NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy E Grenemyer" data-source="post: 6328111" data-attributes="member: 12388">pemerton, My last post in response to you was too combative in tone. I apologize.Maybe we’re talking past each other. If I may: some clarity on my train of thought.If I say that people have made claims against Schwalb in this thread that he was edition warring, then I am making a true statement. Those claims exist. It is not true if I say that those who level the edition war claims against him were only disagreeing with him.This is because leveling the claim of edition war is to speak to intent, whereas to disagree with someone is to speak to the content of their ideas. It's certainly possible to level the edition war claim against someone and then go on to disagree with that person's ideas, but the act of the former overshadows the presence of the later and calls into question the integrity of the person leveling the accusation.Why? Because it has already been established that Schwalb's intent was not to edition war, and his responses to comments in his blog post clarify this beyond doubt (though you seem to have missed Schwalb’s repeated attempts to clarify his intent, despite your having read the comments section beneath his blog post).When I make statements against those who’ve claimed edition warring on the part of Mr. Schwalb, I am not endeavoring to ignore commentary in the form of legitimate disagreement. What I am doing is trying to counter what I believe to be disinformation and ad hominem.EDIT: I want to be very careful here. I am not implying that you are a liar or that you're out to sow disinformation. Rather, I'm saying the position you (and others) take is, to me, overly aggressive vis-a-vis what Schwalb's intent was, and therefore to what he wrote.Have you considered that one does not have to take sides in order to analyze a piece of writing to determine the author's intent and goals going into the piece?Have you also considered that when an author states that his or her intent wasn’t to do something like edition warring, he or she actually means what they say, and that this statement has truth value?Generally speaking, I wonder why it is people are so uneager to give game designers the benefit of the doubt?The manner in which you use words like "shocked" and (earlier in the thread) "disparage" exaggerate your claims and leave an aftertaste of strawman. For me these words are a turn off. They don't enhance your claims or make them stronger. If you left them out then you'd do better at keeping a reader's attention on the important things you have to say.When you write it like this, I have no objection. That and hopefully how you better understand where I'm coming from.</blockquote>

Verification