Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5616580" data-attributes="member: 54877">No. I included some of my point of view by way of explanation, same as you. But there seems to be a real resistance in some of the 3E fanbase to accept the idea that some of the things you think are qualitative differences assertions that we reject on grounds other than point of view. You don't have to like the degree to which 4E moves in a direction, but your assertion that 4E has crossed the line into &quot;complete independence&quot; of &quot;game&quot; versus &quot;roleplay&quot; is not shown in your argument. Trying to pin a reply back on mere point of view is a diversion from that issue.&nbsp;Look, what we are really talking about are &quot;tipping points&quot;. That is, the point at which a matter of degree becomes a matter of kind, simply by enough movement. I accept that there can be arguments made about where, when, and how a tipping point gets crossed. But if your argument is going to be, &quot;some people feel it got crossed here,&quot; then one can't argue with a feeling. If you feel it got crossed there, then you feel it, and that's that. OTOH, if your argument is that, &quot; some people think it got crossed here,&quot; then presumably you have reasons, and some of them are present in the discussion.&nbsp;I have reasons why I think it did not, and expressed one of them. If I give you the courtesy of assuming that at least some of you expression is thought, not feeling, then I would prefer that responses be in kind.&nbsp;Of course, it is complicated because what we are discussing is the facts that cause a tipping point in &quot;feel&quot;. Of course feel is going to be part of the discussion, and thus point of view. But it isn't all of it.&nbsp;If your claim is that 4E moved some amount on this scale (true), and that this has been a tipping point in feeling for some people (inarguable, charitably must assume reports of feeling are mainly accurate), then yeah. I'll grant you that fully. It isn't asking much. Nor does it really claim all that much.&nbsp;OTOH, if your claim is that 4E has moved effectively off the scale (what we are debating), and that some people feel this (again, going with reports) and some don't (again, reports), -- and that the people who don't feel it only don't feel it because they are not operating on that scale at all. Then I call extreme nonsense--putting it politely. &nbsp;If the argument of moving off the scale is to be made seriousy, it has to be made in good faith, and with the same charity towards reported play as is expected going the other way. I suggest as a first step, digging deep into an understanding of why the &quot;disassociated&quot; meme is a disingenuous piece of crap. Once that underbrush is cleared away, someone might make an argument that could get somewhere.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5616580, member: 54877"] No. I included some of my point of view by way of explanation, same as you. But there seems to be a real resistance in some of the 3E fanbase to accept the idea that some of the things you think are qualitative differences assertions that we reject on grounds other than point of view. You don't have to like the degree to which 4E moves in a direction, but your [B]assertion[/B] that 4E has crossed the line into "complete independence" of "game" versus "roleplay" [B]is not shown in your argument[/B]. Trying to pin a reply back on mere point of view is a diversion from that issue. Look, what we are really talking about are "tipping points". That is, the point at which a matter of degree becomes a matter of kind, simply by enough movement. I accept that there can be arguments made about where, when, and how a tipping point gets crossed. But if your argument is going to be, "some people feel it got crossed here," then one can't argue with a feeling. If you feel it got crossed there, then you feel it, and that's that. OTOH, if your argument is that, " some people think it got crossed here," then presumably you have reasons, and some of them are present in the discussion. I have reasons why I [B]think[/B] it did not, and expressed one of them. If I give you the courtesy of assuming that at least some of you expression is thought, not feeling, then I would prefer that responses be in kind. Of course, it is complicated because what we are discussing is the facts that cause a tipping point in "feel". Of course feel is going to be part of the discussion, and thus point of view. But it isn't all of it. If your claim is that 4E moved some amount on this scale (true), and that this has been a tipping point in feeling for some people (inarguable, charitably must assume reports of feeling are mainly accurate), then yeah. I'll grant you that fully. It isn't asking much. Nor does it really claim all that much. OTOH, if your claim is that 4E has moved effectively off the scale (what we are debating), and that some people feel this (again, going with reports) and some don't (again, reports), -- and that the people who don't feel it [B]only don't feel it because they are not operating on that scale at all[/B]. Then I call extreme nonsense--putting it politely. If the argument of moving off the scale is to be made seriousy, it has to be made in good faith, and with the same charity towards reported play as is expected going the other way. I suggest as a first step, digging deep into an understanding of why the "disassociated" meme is a disingenuous piece of crap. Once that underbrush is cleared away, someone might make an argument that could get somewhere. [/QUOTE]

Verification