Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5409260" data-attributes="member: 4937">If you'll recall from that thread you say you liked (thanks), one of the first things I did was point out that the term 'Railroad' was commonly used to mean two different things.&nbsp; This is a natural result of the subjective experience of 'railroading'.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have to refer to both the objective act of 'railroading' and the subjective experience of it.&nbsp; Because there can be two different experiences of the act of 'railroading', it is not enough to say 'That is a railroad.'&nbsp; Objectively describing something doesn't capture the full meaning.&nbsp; We have to say, &quot;That is a railroad and the negative experience of being railroaded has become for me the most salient feature of the game experience.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Or it didn't.&nbsp; Of course, people don't naturally use language in that way, so we can hardly expect that sort of precision in their conversation.The difficulty here is when people confuse the objective and subjective of railroading.&nbsp; They say, &quot;That is a railroad.&quot; and start to argue over the question of, &quot;Is that a railroad?&quot;, as if there was a 1 to 1 correspondance between things that are objectively railroads and things that are subjectively experienced as railroads.&nbsp; If they didn't experience A as a railroad, but experienced B as a railroad they'll argue, &quot;A is a railroad and B is not.&quot;, even if objectively speaking A and B are the same technique.&nbsp; If you point that out, then they'll say, &quot;B can't be a railroad because that would mean B is bad, and it clearly isn't.&quot;, which is missing the point but missing it in ways that are entirely predictable given the limitations of language.Well, yes, yes it does.&nbsp; That doesn't represent a big problem for me, as I'm perfectly happy to have questions that are answerable both 'yes' and 'no' - for example, &quot;Do humans have free will?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Alot of the questions people argue about most vociferously IMO turn out to be questions where the right answer is both, &quot;Yes&quot; and &quot;No&quot;.&nbsp; I can't give you a lot of examples because of board rules, but probably some will come to mind if you think about it.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, since everyone &quot;knows&quot; (common sense) that questions are not supposed to be answered both &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot;, those sorts of questions give most people (understandably) lots of difficulty.&nbsp;&nbsp; The trick is to work out what the question really means, as often a question has multiple levels of meaning.We are already there.&nbsp; People already are using the words in different ways, often even changing the meaning that they are employing from sentense to sentense without realizing it.&nbsp; The description I'm giving is precisely to try to get people to clarify their thinking by giving less fuzzy definitions so that people can see what they are actually thinking, and better yet, what the people who don't agree with them are actually thinking.&nbsp;&nbsp; While you may prefer that, in its natural usage that isn't always what it means.&nbsp; Two different people can experience the same game run the same way as a railroad or not depending on their preferences.&nbsp; The person who experiences it as a railroad must in fairness be assumed to have a reason for that experience.&nbsp; Those two different people when they use the term railroad will naturally use it in different ways, and they'll talk right passed each other if they don't first understand the different ways it is being used.&nbsp; I'm a computer programmer with a professional curiousity in natural language.&nbsp; It would be great if natural language didn't hang the same pointer to an object on multiple different objects and expect people to work out from the ambigious pointer what idea was being pointed at.&nbsp; But it doesn't work that way.&nbsp; The symbol table for a conversation is filled with ambiguities.&nbsp;&nbsp; Forgiven before asked.&nbsp; I'm glad the red letters didn't come out.&nbsp; I'm abrasive as all heck at times, but I tend to find that with most people - like most children or siblings - can work out their differences without parental intervention.&nbsp;&nbsp; If I didn't think we could, I wouldn't have bothered posting anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5409260, member: 4937"] If you'll recall from that thread you say you liked (thanks), one of the first things I did was point out that the term 'Railroad' was commonly used to mean two different things. This is a natural result of the subjective experience of 'railroading'. We have to refer to both the objective act of 'railroading' and the subjective experience of it. Because there can be two different experiences of the act of 'railroading', it is not enough to say 'That is a railroad.' Objectively describing something doesn't capture the full meaning. We have to say, "That is a railroad and the negative experience of being railroaded has become for me the most salient feature of the game experience." Or it didn't. Of course, people don't naturally use language in that way, so we can hardly expect that sort of precision in their conversation. The difficulty here is when people confuse the objective and subjective of railroading. They say, "That is a railroad." and start to argue over the question of, "Is that a railroad?", as if there was a 1 to 1 correspondance between things that are objectively railroads and things that are subjectively experienced as railroads. If they didn't experience A as a railroad, but experienced B as a railroad they'll argue, "A is a railroad and B is not.", even if objectively speaking A and B are the same technique. If you point that out, then they'll say, "B can't be a railroad because that would mean B is bad, and it clearly isn't.", which is missing the point but missing it in ways that are entirely predictable given the limitations of language. Well, yes, yes it does. That doesn't represent a big problem for me, as I'm perfectly happy to have questions that are answerable both 'yes' and 'no' - for example, "Do humans have free will?" Alot of the questions people argue about most vociferously IMO turn out to be questions where the right answer is both, "Yes" and "No". I can't give you a lot of examples because of board rules, but probably some will come to mind if you think about it. However, since everyone "knows" (common sense) that questions are not supposed to be answered both "yes" and "no", those sorts of questions give most people (understandably) lots of difficulty. The trick is to work out what the question really means, as often a question has multiple levels of meaning. We are already there. People already are using the words in different ways, often even changing the meaning that they are employing from sentense to sentense without realizing it. The description I'm giving is precisely to try to get people to clarify their thinking by giving less fuzzy definitions so that people can see what they are actually thinking, and better yet, what the people who don't agree with them are actually thinking. While you may prefer that, in its natural usage that isn't always what it means. Two different people can experience the same game run the same way as a railroad or not depending on their preferences. The person who experiences it as a railroad must in fairness be assumed to have a reason for that experience. Those two different people when they use the term railroad will naturally use it in different ways, and they'll talk right passed each other if they don't first understand the different ways it is being used. I'm a computer programmer with a professional curiousity in natural language. It would be great if natural language didn't hang the same pointer to an object on multiple different objects and expect people to work out from the ambigious pointer what idea was being pointed at. But it doesn't work that way. The symbol table for a conversation is filled with ambiguities. Forgiven before asked. I'm glad the red letters didn't come out. I'm abrasive as all heck at times, but I tend to find that with most people - like most children or siblings - can work out their differences without parental intervention. If I didn't think we could, I wouldn't have bothered posting anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification