Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4924645" data-attributes="member: 18280">(1)&nbsp; The ice cream bit is a pre-existing analogy, not mine.(2)&nbsp; I said what I really mean.&nbsp; Saying, in effect,&nbsp; &quot;In a perfect world, we would all get along despite dissenting opinions&quot; is all well and good, if dissenting opinions is all that is being discussed.&nbsp; However, the reality is that the expression of dissenting opinions can and does have an influence on what is happening now, and what will happen in the future.&nbsp; So, if you like X, but not Y, and you are saying so, you are encouraging the production of X over Y.Moreover, the &quot;let's just get along&quot; isn't (and, AFAICT, cannot be) applied equally.&nbsp; Where divisive opinions exist, the only way to avoid divisive discussion is, effectively &quot;In a perfect world, you would just not voice your opinion&quot; (regardless of edition, or game system, you prefer, etc., unless your preference matched that of the speaker).You will note that the above is, AFAICT, the policy of Dragonsfoot re: post-2e D&amp;D.Okay, here are some assertions you can examine:1.&nbsp; Older D&amp;D is no longer in print, and those who have the means to put it back in print (in pdf form or otherwise) have pulled the plug.2.&nbsp; 4e is marketted as D&amp;D.3.&nbsp; 4e is marketted as being essentially different from previous editions of D&amp;D.4.&nbsp; Prior to 4e, previous editions of D&amp;D are the metric for defining the identity of D&amp;D.5.&nbsp; If something is essentially different from the existing metric of identity of any term, it is not the same as that term, except by extension or reduction of that term.&nbsp; Even so &quot;Everything has changed but it is still all the same!&quot; is an oxymoronic mantra.&nbsp; 6.&nbsp; It is therefore not irrational for those who do not appreciate the attempted extension or reduction to oppose the redefinition of the term, with the caveat that7.&nbsp; If the people attempting to redefine the term were inclusive of the older meaning (and kept the materials thereof available) the redefinition would seem less like co-option, and therefore make it easier to simply ignore (rather than oppose).I don't claim that 4e is not D&amp;D, but I can certainly understand why some might.&nbsp; And asking them to simply be quiet about it will change EN World from a site about D&amp;D to a site about 4e.....in exactly the same way that Dragonsfoot isn't a site about D&amp;D, but rather a site about TSR-D&amp;D.&nbsp; Frankly, I view that as a more divisive option than being willing to discuss it here.&nbsp; The mods could, of course, create a subforum for such discussion, so that it doesn't need to disturb anyone else.&nbsp; But removing that disucssion, IMHO, does a real disservice to the site.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4924645, member: 18280"] (1) The ice cream bit is a pre-existing analogy, not mine. (2) I said what I really mean. Saying, in effect, "In a perfect world, we would all get along despite dissenting opinions" is all well and good, if dissenting opinions is all that is being discussed. However, the reality is that the expression of dissenting opinions can and does have an influence on what is happening now, and what will happen in the future. So, if you like X, but not Y, and you are saying so, you are encouraging the production of X over Y. Moreover, the "let's just get along" isn't (and, AFAICT, cannot be) applied equally. Where divisive opinions exist, the only way to avoid divisive discussion is, effectively "In a perfect world, you would just not voice your opinion" (regardless of edition, or game system, you prefer, etc., unless your preference matched that of the speaker). You will note that the above is, AFAICT, the policy of Dragonsfoot re: post-2e D&D. Okay, here are some assertions you can examine: 1. Older D&D is no longer in print, and those who have the means to put it back in print (in pdf form or otherwise) have pulled the plug. 2. 4e is marketted as D&D. 3. 4e is marketted as being essentially different from previous editions of D&D. 4. Prior to 4e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D. 5. If something is essentially different from the existing metric of identity of any term, it is not the same as that term, except by extension or reduction of that term. Even so "Everything has changed but it is still all the same!" is an oxymoronic mantra. 6. It is therefore not irrational for those who do not appreciate the attempted extension or reduction to oppose the redefinition of the term, with the caveat that 7. If the people attempting to redefine the term were inclusive of the older meaning (and kept the materials thereof available) the redefinition would seem less like co-option, and therefore make it easier to simply ignore (rather than oppose). I don't claim that 4e is not D&D, but I can certainly understand why some might. And asking them to simply be quiet about it will change EN World from a site about D&D to a site about 4e.....in exactly the same way that Dragonsfoot isn't a site about D&D, but rather a site about TSR-D&D. Frankly, I view that as a more divisive option than being willing to discuss it here. The mods could, of course, create a subforum for such discussion, so that it doesn't need to disturb anyone else. But removing that disucssion, IMHO, does a real disservice to the site. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification