Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[Neonchameleon]

Instead of backing down - why don't you try saying something like "I feel the term Combat as War is inherently condescending/self-aggrandizing" and explain why? Then people can actually discuss what you think is wrong with it. Assertion is not argument, he asserts.

Like so many of these kind of discussions, the negative reaction some posters have for the idea under debate gets immediately ascribed to malice or animus on the part of the original poster.

To put it simply the message is "We are Real Men who are Really Hard and what we do is WAR and our balls hang low. Not like you little kids who are only playing at fighting on the sports field."

War vs Sports is an inherent mismatch in terms of seriousness.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I mean, does more need to be said on how inaccurate combat-as-war is? It's very inaccurate. Combat-as-sport is pretty inaccurate too. Both push the terms to extreme positions, too, which as I've discussed, are unhelpful to a reasoned discussion.

A lot of inaccurate, extreme definitions can be useful to label aspects of more nuanced behavior. But it's OK to discuss the inaccuracy of the term; I object to the claims that it's inherently divisive. The original poster, and most of the people I read discussing the terms, did not claim that one side was inferior to the other, simply that they liked one side better and why. Major Oakheart, for example, did a marvelous job explaining why he disliked CaW without the aggrieved victim tone.

 

[Savage Wombat]

To put it simply the message is "We are Real Men who are Really Hard and what we do is WAR and our balls hang low. Not like you little kids who are only playing at fighting on the sports field."

War vs Sports is an inherent mismatch in terms of seriousness.

And see, that's NOT the message. That's what YOU are reading into it. You are inferring that the terms were chosen to make one side seem more manly, which I see no evidence of.

Because no matter where you fall on the line, we all know this is still just a game.

If you said "I don't like the terms 'War' and 'Sport' because I feel the first word is inherently more serious than the other" - that would be a valid argument to discuss. Your phrasing above is more of an attack on the OP.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A lot of inaccurate, extreme definitions can be useful to label aspects of more nuanced behavior. But it's OK to discuss the inaccuracy of the term; I object to the claims that it's inherently divisive. The original poster, and most of the people I read discussing the terms, did not claim that one side was inferior to the other, simply that they liked one side better and why. Major Oakheart, for example, did a marvelous job explaining why he disliked CaW without the aggrieved victim tone.

You can't complain about people using "emotional terms", then use them yourself, Savage. It's hypocritical and obviously unhelpful. You say "as if they didn't want a civil discussion", but when you complain about "emotional terms", then use them, that's obviously not being completely civil.

Also, if you object to the claims that the term is "inherently divisive", does that mean you are absolutely unwilling to listen to such claims? It rather sounds like it.

If you insist that we must discuss things on your terms, use emotional language after decrying it, and refuse to even countenance the possibility that terms you've offered are not helpful, then that's really problematic, I must say.

Frustrating, too, because I'd like to discuss the actual issues, but you seem more interested insisting that we use specific terms that don't really seem to help with discussing the issues.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You can't complain about people using "emotional terms", then use them yourself, Savage. It's hypocritical and obviously unhelpful. You say "as if they didn't want a civil discussion", but when you complain about "emotional terms", then use them, that's obviously not being completely civil.

Excuse me for getting frustrated having the same argument repeatedly.

Also, if you object to the claims that the term is "inherently divisive", does that mean you are absolutely unwilling to listen to such claims? It rather sounds like it.

No, it doesn't sound like it. The key term is "inherently". I have no problem with someone explaining why they think the terms are divisive - but instead I am faced with unsubstantiated assertions and attacks on the OP.

If you insist that we must discuss things on your terms, use emotional language after decrying it, and refuse to even countenance the possibility that terms you've offered are not helpful, then that's really problematic, I must say. Frustrating, too, because I'd like to discuss the actual issues, but you seem more interested insisting that we use specific terms that don't really seem to help with discussing the issues.

Feel free to discuss the actual issues. But this post is simply a criticism of me for arguing with another poster. Should I post the Argument Clinic video now?

 

[Neonchameleon]

And see, that's NOT the message. That's what YOU are reading into it. You are inferring that the terms were chosen to make one side seem more manly, which I see no evidence of.

This is you reading things into what I am saying that explicitly contradict what I have said on this thread. There is a difference between trying to figure something out with terms you think fit (as was done initially) as working terms that aren't ideal, and waving banners around.

I have no problem with the initial choice of terms. It was, as I have said, trying to think something through. But they should have been left on that thread.

If you said "I don't like the terms 'War' and 'Sport' because I feel the first word is inherently more serious than the other" - that would be a valid argument to discuss. Your phrasing above is more of an attack on the OP.

