Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9203078" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Again, this assumes you think any more than that is warranted.&nbsp; That's not required.&nbsp; I'll usually just ignore an idea I consider of that quality, but I'm not everyone.No, really it doesn't.&nbsp; I've seen people utterly ignore any qualification clauses in a statement around here too many times to believe that solves the problem.Which is why I said its a moving target.&nbsp; No, probably not.&nbsp; That doesn't make their reason intrinsically valid, though.&nbsp; Sometimes the reason is &quot;the very criticism itself bothers me&quot;.&nbsp; And I'll stand by the fact sometimes that's clearly the case.Yes, but the question is, was &quot;what's aggressively attacking the idea&quot;?&nbsp; Ideas don't have feelings.&nbsp; I'm willing to say that when it gets a hot reaction, its not because they think the idea is being hurt; its because of other reasons, often because they identify too much with the thing being attacked.&nbsp; You see that about people criticizing designs of game systems all the time.I mean, its not like there can't be reasons to be a little soggy about that; its not uncommon for people who dislike a game system to misrepresent it (as in either outright lie about it or imply things about it that aren't true, often for hyperbolic reasons, and if someone lobs that sort of things out there, they ought to expect some return fire.&nbsp; But often that's not the response, but doing things like suggesting there's something wrong with people who might have those issues brought up, though usually not directly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9203078, member: 7026617"] Again, this assumes you think any more than that is warranted. That's not required. I'll usually just ignore an idea I consider of that quality, but I'm not everyone. No, really it doesn't. I've seen people utterly ignore any qualification clauses in a statement around here too many times to believe that solves the problem. Which is why I said its a moving target. No, probably not. That doesn't make their reason intrinsically valid, though. Sometimes the reason is "the very criticism itself bothers me". And I'll stand by the fact sometimes that's clearly the case. Yes, but the question is, was "what's aggressively attacking the idea"? Ideas don't have feelings. I'm willing to say that when it gets a hot reaction, its not because they think the idea is being hurt; its because of other reasons, often because they identify too much with the thing being attacked. You see that about people criticizing designs of game systems [I]all the time[/I]. I mean, its not like there can't be reasons to be a little soggy about that; its not uncommon for people who dislike a game system to misrepresent it (as in either outright lie about it or imply things about it that aren't true, often for hyperbolic reasons, and if someone lobs that sort of things out there, they ought to expect some return fire. But often that's not the response, but doing things like suggesting there's something wrong with people who might have those issues brought up, though usually not directly. [/QUOTE]

Verification