Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6309998" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, I'm quite aware of that.&nbsp; While he expressed his feelings quite clearly, he did so in a way that tends to shut down open conversation on the topic - Merric's statement communicated the fact that, if you disagree with Merric, he will insult your knowledge.&nbsp; That tends to generate either a chilling or an antagonistic atmosphere around the topic.And, I have a bee in my bonnet on this - we are at an edition change, and many here will recall how ugly the last one was.&nbsp; It is important we keep in mind how we address each other.&nbsp; With respect, it comes off that way, *or* it is read that way.&nbsp; There are at least three texts in any communication - what the author thought, what the author wrote, and what the reader thought after reading.&nbsp; So, riddle me this - if there is a slant, are we sure it lies only in the author?&nbsp; Is suggesting that someone is ignorant the best way to make it clear the bias *isn't* on the reader's side?&nbsp; This is the weakness of ad hominem argument.If you want to have a candid discussion about something- don't insult people, even those who aren't present.&nbsp; Even if you feel strongly about it.&nbsp; This is why Rule #1 is, &quot;Keep it civil.&quot;&nbsp; If you're logically correct, you should be able to prove it without the ad hominem.&nbsp; I agree.&nbsp; It is a very thorny question - what are you considering &quot;average&quot;?&nbsp; Are you considering it in terms of what optimized builds produce?&nbsp; Are you considering it in terms of thge range of what the rules as written can produce?&nbsp; Or what the majority of players actually end up playing?&nbsp; That last is fraught with selection bias and cherry-picking issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6309998, member: 177"] Yes, I'm quite aware of that. While he expressed his [I]feelings[/I] quite clearly, he did so in a way that tends to shut down open conversation on the topic - Merric's statement communicated the fact that, if you disagree with Merric, he will insult your knowledge. That tends to generate either a chilling or an antagonistic atmosphere around the topic. And, I have a bee in my bonnet on this - we are at an edition change, and many here will recall how ugly the last one was. It is important we keep in mind how we address each other. With respect, it comes off that way, *or* it is read that way. There are at least three texts in any communication - what the author thought, what the author wrote, and what the reader thought after reading. So, riddle me this - if there is a slant, are we sure it lies only in the author? Is suggesting that someone is ignorant the best way to make it clear the bias *isn't* on the reader's side? This is the weakness of ad hominem argument. If you want to have a candid discussion about something- don't insult people, even those who aren't present. Even if you feel strongly about it. This is why Rule #1 is, "Keep it civil." If you're logically correct, you should be able to prove it without the [I]ad hominem[/I]. I agree. It is a very thorny question - what are you considering "average"? Are you considering it in terms of what optimized builds produce? Are you considering it in terms of thge range of what the rules as written can produce? Or what the majority of players actually end up playing? That last is fraught with selection bias and cherry-picking issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification