Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8284106" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I wasn't so much responding to you, in the sense of &quot;why did YOU say this thing,&quot; but rather speaking to the thread in general, taking what you had said as an accepted baseline.That is: given I accept what you've said, why do we get what has happened in this thread (just from other people, rather than strictly yourself), and in the Quick Primer, and in so many other places and discussions? Why is it that, in order to extol the virtues of this style, so many resort to comparing it with bad versions of other styles? And, if there is no answer (or no more answer than &quot;because people aren't great at discussing things,&quot; which is sort of a given), could we try actually doing the good-vs-good, or at least mixing &quot;here's what's great about this!&quot; with &quot;...and here's what's often not-so-great, and tools for addressing it&quot;?The Quick Primer aimed explicitly to explain to others why this style of gaming was enjoyable, not merely for nostalgia's sake, but as an end in and of itself. It is very much about defining what &quot;SP&quot; is and why anyone should care. And it continues to be referenced as an allegedly good and useful tool for this purpose. But it does so with exactly the sniffing, dismissive, compare-good-SP-to-bad-NS metric I'm so frustrated by. It's hard to take a discussion about the virtues of a thing seriously when it becomes just as much about how the things I already like can suck.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8284106, member: 6790260"] I wasn't so much responding [I]to you[/I], in the sense of "why did YOU say this thing," but rather speaking to the thread in general, taking what you had said as an accepted baseline. That is: [I]given[/I] I accept what you've said, why do we get what has happened in this thread (just from other people, rather than strictly yourself), and in the Quick Primer, and in so many other places and discussions? Why is it that, in order to extol the virtues of this style, so many resort to comparing it with [I]bad[/I] versions of other styles? And, if there is no answer (or no more answer than "because people aren't great at discussing things," which is sort of a given), could we try actually [I]doing[/I] the good-vs-good, or at least mixing "here's what's great about this!" with "...and here's what's often not-so-great, and tools for addressing it"? The Quick Primer aimed explicitly to explain to others why this style of gaming was enjoyable, not merely for nostalgia's sake, but as an end in and of itself. It is very much about defining what "SP" is and why anyone should care. And it continues to be referenced as an allegedly good and useful tool for this purpose. But it does so with exactly the sniffing, dismissive, compare-good-SP-to-bad-NS metric I'm so frustrated by. It's hard to take a discussion about the virtues of a thing seriously when it becomes just as much about how the things I already like can suck. [/QUOTE]

Verification