Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6415771" data-attributes="member: 4937">Since your not using mod-voice here, dude, why is it that you never notice that when I'm addressing the person of the post, it's because the poster has previously addressed my person?&nbsp; I think I'd actually be ok with this being a standard, if it was actually one you applied equitably.Read again what I'm quoting:&quot;Rather than people (like the RPG Pundit or, for that matter yourself) who use it to define games they don't like.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is what the term was created to cover. It has drifted since then. The only practical definition of a Storygame I'm aware of is &quot;A game produced by those people over there.&quot; - emphasis addedWhy is that you are always so one sided in how you apply those standards?&nbsp; Why is it that you only have a problem with them, and can only see them, after some one else notices them, dude?&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you actually addressing the reasoning of my post?&nbsp; Because the reasoning of my post as I see it is quite clear.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since the person I'm responded to stated what they thought my reasoning was, this became a window into me seeing the argument how they saw the argument.&nbsp; For the first time I was able to see not just the argument, but a glimpse of the motivations and reasoning behind it.&nbsp; New facts were provided to me that for the first time let me address the posters real underlying concerns - that is, that they believed that I was just trying to separate out Story Games for the purposes of demeaning them or trivializing them or putting them into the 'not fun' category.I didn't just come to this point out of left field.&nbsp; The point is, if someone believes that of my motivations, first there is no basis for a discussion, and second they are going to be consistently misreading me.&nbsp;&nbsp; And if you have a problem with the fact that I can be abrasive, that's a different problem, but consider that what you might not mean as abrasive can be very easily seen as abrasive by who you are speaking to, dude, even if you don't mean it to be and even in cases where it is abrasive you've just never considered the implications.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's really really hard to figure out what people mean by what they say, and that is made even harder by the fact that on the internet even what few cues we might have just aren't there.&nbsp; No smiles.&nbsp; No body language.&nbsp; No tone of voice.&nbsp; Do you probably want to back off, dude?&nbsp; Are you addressing my substance or my person?&nbsp; Think about it.And is &quot;I am not using my mod-voice here, but...&quot;, the logical equivalent of, &quot;I don't mean to be rude, but...&quot;?Totally agree.&nbsp; And in that is my interest and motivation in the thread.&nbsp; I hate terms without clear meanings.&nbsp;&nbsp; Is 'dude' affectionate or is it patronizing?&nbsp;&nbsp; Veiled insult or just generic form of address.&nbsp;&nbsp; No clear answer.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's very hard to know what to do with that term, particularly in context.What I would like is to be of one mind on the topic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6415771, member: 4937"] Since your not using mod-voice here, dude, why is it that you never notice that when I'm addressing the person of the post, it's because the poster has previously addressed my person? I think I'd actually be ok with this being a standard, if it was actually one you applied equitably. Read again what I'm quoting: "Rather than people (like the RPG Pundit or, [I]for that matter yourself) who use it to define games they don't like.[/I] That is what the term was created to cover. It has drifted since then. The only practical definition of a Storygame I'm aware of is "A game produced by those people over there." - emphasis added Why is that you are always so one sided in how you apply those standards? Why is it that you only have a problem with them, and can only see them, after some one else notices them, dude? Are you actually addressing the reasoning of my post? Because the reasoning of my post as I see it is quite clear. Since the person I'm responded to stated what they thought my reasoning was, this became a window into me seeing the argument how they saw the argument. For the first time I was able to see not just the argument, but a glimpse of the motivations and reasoning behind it. New facts were provided to me that for the first time let me address the posters real underlying concerns - that is, that they believed that I was just trying to separate out Story Games for the purposes of demeaning them or trivializing them or putting them into the 'not fun' category. I didn't just come to this point out of left field. The point is, if someone believes that of my motivations, first there is no basis for a discussion, and second they are going to be consistently misreading me. And if you have a problem with the fact that I can be abrasive, that's a different problem, but consider that what you might not mean as abrasive can be very easily seen as abrasive by who you are speaking to, dude, even if you don't mean it to be and even in cases where it is abrasive you've just never considered the implications. It's really really hard to figure out what people mean by what they say, and that is made even harder by the fact that on the internet even what few cues we might have just aren't there. No smiles. No body language. No tone of voice. Do you probably want to back off, dude? Are you addressing my substance or my person? Think about it. And is "I am not using my mod-voice here, but...", the logical equivalent of, "I don't mean to be rude, but..."? Totally agree. And in that is my interest and motivation in the thread. I hate terms without clear meanings. Is 'dude' affectionate or is it patronizing? Veiled insult or just generic form of address. No clear answer. It's very hard to know what to do with that term, particularly in context. What I would like is to be of one mind on the topic. [/QUOTE]

Verification