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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8448148" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, the thing is this is entirely one sided.  You are complaining about people that are bringing ideas from outside D&D to people that know only D&D, and requiring they be polite when doing so.  No one is saying that D&D players have to be polite to people that bring in outside ideas.  Your request is unidirectional.  Further, the overwhelming mode of engaging is politeness.  It's only in the face of repeated attacks and demands to respect 5e that things get testy, which is pretty natural given the abuse that gets tossed at people not in the in-group of 5e or who are, but are treated as if they are not because they acknowledge that the out-group is also valid.No, your claims are mostly smoke that disguise a requirement that some deference be shown while none is returned.  It's positional and is effectively claiming that the 5e in-group is in a superior position and needs to be approached as such.  It's the setup that allows dismissal unless a petitioner is polite enough.  And, for [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], even his politeness isn't enough to keep him from being attacked by Snarf.  You're proposing that people that want to challenge the in-group thought process commit to an approach that doesn't at all improve anything other than a few of the in-group's feelings about how valid their group is.I mean, I have to almost post every single time that I play and love 5e, and I still get repeated statements despite this that I just hate 5e and that's why I'm saying what I say, or, even better, that I just don't get 5e.Effectively, you are tone policing.</blockquote>

Verification