Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 4294181" data-attributes="member: 2525">Oh I hadn't even thought about current politics.&nbsp; I was thinking about just the general topic, which I've seen before for many groups.&nbsp; And as a lawyer, let me say I really dislike it when fellow lawyers try to use latin words (for example), because I know damn well they are doing it just to make non-lawyers feel stupid.&nbsp; The current trend in law schools (at least when I went) was to try and cut our all those elitist left-overs from an era when it was cool to be elitist in that profession.The only time I think it's OK to use jargon is when it actually saves time, and you're not excluding people.&nbsp; When you know the person you are communicating with understands that jargon, and you're not trying to get someone to join your group that doesn't understand that jargon.&nbsp; That isn't the case with this hobby.&nbsp; Particularly with this word, we know for sure at this point that it's not saving time, because I have yet to see the word used without someone else arguing about it's definition, or asking about it, or backing away from the discussion because they are uncertain of its meaning.I do.&nbsp; At least, I think the first people to use it here were doing it for that reason (and, no offense to those folks, but it's a common sort of nerdy elitist thing to do, to use words you think your debating opponent might not know to make them feel lesser in the debate).It might be the correct word, but it doesn't serve to communicate that message very well, and I think that's been shown over and over again.&nbsp; If you are trying to say &quot;This new hit point system doesn't feel as believable as it should&quot;, that communicates better than saying &quot;The 4e HP sys breaks verisimilitude&quot;.&nbsp; The odds that people will understand what you are trying to say are better when you use the first sentence than when you use the second.&nbsp; And the odds you will spook a new person are greatly increased when you use the second sentence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 4294181, member: 2525"] Oh I hadn't even thought about current politics. I was thinking about just the general topic, which I've seen before for many groups. And as a lawyer, let me say I really dislike it when fellow lawyers try to use latin words (for example), because I know damn well they are doing it just to make non-lawyers feel stupid. The current trend in law schools (at least when I went) was to try and cut our all those elitist left-overs from an era when it was cool to be elitist in that profession. The only time I think it's OK to use jargon is when it actually saves time, and you're not excluding people. When you know the person you are communicating with understands that jargon, and you're not trying to get someone to join your group that doesn't understand that jargon. That isn't the case with this hobby. Particularly with this word, we know for sure at this point that it's not saving time, because I have yet to see the word used without someone else arguing about it's definition, or asking about it, or backing away from the discussion because they are uncertain of its meaning. I do. At least, I think the first people to use it here were doing it for that reason (and, no offense to those folks, but it's a common sort of nerdy elitist thing to do, to use words you think your debating opponent might not know to make them feel lesser in the debate). It might be the correct word, but it doesn't serve to communicate that message very well, and I think that's been shown over and over again. If you are trying to say "This new hit point system doesn't feel as believable as it should", that communicates better than saying "The 4e HP sys breaks verisimilitude". The odds that people will understand what you are trying to say are better when you use the first sentence than when you use the second. And the odds you will spook a new person are greatly increased when you use the second sentence. [/QUOTE]

Verification