Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 4463261" data-attributes="member: 8461">Ari, I disagree with you here.Accepting the premise that people want to make a change because it's for the better is assumed. But the idea is that the change actually makes things substantively better, rather than just making them seem that way.In that sense, the burden of proof is then on the design team. They're the ones who need to explain precisely how changing "aasimar" to "deva" improves that part of the game (or, more ideally, the improvement will be self-evident). So far, that hasn't happened - there doesn't seem to be any substantive improvement.My statement regarding "understanding changes that I disagreed with" was predicated on the idea that the changes are substantive. This one isn't, it's a change with no force or effect, and neither improves nor worsens anything. That is change for the sake of change, and that's something I personally don't care for.So when you said "People refusing to accept other people's reasons to make changes" you weren't referring to me? Because when people quote my post and say that "people" refuse to accept other people's reasons, I assume that they're referring to me.This isn't about the quality of the change, here. This is about whether or not the change being made as any impact at all; I don't think it does, and that leaves the only reason for changing it as being for the sake of making the change. If you think that there is a clear and objective improvement to making "aasimars" be "devas," by all means tell me.It's not the length of the post, nor the emotional weight to it that I was commenting on. Rather, it's the insulting, condescending tone that your post had (like many others you've posted lately) that I was referring to. Being rude is being rude, even if done in a stiff, succinct manner.On the contrary. You're assuming that the people who are naming this as "change for change's sake" are necessarily negating the opinions of people who disagree with them - they're "refusing to accept reasons" that other people have said. This isn't true, first because other people are just expressing their own opinions, not laying out design decisions for changing the name, and secondly because people who think this is change for the sake of change are not necessarily negating other people's opinions - they're just expressing their own. The irony is that, in your sweeping assumption that the people who think this is change for change's sake are "refusing to accept" the reasons of other people, you yourself are refusing to accept the reasoning of the people who disagree with you. Hence, you are most definitely displaying the attitude that you were deriding.</blockquote>

Verification