Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9676892" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm glad I stopped to read this, rather than focusing on the original reply, as it almost certainly would have resulted in me kicking a ball I probably shouldn't.I appreciate your explanation, but I think this reflects...well, a little bit of "he who fights monsters". That is, in your desire to defend high-level, thoughtful discussion, at least from where I'm sitting, you spoke in a way I very much considered "cantankerous" and "hostile". (I had, in fact, specifically used the word "hostile" in my initial response to that post, which I've deleted because it wouldn't be productive, now that I've seen this post which shows clear contrition and self-reflection.)If it helps, I likewise apologize for my contributions to that user choosing to depart the forums. I regret that, plain and simple. I do think that referring to my posts as having "childish rage" toward anyone here was...well, another example of someone wanting to protect good discourse but engaging in bad discourse in order to do so...but that doesn't mean I'm now free of culpability here. I'm not. I contributed, and for that, I am sorry.But, if I may try to pursue some of that high-level, thoughtful discussion, from where I'm sitting, what Micah's argument boiled down to is that, because for him certain kinds of mechanics, procedures, and principles are insufficiently verisimilitudinous, that means:(1) all possible games, no matter how one conducts them, will be inherently un-verisimilitudinous if they use those things;(2) any game to which any of these things is added will, in relatively short order, lose whatever verisimilitude it had;and (3) consequently, it is not possible to improve nor add verisimilitude to a game that uses these things, they must be abandoned for verisimilitude to exist (note: not the same as saying only Micah's way can produce it, just that this way cannot do so).In other words, again from where I'm sitting, the cantankerous argument had already been made, that a particular set of tools is inherently incompatible with any meaningful degree of verisimilitude (or "realism" or "world consistency" or whatever term you prefer). By those lights, responding, "Well...I actually do produce a world which others recognize as being high in verisimilitude, while still using these techniques", does not in any way appear--again, to me--like any kind of accusation. It is a defense against the accusation that these tools are somehow antagonistic to the very possibility of verisimilitude/etc. in the first place.As a result, I feel very frustrated, because to me this feels like turning self-defense into aggression, and thus denying someone the right to defend their position and preferences because that defense has been characterized as an attack on someone else's preferences.</blockquote>

Verification