Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8448483" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Before I do, I just want to make it clear I was just using your post as a springboard; I don't think you've been exceptionally muddy in this area, but I thought the post in absence of any prior reading of your posts could be an example of the issue.The latter I'm utterly incapable of assessing; I endeavor not to engage in what I refer to as "Internet Telepathy" and I haven't read enough of your posts to develop an opinion outside of that.I don't think you stated it, but did indeed imply it; but that doesn't actually help with the situation as much as you'd think.I don't think this is contrary, per se; after all, if you have four elements, and one of those engages the players, you're still doing it.  The other three simply are establishing background context (and of course may engage the players at some other point).  The question still ends up coming down to whether the extra material is worth the additional effort, and that still turns on whether it provides value in and of itself.This is where it gets complicated: to what degree does presenting such a thing default to assuming it is of value to the reader?  There's obviously a difference between people who take someone to task for not using a technique or assert that everyone should do it and someone who simply presents it without an obvious value judgment, but the difference can be extremely muddy in some cases, and to some degree depends on the observer. So while I'm not sure there's an obligation to be affirmative in stating that a critique or a technique suggestion comes from a given posture and does not apply to those not sharing it, not doing so almost inevitably will end up producing some results from people who read the opposite into it (possibly from past experiences with those who did assume it as a given) along with, of course, some percentage of people who approach the discussion assuming bad intent or bring it themselves.The net effect is that there's always going to be some problems with this kind of formulation, some the poster has some influence over (but that can require more heavy lifting than they're willing to do), some less so.It isn't so odd when you understand that the answers can be read as critical of the extent way they're playing and think they should play.  Its arguably very unproductive, but its common enough its not useful to act like it isn't the case.Its also a good idea to remember that often responses to you are, whether the poster is conscious of it or not, often directed to not only you but every past individual they've seen discussion on the same subject with.  Again, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, but it clearly is that way in many, many cases.</blockquote>

Verification