Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6735194" data-attributes="member: 90370">Like any broadcast, not everyone who CAN read me is relevant to what I'm saying. Anyone can read a post asking who wants to play Shadowrun at my house next week, only people who actually can are relevant.Likewise: people who think irrationally may be able to read what I write, only people who think rationally are going to productively contribute. Whether you say I "succeed" or"fail" in my message can only be judged in regard to this goal.I don't believe that in the present case:-discussing RPGs (something not very important)-online via typing-with strangers...that set encompasses "everybody". If you would make that bold and aggressive accusation against everyone, you need to prove it. It's pretty easy to talk about RPGs online without getting emotional.You are wholly incorrect.I was addressing the specific point made "tone policing can be good" (specifically in online discussion about games, specifically in this one). This argument was made under a faulty assumption: that my goal was to PERSUADE the kind of people who can be dissuaded in a game discussion online by a tone they dislike. ("Ignoring facts and being dissuaded by tone by no means vaguely fits the definition of "irrational behavior". )I then explained this was not my goal because I am unconcerned with such people. Therefore it is irrelevant to my goal.Yours is a wholly rational argument and has nothing to do with an ad hominem.  You misperceived the target audience for my statements.Your counter-argument, relying on the bizarre assumption that ALL people can be dissuaded by tone in online RPG discussions is unproved.And, burden of proof is on the accuser and in this case you're accusing everyone of being irrational, so prove it.This is also incorrect.I correctly identified 2 parts of GNS:The part that makes predictions about creative agendas.The part that rehashes what other game theories say.The first part is fallacious (proved with evidence), the second part is redundant (proved, with evidence).Therefore the theory is useless. The only new thing it does fails.I also pointed out it was WORSE than useless since the effects following from it have been bad (FATE, etc)In order to refute this idea you don't falsely claim this is the so-called "fallacy fallacy" (addressing only one part of what I said) you must either:-Point out positives of GNS that outweigh the negatives, giving evidence.or-Contest the negatives, giving evidence.This assessment of my motives is incorrect. Sometimes (as above) it's necessary locally to repeat yourself otherwise a false assertion is on a webpage WITHOUT the refutation of that false assertion  appears on the same page (even though the false assertion was previously refuted).Before assuming a negative motive, the correct procedure is to ask a question. If you see my repeating myself, simply say "Zak, why did you repeat that?" and I'll tell you.Absolutely. People don't let errors and false accusations stand in a newspaper or blog entry just because you aren't sure anyone might check them. The truth is important.And, frankly, the presence of other sane folks' reading RPG conversations besides the 2-3 talking at the moment is not exactly a wild conjecture.You are asserting but not proving I have made logical errors. I haven't, though. All the things you claimed were logical errors weren't because you made faulty assumptions.It's important to always be respectful of people online of course, (never, for instance, scold them for their tone of all things, or imply the act of participating in a discussion is part of some zealous "campaign" or that merely registering facts and opinions in a neutral way is "rabid") but a massive part of respect includes not lying to them.</blockquote>

Verification