Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8448228" data-attributes="member: 16814">I find this tedious, because the jargon being deployed in these threads is either the use of big words that people don't like but aren't jargon, or the jargon deployed is clearly explained.&nbsp; When a physicist does engage with people new to the topic, one thing that happens quite often is a bit of jargon is introduced and then defined, so that everyone understands it and the discussion moves forwards.What happens in these threads is the jargon is introduce and defined by the user early on, but then a whole discussion erupts about how to define the jargon as everyone jumps in with different definitions or argues the definition instead of engaging the points.&nbsp; Then we get threads like this that complain that it's jargon that's the problem.&nbsp; It's not, really, and context is also not the problem -- we aren't talking about quantum physics and 8th graders, but about people that have already come online to talk about games on a discussion forum.&nbsp; This is where you go to talk about games!&nbsp; What better context to introduce, define, and discuss things with jargon?!No, jargon is attacked not because it's jargon, but because going after the definition of jargon is the low-hanging fruit for stalling out discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8448228, member: 16814"] I find this tedious, because the jargon being deployed in these threads is either the use of big words that people don't like but aren't jargon, or the jargon deployed is clearly explained. When a physicist does engage with people new to the topic, one thing that happens quite often is a bit of jargon is introduced and then defined, so that everyone understands it and the discussion moves forwards. What happens in these threads is the jargon is introduce and defined by the user early on, but then a whole discussion erupts about how to define the jargon as everyone jumps in with different definitions or argues the definition instead of engaging the points. Then we get threads like this that complain that it's jargon that's the problem. It's not, really, and context is also not the problem -- we aren't talking about quantum physics and 8th graders, but about people that have already come online to talk about games on a discussion forum. This is where you go to talk about games! What better context to introduce, define, and discuss things with jargon?! No, jargon is attacked not because it's jargon, but because going after the definition of jargon is the low-hanging fruit for stalling out discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification