MERGED - "About Edition Wars" threads x9

[Beginning of the End]

I feel the ignore feature is for chumps. It's a crutch to not be involved in conversation or debate by avoiding constructive discourse.

Herschel, your hate-filled screeds of textbook over-reaction may be many things. "Constructive", however, is not on that list.

Guys, it's time to back off. There's no need for this thread to become so heated, and there's no reason the topic can't be discussed without people being aggressive and confrontative. Relax, please, and take a few deep breathes before hitting "submit." ~ Piratecat

Someone saying that Monopoly: Revolution isn't the same game as Monopoly isn't a personal attack on everyone who plays Monopoly: Revolution. Nor is it a personal attack on people who consider Monopoly: Revolution and Monopoly to be the same game.

It's a statement of opinion and/or fact (depending on how it's phrased). It may or may not be something you think is wrong. It may or may not be an opinion you agree with. But someone saying something that you disagree with is not a personal attack. It is merely someone saying something that you disagree with.

I recommend you learn the difference.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I feel the ignore feature is for chumps. It's a crutch to not be involved in conversation or debate by avoiding constructive discourse.

"STFU"/intolerance is just a bigger Ignore feature! If one is for chumps, the other is equally or moreso.

We may all have different ideas of what we feel D&D is, but when we present those feelings as "fact" in a way to marginalize someone else's choice then there is the problem.

Ah, well, when anyone proposes that their opinion on a subjective matter is, in fact, factual, there is likely to be a problem!

D&D really is any edition of the game and any game taken/cloned/copped from said editions. Some just use different brand names for protection from international copy right laws. Which of those you play is your choice.

That is an opinion I tend to share, but I am as interested in other opinions as the one I happen to hold. That doesn't mean that someone else's opinion will sway mine, but it certainly has happened in the past, if an opinion is well presented and has obvious benefits over the one I previously held.

In those "But is it D&D?" discussions, lots of posts by people who said No reminded me of things that I definitely wanted to include, and lots of posts by people who said Yes also provided me with plenty of thoughts about different ways to include them.

And it seems that at least someone at WotC was paying attention as well, without being offended. After all, IMHO as an outsider, it seems that those discussions fuelled changes for Essentials....A version I would be willing to play, if not to run! That alone indicates to me that there is value in tolerance.

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[Herschel]

It's a statement of opinion and/or fact (depending on how it's phrased). It may or may not be something you think is wrong. It may or may not be an opinion you agree with. But someone saying something that you disagree with is not a personal attack. It is merely someone saying something that you disagree with.

I recommend you learn the difference.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. A difference of opinion is fine, and expected. There are many ways to present said differences. I gave a specific example of how presenting a certain perception in two different ways conveys a different message.

 

[Umbran]

Hosting discussion forums, where the content of statements can and will be discussed, in no way requires that the poster of said content must be told to agree with the herd or STFU. In no way. At all. It is that simple.

Quite true. Also, all quite irrelevant to what I was saying.

Sometimes people are told to STFU, and we try hard to deal properly with that rudeness. But sometimes people mistake critique for being told to STFU - usually not because of the content of the critique, but because of the form of delivery.

People want form to not matter. In practice, though, it usually matters a great deal.

AFAICT, the point of discussion to examine what other people think and by doing so enlarge your own thoughts, not to prove someone else wrong, not to win. That is, AFAICT and IMHO, the difference between discussion and argument. Or do I have that wrong? Am I misinterpreting The Rules of EN World?

It seems to me that different people engage in discussion for different reasons, and that "the point" of the activity is not singular for all. I'm mostly of the mind that dialectic and debate are both forms of discussion, but they have fundamentally different goals.

 

[Herschel]

"STFU"/intolerance is just a bigger Ignore feature! If one is for chumps, the other is equally or moreso.

RC

I guess I disagree it's an ignore feature because you have to read at least part of it to respond generally. But that might just be semantics as it could be looked at as active vs. passive.

I do agree it's just as "silly".

 

[Someone]

The key to end this discussion, is to remember why Chewbacca lives on Endor.

 

[Mistwell]

The key to end this discussion, is to remember why Chewbacca lives on Endor.

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

 

[Piratecat]

And hey, Endor isn't even a proper planet. It's a moon.

Tone the rhetoric down, everyone. The "edition arguments annoy the crap out of us" guideline hasn't mysteriously vanished.

 

[billd91]

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. A difference of opinion is fine, and expected. There are many ways to present said differences. I gave a specific example of how presenting a certain perception in two different ways conveys a different message.

So are you saying that the poster has to misstate his feelings in order to avoid being dogpiled by people who strongly feel differently? If someone says something critical, even controversial, they should be allowed to do so as long as they aren't violating board rules. If they get hostile, borderline rule-breaking responses that generate a flame war (or edition war), who's the "jackhole"? Not the original OP.

 

[MichaelSomething]

A good book once told me it's better to have them urinating on your tent while inside of it instead of having them being outside while doing so. Of course, the book states it much better then I can but I'm too tired to go fetch it and re-read it.