Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6731207" data-attributes="member: 177">I will repeat, in different words (and large letters, in case somehow it is getting missed): CITE PLEASE.You have asserted this happening, but have offered no evidence, much less proof.  The mere existence of a school curriculum you do not like does not equate to what you're suggesting here.No.  You are making the assertion.  You provide the proof.  Stop trying to shift the burden of researching and proving your own points onto others, please.This is why I said earlier that you sound like a conspiracy theorist.  You are using all the techniques seen in conspiracy theory.  If the thing exists as you say, you should be able to direct us at concrete evidence for it.  Rant and rail all you want, your position is not sound without *evidence*.  Assertion is inadequate.Sure they did change their minds.  They had GNS.  Now, they have Big Model.  They are related, but not the same - that means there was change.  There was thus a change in minds.Arguments of the form, "If you do not agree with me you are mentally or morally flawed," have little to no place in polite discussion.  That being said, what you say here is historically very much untrue.  Typically, the ones being usurped reject it.  The usurpers are generally all for the usurpation!  Generally, most people not within either of those groups don't give much of a hoot.  All are quite honest.  They simply have different cares and concerns.Moreover, if your entire culture requires that everyone within it and outside it adhere to one very specific definition, and the culture dies without that definition... it isn't much of a culture.   Healthy robust cultures exist regardless of definitions - like Pluto, which exists as a physical object whether or not we call it a planet.  It is a weak, fragile culture that cannot survive a change of definitions.  I would have to question whether such a thing really counts as a "culture" at all.That seems an odd statement, given that Celebrim has given a very clear and cogent history of the games in question that very much defies your categorization.Except the Forge was not "all narrative, all the time".  The Forge allows that gamism is an entirely fair agenda.  It even advocates making sure you focus on a particular agenda.  Game for sake of game is fine.  Game for sake of simulation is fine.  Game for sake of narrative is fine.  After the Forge came up with this, some folks found that narrative was under-served in game culture.  Chess, backgammon, dominoes, and pretty much every other game produced before the 1970s serves the game agenda.   Some folks merely decided to build some things that served other agendas.They embraced the power of "and".  You do not.  I think most of us fail to see how this makes *them* myopic.I am not asking you to do anything.  I'm asking if you *want* to do something - I am asking if that thought, that analogy, is in your head.  If it was, it would be nice if you got to it sooner, rather than later.Do not quote wikipedia pages that do not really support you.  Specifically in the section, "In Practice":"It involves the eradication and destruction of cultural artifacts, such as books, artworks, and structures, and the suppression of cultural activities that do not conform to the destroyer's notion of what is appropriate."This is *NOT* occurring.  There is no destruction of cultural artifacts - nobody is out there burning chessboards, or copies of Hoyle's.  Producing new cultural artifacts that are not chess or Hoyle's does not constitute destruction.  There is no suppression of cultural activities - nobody is busing into board game gamedays shouting, "Stop!  Stop!  This must all stop!  There is not enough *STORY* in the room!", and nobody is stopping my boardgame-designing friend from designing and publishing games that are all about tactical placement of pieces, and not about any narrative.  Teaching new ideas, and playing new kinds of games, does not constitute suppression of the old ones.If your form of games aren't attractive, that's not an act of destruction on the part of those who make ones that are attractive.  You have a culture?  If you want it to survive, it is up to you to propagate it.  Failure of others to do that work for you does not constitute usurpation.  Thus, people teaching "game studies" that you don't agree with is not cultural genocide, by the definition you yourself present.  So, please stop using the hyperbolic term.Not that you've even actually established that "game culture" as you describe it is actually declining.  Again: CITE PLEASE.  Your assertion is not sufficient.</blockquote>

Verification