D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

Last time. I don't care what you meant to say. What you did said will be interpreted as raising your voice, yelling and so on by practically everyone other than you.

But go ahead dig your heals in, that's a good look as well.

I don't think I'm the only one digging my heels in here.

Let me sum up here:

1. I make a particular use of a term; one I can point to in multiple dictionaries.

2. People used to a different use of the term (and to be clear, also legitimate and existing in the same dictionaries).

3. I clarify which usage I'm operating under.

4. People act like this is an idiosyncratic usage even though I note I can point to dictionary definitions that are precisely what I'm talking about ("unfriendly" to quote the first one in the Cambridge Dictionary). I note and acknowledge that there's variation here.

5. People act like that isn't the case, and the only legitimate usage is the one they interpreted it as (aggressive or an enemy).

6. When I point out this is the case, I'm the one who's digging in my heels and being contrary.

Right.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think I'm the only one digging my heels in here.

Let me sum up here:

1. I make a particular use of a term; one I can point to in multiple dictionaries.

2. People used to a different use of the term (and to be clear, also legitimate and existing in the same dictionaries).

3. I clarify which usage I'm operating under.

4. People act like this is an idiosyncratic usage even though I note I can point to dictionary definitions that are precisely what I'm talking about ("unfriendly" to quote the first one in the Cambridge Dictionary). I note and acknowledge that there's variation here.

5. People act like that isn't the case, and the only legitimate usage is the one they interpreted it as (aggressive or an enemy).

6. When I point out this is the case, I'm the one who's digging in my heels and being contrary.

Right.

Are you technically correct? Yes. However, it's not the common usage of the term. People use it commonly to mean in anger, often with threat. It's uncommon for people to use the term to mean "Strongly opposed to an idea" the way you do, and most of the time when they do, they are talking about being angry with the idea, not just strongly opposed, mixing the definitions. It's pretty rare for it to be used correctly in that manner, so it's no wonder that people are reacting this way to your statement.

You could have just said, "Hey. I just meant strongly opposed, so consider me to have said that.", but instead you did stubbornly dig in your heels over your technically correct, but rarely seen usage of the word.

As I said in a prior post, you can continue to use that definition, but expect to see people take it the way we have and react as if you meant it differently.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go threaten a company with an "upset" takeover.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are you technically correct? Yes. However, it's not the common usage of the term.

In your experience, and that of a couple other people in one thread. Given I've seen the term used a number of times the same way I did without overreaction elsewhere, I think I'm going to have to stick with "with terms with multiple slightly different meanings, common usage will vary from person to person and place to place and none of them are incorrect." If that's not good enough for you, I point back to my comment about the fundamental futility of most semantic arguments.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree with most of that. I do think that there are times when getting upset is a valid response to the situation. I don't think that outright hostility is ever an appropriate response.

But again, what do you mean by "hostile"?

Flipping tables and throwing punches is very different than telling some "No, that isn't cool man, you can't just change things on us" is a stern tone of voice, but both could be considered taking an aggressive or hostile stance.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are you technically correct? Yes. However, it's not the common usage of the term. People use it commonly to mean in anger, often with threat. It's uncommon for people to use the term to mean "Strongly opposed to an idea" the way you do, and most of the time when they do, they are talking about being angry with the idea, not just strongly opposed, mixing the definitions. It's pretty rare for it to be used correctly in that manner, so it's no wonder that people are reacting this way to your statement.

You could have just said, "Hey. I just meant strongly opposed, so consider me to have said that.", but instead you did stubbornly dig in your heels over your technically correct, but rarely seen usage of the word.

As I said in a prior post, you can continue to use that definition, but expect to see people take it the way we have and react as if you meant it differently.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go threaten a company with an "upset" takeover.

Consider this Max.

"In anger" may be the right response. But people express anger differently.

I've seen people getting incredibly angry, and never raise their voice. Seen them get so angry they breakdown into tears. Seen them get so angry they start throwing chairs.

You are using "hostile" in terms of military usage in some of your examples. But you acknowledge in this post that it is merely uncommon for people to use the term to simply mean "highly upset"

Personally, I see being upset and being... I'd want to use agressive but considering how that would be taken how about I say, forward about that feeling, as a legit usage of "hostile". It is a very different expression of anger than being defensive or passive-aggressive.


And, again, I don't see the value in hiding the fact that you are upset. Screaming, spitting, throwing, all of that is unacceptable, clearly, but a "Dude, what the bleep" is still in the realm of "hostile" while also being appropriate to the situation.

 

[Maxperson]

But again, what do you mean by "hostile"?

Flipping tables and throwing punches is very different than telling some "No, that isn't cool man, you can't just change things on us" is a stern tone of voice, but both could be considered taking an aggressive or hostile stance.

I've been pretty clear. At a minimum it implies anger.

 

[Helldritch]

Throwing tables? Yelling at people? In my house? At my table? Be ready to see a 6'1" 225 pounds man comming right at you to calm you down. If you don't, be ready to get out and you might not even touch the ground. Never had to do it and I hope I'll never will. But I would do it if it ever went up to these heights...

I much prefer to settle things down with a calm voice. It helped me a lot when I was teaching and it helps a lot even now in my work as a power engineer in chief. I hate conflict, but I would not back down.

Needless to say that this player would need to get out and in order to come back at my table, apologies would be required and a lot of discussions would take place to understand what happened.

 

[Maxperson]

Consider this Max.

"In anger" may be the right response. But people express anger differently.

I've seen people getting incredibly angry, and never raise their voice. Seen them get so angry they breakdown into tears. Seen them get so angry they start throwing chairs.

If you get angry over a game, something has gone terribly wrong with the person getting angry. Barring someone getting angry at the player, nothing in the game should prompt anger. Disappointment or dislike, sure. Anger, no. If you are getting so angry over the game that you are breaking down into tears or throwing chairs, you should seek help.

You are using "hostile" in terms of military usage in some of your examples. But you acknowledge in this post that it is merely uncommon for people to use the term to simply mean "highly upset"

You left out part. You left out the part where I said that even then, most of them are ALSO including anger, mixing the two definitions. It's downright rare to have it used correctly, which I also said.

 

[FrozenNorth]

As does most people's mileage. You don't go into "upset" territory when you enter enemy lands. You enter hostile territory. You don't cease "upsetness" when there is a cease fire during war. You cease hostilities.

Upset is just an emotional state. Hostile means that you are also a threat towards what you are hostile towards.

You can view them as the same if you like, just expect people to respond to you like we have. We don't share your alternative definitions.

Thomas’ definition is just different, not some sort of “alternative” definition though. A “hostile” witness is one who is not voluntarily answering your questions, not one who is about to jump across the stand to strangle you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also think the idea someone might get sometimes angry regarding an RPG session is strange is, itself, strange. People get angry over watching sports and how their favorite show turns out. Why should it be shocking that something as often more personal as an RPG session could do the same? You can, of course, argue that the former is also excessive, but its clearly not uncommon.

(I do think getting physically violent about it is a problem, but its not more of a problem here than it is with most places).