Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5615847" data-attributes="member: 81381">And if I offered proof and arguments in detail, the 4e haters would keep arguing regardless, and I would be the one you'd end up banning or banishing for edition warring. I have seen this happen, numerous times, on many forums. There's nothing rational about this debate, and I posted not for those people, but for other people watching, with a more rational view of the issue. For instance, i've seen 4e bashers insist that fighters in 3e are really great and competitive and fun to play- and after 15 pages of arguing about that, they go the grognard route and decide that fighters sucking is a good and realistic thing. Or they'd decide that fun has nothing to do with contributing in substantive, system-based manner, and hey, they even have mike mearls backing them up on that.  Or they'd just decide to call 'edition war', and you'd back them on that.  Now, can I sit here and debate the balance of that class relative to other classes? Sure. Can I make a concise and well supported argument? Sure. Can I do this with any number of issues, from spotlight time, to failure rates, to deprotagonisation, to the traditionalism that pases for degisn in previous editions, to the simulation fallacy, and on? Sure. Are the majority of the people i'd be arguing with the least bit interested in such an idea, or willing to recognise that such a proof of concept is even possible? Of course not, they're just here to bash 4e. And if you argue against them too much, they get angry, and hostile, and take offence no mater what you say. After all, when wotc made similar, rational, well reasoned arguments prior to the release of 4e, in order to inform people, in order to be clear about their position, people took personal offence at it, and their 'terrible mean treatment' of the 'fans' in that era has become one of the key myths of the edition war. Was wotc being mean, or arrogant, or cocky, or any of the nonsence terms bandied about when bashing them? Of course not. They were criticising their own design. But the 4e bashers were happy to take offence, happy to paint them as mean devloper jerks who said mean things to the fans. Literally, wotc made the kind of arguments you demand, and the 4e haters spun their critique of 3e into a personal attack on 3e fandom. WOTC didn't do that, the 4e hate brigade did that- and they do the same to anyone with a viewpoint they don't like. The final question, about this objective proof you demand, and the debate it would spur. Will you, as the moderator, play a positive, constructive role in that debate? Don't be ridiculous. You know as well as I do that you'll always let the 4e-bashers have their fun, and stop in if, and only if, the other side of the argument puts up too much of a fight.  Actually, we're both stating our opinions. After all, in a poorly managed debate like this, when arguing too long is a bannable offence? Stating opinions is all anyone can do.</blockquote>

Verification