OK. My position is that the dichotomy is both inaccurate and condescending.

If we want more accuracy, a desire for mismatched fights should replace Combat as War with Combat as Bullying - and a desire for any means necessary including destruction of habitats, burning down forests, and collapsing dungeons, when undertaken by a small cell of people, isn't Combat as War so much as Combat as Terrorism.

It's condescending and inflammatory because of the gap in seriousness.

Both need dealing with if the term is to be useful for anything desirable rather than as a banner in the edition wars. And although the insight of strategic vs tactical play is useful using terms that are simultaneously inaccurate and insulting is going to get you nowhere useful.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Excuse me for getting frustrated having the same argument repeatedly.

So you're allowed to get frustrated with having this argument repeatedly, but the people who are being condescended to with this argument aren't?

No, it doesn't sound like it. The key term is "inherently". I have no problem with someone explaining why they think the terms are divisive - but instead I am faced with unsubstantiated assertions and attacks on the OP.

I've explained before. And please retract your claim about attacks on the OP. The problem isn't the OP - it's people then waving that post around like a banner.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Excuse me for getting frustrated having the same argument repeatedly.

You are of course excused, but you must excuse others for the same, if you don't, you can't have the civil discussion we both want!

No, it doesn't sound like it. The key term is "inherently". I have no problem with someone explaining why they think the terms are divisive - but instead I am faced with unsubstantiated assertions and attacks on the OP.

Sorry, "sounds like it to me", not "sounds like it", is what I should have said! It's been explained why it's divisive and inaccurate at length, but you seem to want to continue to use it anyway.

Feel free to discuss the actual issues. But this post is simply a criticism of me for arguing with another poster. Should I post the Argument Clinic video now?

You are criticising others for how they argue. I am pointing out that, from my perspective, you appear to be engaging in similar behaviour. That doesn't seem like unreasonable behaviour to me. Does it to you?

The actual issue, as I discussed in a large post a little back, is that CaW is very inaccurate, because, at the most generous, "Guerrilla Combat" might be a better term, or perhaps "Ambush Combat". War is inaccurate on many levels, but I don't think that needs repeating. I can link to the post if you missed it. I don't feel there's much point discussing the issues if CaW/CaS are going to be used, because the argument will just, imo, repeatedly devolve into discussions around those terms - and I don't mean just "that terms sucks" stuff, I mean assumptions based on those terms which lead to dead ends - CaW and CaS both cause this, because they're so extreme.

It's not a black/white issue, it's not a dichotomy, it's not either/or. It's an issue where most people, RPGs, and systems occupy the middle ground, and the interplay between "Guerrilla Combat" and "Swashbuckling Combat" is quite a fascinating one (whereas CaS and CaW are so extreme that I think it's hard to say that they have any interplay).

 

[Savage Wombat]

This is you reading things into what I am saying that explicitly contradict what I have said on this thread. There is a difference between trying to figure something out with terms you think fit (as was done initially) as working terms that aren't ideal, and waving banners around.

I'm not the one who used the phrase "my balls hang low". And I haven't been waving banners for anything other than that I think the dichotomy (though I've been told that term is inaccurate) has validity.

OK. My position is that the dichotomy is both inaccurate and condescending.

If we want more accuracy, a desire for mismatched fights should replace Combat as War with Combat as Bullying - and a desire for any means necessary including destruction of habitats, burning down forests, and collapsing dungeons, when undertaken by a small cell of people, isn't Combat as War so much as Combat as Terrorism.

It's condescending and inflammatory because of the gap in seriousness.

Both need dealing with if the term is to be useful for anything desirable rather than as a banner in the edition wars. And although the insight of strategic vs tactical play is useful using terms that are simultaneously inaccurate and insulting is going to get you nowhere useful.

See, this I can deal with better.

I feel that labeling "Combat as War" as meaning "a desire for mismatched fights" is misleading. It's using a part of the concept to describe the whole. And furthermore, I think that describing this as such implies that the argument is over balanced encounters, which can then be used to "imply" criticism of certain editions.

What if we left combat out of it entirely? What if CaW is equivalent to Hussar trying to ride giant centipedes through the desert to avoid unnecessary combat encounters? Nothing's being blown up or slaughtered, but the point is the same.

 

[Iosue]

I might be prepared to back down to "condescending" which the dichotomy certainly is.

Please. In the condescension and inherently uncivil categories, CaW/CaS can't even get in the same room as "mother may I" and "murderhoboes". And that's not even getting into the patently ridiculous "combat as bullying" and "combat as terrorism" claims.