The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[overgeeked]

Terrible analogy is terrible.

 

[FrogReaver]

Eh, I sometimes think its more that there's a burden of proof for both sides if there's an actual argument, but that depends if there's a discernible status quo. Unless someone is going to present some kind of proof "X is bad." "No its not." is always an unbridgeable gap and a largely pointless exercise (for both people).

IMO. In reasonable discourse if neither party wants to elaborate on their claims then it’s perfectly fine to leave it as ‘x is bad’ and ‘no it is not’. That’s the reasonable thing to do. Expecting or demanding more from the other party is the unreasonable thing to do… IMO.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Terrible analogy is terrible.

That analogy was exactly as terrible as rolling a natural 20 isn't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMO. In reasonable discourse if neither party wants to elaborate on their claims then it’s perfectly fine to leave it as ‘x is bad’ and ‘no it is not’. That’s the reasonable thing to do. Expecting or demanding more from the other party is the unreasonable thing to do… IMO.

But see, to me those aren't a discussion. They're just statements. There's no meaningful interaction.

 

[darjr]

Yeah, my coworkers piping up, saying they wanted a 5E game, was kind of a shock, as I was prepared to go all-in on other stuff at least through the rest of the year. So there's a lot of dramatic gear shifting for me over the next few weeks, going back and forth between games.

Yea, I had one trailing 5e public game but we concluded that standing everyone on “DarkSun”. It’s the next GMs problem now.

Home game is till 5e, sorta. That the game where I dint think any of the players know their subclass and dint really care.

 

[FrogReaver]

But see, to me those aren't a discussion. They're just statements. There's no meaningful interaction.

IMO. If that’s the only 2 comments in the whole thread then I fully agree! There’s typically a lot more context though as the OP is rarely without any reasons for their stance so if this comes up it’s almost always over a tangential point in which case agreeing to disagree without further discussion on this one tangential point is perfectly fine while still discussing the rest of the thread points.

 

[prabe]

 

[Ryujin]

Rolling into a thread like...

 

[Scribe]

Thats easy, inertia.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMO. If that’s the only 2 comments in the whole thread then I fully agree! There’s typically a lot more context though as the OP is rarely without any reasons for their stance so if this comes up it’s almost always over a tangential point in which case agreeing to disagree without further discussion on this one tangential point is perfectly fine while still discussing the rest of the thread points.

I think if that was applied to the whole thread, "thread" would be a particularly apt term, because it would be a mono-line; a lot of what makes a thread is discussion of the side issues as they relate to the main (this doesn't mean that there's can't be thread-drifty elements too, but a lot of those supposedly side-discussions are unpacking things one or more people think pretty relevant to the main).