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="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8200291" data-attributes="member: 6802765">(Emphasis added.) I appreciate you taking the time to explain how I’m coming across. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> There’s some irony involved, considering that from my standpoint your side is the one insisting that your reading is the only correct reading, and thus that your side is the one most concerned with validation (of that exclusivity). But irony aside, it’s useful to know that that perception goes both ways.I entirely agree with the bolded section, and I likewise arrived at my house rules by understanding the design purpose of the rules as written. I just think that there is stronger evidence in favor of a broader design purpose than you do. As for the italic section, I likewise am not concerned with whether the way I run the game is “’right’ or ‘wrong’ or even supported by the rules”, and I too what to understand (the competing interpretations of) what the rules say, why different posters think they were written that way, and the intended play experience, for the same reasons you do.What I am concerned with is that as posters we respect each other as people. We lack an objective standard to objectively determine which interpretations are “correct” and which are “wrong” (or, alternatively, to objectively determine which interpretations are best supported by the available evidence), so we’re all in the same boat, trying to persuade others of the merits of our opinions, or at least to explain those opinions to those who disagree. In such an environment, declarative statements that one particular opinion is correct, and that anything else is houseruling, come across as implicitly denying the existence of a disagreement, refusing to grant those who disagree the respect of acknowledging that their opinion exists. Some posters have gone even farther, explicitly denying the existence of an argument using language such as “there is no argument and the rules are clear” addressed directly to someone who is actively arguing, in effect telling someone “you don’t count”.I recognize (or at least hope!) that no such disrespect is intended, so my intent is to explain why implicitly or explicitly denying the existence of a disagreement to someone whom you know disagrees with you comes across to me as disrespectful.</blockquote>

Verification