Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Thomas Shey]

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” ― James D. Nicoll

When you've got a language that probably started out as a pidgin, that sort of thing is going to happen.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

100%. Most of the arguments about rules I see on here are just clear cut "it's probably a good thing you two don't play together" situations.

Maybe. There's something about the nature of internet discourse (and arguments) that brings out the worst of us. We choose to die on the hill of our most extreme positions, and escalate meaningless fights. People will talk out of their posterior about things they don't have actual knowledge about, and insult people in ways they never would if they actually were standing in front of them. And I think there's something about the dopamine rush .... you know ... someone is wrong on the internet??!!???

When it comes to these boards, I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people escalate meaningless theoretical debates that assume bad-faith play on the part of their imagined opponents ... but if they played together in real life, it would probably be friendly and fun.

I mean ... probably. There are a few people I might have some doubts about, but that's okay too.

 

[CleverNickName]

(not this thread, but it's drifting that way)

No, I don't have that issue actually, and never have, because I play D&D with people I actually like.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When you've got a language that probably started out as a pidgin, that sort of thing is going to happen.

English might have started out a pidgin, but 'Murikan? That started as an eagle!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm rather surprised that more ambiguous wording isn't caught in either proofing or play testing, but there's so much of it that does make it through.

As someone who used to do editing, including in the game industry its astonishing what will slip past you. I've had things I must have read a dozen times that I suddenly spotted when the actual book arrived. Some of it is that since the work is often a moving target, you come to expect the part you were used to seeing, even when the author(s) change it. The other part is telling you you'll get to looking for that stuff once you've dealt with the big stuff (missing text, format problems, so on) but by then you've seen it so much you sort of don't see it any more.

This is one reason medical and legal texts usually have a raft of editors and proofers, to protect against that, but game products can't usually afford that.

As to spotting it in playtesting--sometimes there isn't that much of it (especially in the crucial blindtesting) and sometimes the playtesters just get focused on other things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nah. Write even looser rules as an obvious trap for jerks. When they gleefully fling themselves into the trap, show them the door.

The problem is that given the wide range of people who will run into problem with this, it uses an awfully expansive cateogry for "jerk".

 

[Velderan]

Maybe. There's something about the nature of internet discourse (and arguments) that brings out the worst of us. We choose to die on the hill of our most extreme positions, and escalate meaningless fights. People will talk out of their posterior about things they don't have actual knowledge about, and insult people in ways they never would if they actually were standing in front of them. And I think there's something about the dopamine rush .... you know ... someone is wrong on the internet??!!???

When it comes to these boards, I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people escalate meaningless theoretical debates that assume bad-faith play on the part of their imagined opponents ... but if they played together in real life, it would probably be friendly and fun.

I mean ... probably. There are a few people I might have some doubts about, but that's okay too.

I can think of at least one person who is on my ignore list that I am reasonably sure if we ever met in person, I'd enjoy the type of game they run. They just happened to violate my "if 90% of what I read out of you is complaining" ignore list policy, so I get what you're saying. I just assume most of the people willing to go on for multiple pages arguing until the mods have to break it up are the type to derail a game by arguing about some pointless rule interaction that ultimately probably doesn't matter. Let's just call it PTSD from the brief time I tried to get into 3e with a group that spent more time arguing about what the book says than they did actually playing.

Or maybe that was the game to them.

 

[Ryujin]

English might have started out a pidgin, but 'Murikan? That started as an eagle!

View attachment 417313

If you were actually watching the show, you would know that's a duck.

 

[Ryujin]

As someone who used to do editing, including in the game industry its astonishing what will slip past you. I've had things I must have read a dozen times that I suddenly spotted when the actual book arrived. Some of it is that since the work is often a moving target, you come to expect the part you were used to seeing, even when the author(s) change it. The other part is telling you you'll get to looking for that stuff once you've dealt with the big stuff (missing text, format problems, so on) but by then you've seen it so much you sort of don't see it any more.

This is one reason medical and legal texts usually have a raft of editors and proofers, to protect against that, but game products can't usually afford that.

As to spotting it in playtesting--sometimes there isn't that much of it (especially in the crucial blindtesting) and sometimes the playtesters just get focused on other things.

I was one of three proofers on a book. Every one of us found something that someone else missed but the only errors that got through were ones that we flagged, but didn't get changed before going to print.

 

[overgeeked]

I was one of three proffers on a book. Every one of us found something that someone else missed but the only errors that got through were ones that we flagged, but didn't get changed before going to print.

The struggle is real.