Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6367466" data-attributes="member: 996">If an edition warrior mentioned in passing that it was sunny outside, no, that would not be edition warring.&nbsp; However, the edition war did produce a whole lexicon of loaded terminology, on-message talking points, twisted logic, and an overall narrative that were quite unique to it, used only by edition warriors, and had no other purpose than edition warring.&nbsp; &nbsp;If they used the edition war talking points, yes, because it would show they weren't really ignorant of the edition wars.&nbsp;&nbsp; For instance, no one who had played through a 4e campaign and hadn't ever glimpsed the rhetoric of the edition wars would mention &quot;dissociated mechanics,&quot; or classes being samey or homogenized - both because the wording is unique to the conflict, and because the phenomena they describe do not actually exist.&nbsp; OTOH, someone who had tried early 4e, but not been exposed to the edition war, might remark that solo battles tended to drag on and become less interesting at lower levels.&nbsp; He just wouldn't pop off with 'padded sumo.'The the edition-war circular argument that it 'failed' because lots of people hated it, and clearly, lots of people must have hated it because it failed, is attacking it (and rather clumsily).&nbsp; &nbsp;You can start living up to that claim any time.&nbsp; Just stop shooting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6367466, member: 996"] If an edition warrior mentioned in passing that it was sunny outside, no, that would not be edition warring. However, the edition war did produce a whole lexicon of loaded terminology, on-message talking points, twisted logic, and an overall narrative that were quite unique to it, used only by edition warriors, and had no other purpose than edition warring. If they used the edition war talking points, yes, because it would show they weren't really ignorant of the edition wars. For instance, no one who had played through a 4e campaign and hadn't ever glimpsed the rhetoric of the edition wars would mention "dissociated mechanics," or classes being samey or homogenized - both because the wording is unique to the conflict, and because the phenomena they describe do not actually exist. OTOH, someone who had tried early 4e, but not been exposed to the edition war, might remark that solo battles tended to drag on and become less interesting at lower levels. He just wouldn't pop off with 'padded sumo.' The the edition-war circular argument that it 'failed' because lots of people hated it, and clearly, lots of people must have hated it because it failed, is attacking it (and rather clumsily). You can start living up to that claim any time. Just stop shooting. [/QUOTE]

Verification