pizza should be, but few in a large group can agree what kind of pizza they should order. People argue over toppings. Some prefer Chicago Style over New York Style, or deep dish over thin crust, or regular sauce over diced tomatoes.

The arguments about which is better can get pretty "nasty."

 

[Guest 85555]

The "nasty" aspect of the gaming community once led me to believe that we're living in a "Dark Age," where gamers are fragmented by Edition Wars and petty disputes.

But now I've leaned more toward relativism and say that D&D is Like Pizza.

Everybody has an idea of what pizza should be, but few in a large group can agree what kind of pizza they should order. People argue over toppings. Some prefer Chicago Style over New York Style, or deep dish over thin crust, or regular sauce over diced tomatoes.

The arguments about which is better can get pretty "nasty."

In Boston we argue Greek versus Italian pizza. I feel safer in an edition flamewar than a debate about ordering from Papa Gino's or House of Pizza. At least i don't have to eat the edition when I lose. The stakes are just too high in the pizza wars.

 

[Campbell]

If anything I think there's too strong of an impetus to view tabletop RPG players as a single unified community in a way there isn't for hardcore video game players or movie buffs. We buy into the greater community and then become frustrated that people actually like radically different things from us, and start to blame other people for liking those things they are not supposed to like. We assume that only if other people stop liking what they like and start liking what we like will we get the sort of content that we want. We don't stop to think that maybe we can all just do our own thing and enjoy that thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We aren't talking about literary criticism here. The dude asked a question, looking for opinions.

And when he got mine (which boiled down to "You must have unrealistic standards for an open membership community if you consider us nasty although like most open membership internet communities we are nastier than your gaming table unless you game with complete jerks") he decided to declare me to be a relativist.

So, let me rephrase: Maybe you want to have what amounts to a discussion of definition of "nasty". That doesn't translates into a need for anyone else. Thus, I say that we don't "need" to do much of anything other than what we feel like.

And maybe you and Morrus want to try to derail my actual answer to the question with the claim that I am a relativist - as if that is relevant to anything rather than an excuse for dismissal. That helps even fewer people.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And when he got mine (which boiled down to "You must have unrealistic standards for an open membership community if you consider us nasty although like most open membership internet communities we are nastier than your gaming table unless you game with complete jerks") he decided to declare me to be a relativist.

And maybe you and Morrus want to try to derail my actual answer to the question with the claim that I am a relativist - as if that is relevant to anything rather than an excuse for dismissal. That helps even fewer people.

About as many people as deleting a wiki reference over a personal grudge.