Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8451680" data-attributes="member: 7030755">I think it comes back to this:What's appropriate for a conversation will depend on prior context, your audience, and what you are hoping to get out of it.&nbsp; I'm not saying there should be a ban on any words or anything like that.&nbsp; But I think if you were to say the pacing of the Sopranos is objectively glacial, there might be people who disagree, and say, but 'personally I don't find the show to be glacial.'&nbsp; I suppose you could...determine the average length of scenes in the Sopranos vs comparable tv shows, or point to more specific definitions and critical discourse around terms like 'pacing' in TV criticism.&nbsp; There's a time and place for that mode of criticism, but the conversation will become more insular and less generally accessible.Not sure, but as I said above, I am not.&nbsp; At most, I'm trying to find out what might be enjoyable for my group based on other's recommendations.Well, the existence of an interlocutor and some bounds on what qualifies as an appropriate communication is what makes this dialogic.&nbsp; There are all sorts of ways we defer in conversations: not interrupting others, being polite, saying things like &quot;I agree with the first part, but...&quot;, asking (non-rhetorical) questions to understand someone's point of view.&nbsp; Online discourse is what it is because it is easy to forget that there are actual interlocutors on the other end.&nbsp; I think if we were all together in real life, the conversations&nbsp; would go much differently and be more chill (partly because people would know when to stop. [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] put it really well: you wouldn't just follow someone around a party continually asking them to justify their position on the best Joker).(FWIW, to the extent that people try to understand the jargon people are putting forth, follow and read links to blog posts, and engage with play reports whatever their level of knowledge of those games, they are also being deferential.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8451680, member: 7030755"] I think it comes back to this: What's appropriate for a conversation will depend on prior context, your audience, and what you are hoping to get out of it. I'm not saying there should be a ban on any words or anything like that. But I think if you were to say the pacing of the Sopranos is [I]objectively[/I] glacial, there might be people who disagree, and say, but 'personally I don't find the show to be glacial.' I suppose you could...determine the average length of scenes in the Sopranos vs comparable tv shows, or point to more specific definitions and critical discourse around terms like 'pacing' in TV criticism. There's a time and place for that mode of criticism, but the conversation will become more insular and less generally accessible. Not sure, but as I said above, I am not. At most, I'm trying to find out what might be enjoyable for my group based on other's recommendations. Well, the existence of an interlocutor and some bounds on what qualifies as an appropriate communication is what makes this dialogic. There are all sorts of ways we defer in conversations: not interrupting others, being polite, saying things like "I agree with the first part, but...", asking (non-rhetorical) questions to understand someone's point of view. Online discourse is what it is because it is easy to forget that there are actual interlocutors on the other end. I think if we were all together in real life, the conversations would go much differently and be more chill (partly because people would know when to stop. [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] put it really well: you wouldn't just follow someone around a party continually asking them to justify their position on the best Joker). (FWIW, to the extent that people try to understand the jargon people are putting forth, follow and read links to blog posts, and engage with play reports whatever their level of knowledge of those games, they are also being deferential.) [/QUOTE]

Verification