Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 4092140" data-attributes="member: 2525">Which poster? What post?  "I think a lot of the time when people..." is not specific to the motives of a poster or the content of a post.  It was a general impression I get sometimes. For specifically the verisimilitude claim, I am claiming that often (but not always) when you see that claim AND you see that person making other non-rules complaints of the nature I detailed, I feel like they are sometimes doing it out of those motives. Well, people speculate about my motives all the time and I do not get insulted by it.  I am sorry you were insulted by it.  My intent was not to insult you with it.  Heck, I don't even think it was directed at you.  However, if you are speaking for other people and them being insulted by it - are you not doing the very thing you find insulting? And why do you keep saying I was not speculating about the content of their posts, when it is the content of their posts which is causing me to make that speculation?In the context of this particular "realism" issue, when the claim is made about an issue where realism does not appear to logically be a material part of the issue (I gave the example of the teleporting cat and color trail, and a fictional poster feeling the color trail was the objectional part that defeats realism while ignoring the whole teleporting cat part) I do not see how the conversation can be more constructive while ignoring the elephant in the room.  The elephant in the room is "you just made an outrageous observation about the rules which has no logical basis - while simultaneously making non-outrageous observations about things not about the rules".  If we cannot ask "why" a person is behaving rationally about one thing and irrationally about another and speculate that perhaps one has an influence on the other, then all you get is a repeat over and over of the obvious without ever addressing the real issue.  We should be free to speculate if rational non-rules outrage is having an undue influence on irrational rules outrage, without feeling like merely presenting the issue is going to be perceived as a dire insult. Yes, I am speculating about motives, and I explained why that might be a more constructive discussion in some very limited circumstances.  In general, it's not a good thing to speculate about motives.  But specifically, I think an exception should be made when the circumstances call for it like I outlined.Well I think I and others have already responded to this point as to why it is useful.</blockquote>

Verification