Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CandyLaser" data-source="post: 9358997" data-attributes="member: 7029413">Yes, and knowingly inflicting treatment on someone that they don't like, for months on end, during an event they ostensibly do because they want to enjoy it, seems performatively cruel to me. Telling me that people will endure it doesn't make it less of a bad thing to do to them.&nbsp; I understand that you are stating your belief. That belief is indeed not a hard stone fact, because it's just false. Because I can draw inferences from past events, I don't expect that having this pointed out to you complete with counterexamples to your claim will really affect this belief, but hope springs eternal I suppose.I also understand that you are talking about inflicting a significant loss on a character. That is why my counterexample is a counterexample.It is &quot;gone for a bit and eventually replaceable, after a month or more of real time.&quot; You know, exactly the thing you said was found in only traditional games.And we cap off this display with a classic No True Scotsman. I really dislike acting like one of those guys who thinks naming a fallacy is some sort of rhetorical deathblow, but it's clear that you're trying to imply that the game I'm running isn't really an example of neo-trad play, rather than acknowledge that the very things you say are characteristic of traditional play are found in neo-trad play as well, and are thus not characteristic of traditional play.I don't think further discussion on this topic is appropriate for the thread or likely to be productive, so I'll bow out of this digression from the intended topic at this point. I'm happy to talk more about what I like about neo-trad play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CandyLaser, post: 9358997, member: 7029413"] Yes, and knowingly inflicting treatment on someone that they don't like, for months on end, during an event they ostensibly do because they want to enjoy it, seems performatively cruel to me. Telling me that people will endure it doesn't make it less of a bad thing to do to them. I understand that you are stating your belief. That belief is indeed not a hard stone fact, because it's just false. Because I can draw inferences from past events, I don't expect that having this pointed out to you complete with counterexamples to your claim will really affect this belief, but hope springs eternal I suppose. I also understand that you are talking about inflicting a significant loss on a character. That is why my counterexample is a counterexample. It is "gone for a bit and eventually replaceable, after a month or more of real time." You know, [B]exactly the thing you said was found in only traditional games.[/B] And we cap off this display with a classic No True Scotsman. I really dislike acting like one of those guys who thinks naming a fallacy is some sort of rhetorical deathblow, but it's clear that you're trying to imply that the game I'm running isn't really an example of neo-trad play, rather than acknowledge that the very things you say are characteristic of traditional play are found in neo-trad play as well, and are thus not characteristic of traditional play. I don't think further discussion on this topic is appropriate for the thread or likely to be productive, so I'll bow out of this digression from the intended topic at this point. I'm happy to talk more about what I like about neo-trad play. [/QUOTE]

Verification