The Magic-Walmart myth

[gizmo33]

I didn't realize that you were kidding about the Elvish.

It was a bon farce.

 

[Ourph]

The first strikes me as someone that has heard a buzzword and is repeating it. I would get the impression that they haven't fully thought about the issue. I could very easily be wrong. Maybe they have written a 20+ page thoughtful document on the topic but I have no way of knowing that.

It seems to me that you are then letting things other people have done color your interpretation of what this poster is saying. Forcing the person you are conversing with to be responsible for other people's poor behavior isn't fair. I would argue that your behavior is what needs modifying, not theirs.

If someone told me "I hate the Pokemount" I would ask "why" so it doesn't even save them any time/words/breath in the explanation. To me there is no purpose in using the term Pokemount exept for hot-button pushing.

You are assuming that the term Pokemount is used in a vacuum and without context. If you were reading the word on the 3rd page of a thread and the term was perfectly explained by the context of the previous two pages, would it become more purposeful? If it became more purposeful would it become less offensive?

 

[I'm A Banana]

the reader has the responsibility to attempt to read as the writer intended.

100% of the history of all written and oral communication would entirely disagree with you.

The writer has the responsibility to make sure their intention is communicated effectively to as many people as possible. If they fail at this task, then they are not a very good writer.

If "MagicMarts" doesn't communicate to the reader what you want it to communicate, it is bad communication, and should be eliminated with prejudice as detrimental to the entire point of written communication, which is to convey the writer's ideas in a way the reader can understand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was a bon farce.

Beautiful.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

OK, then, why do you find these terms offensive:

Pokemount
MagicMart

They've both been fairly well covered up thread but you have asked for my own personal interpretation of the two. (And the gauntlet has been dropped - I can't refuse that).

Both terms are simple single use phrases that in-and-fof themselves have no real meaning - and I don't just mean lack of an official dictionary definition.

Pokemount is a term that was coined to compare the ability of the Paladin's Mount to that of an aspect of an animated TV show. The animated TV in question is fairly obviously targeted to children, and like many children's TV shows appears to be guilty of existing soley for the purpose of it's marketing potential (I will admit that while I have seen sequences of episodes but I will admit I have never seen an entire episode). The sequences I have seen appeared to be cheaply made and the couple of climaxes to the episode I have seen appeared to be cop-outs (no clever thought out resolution to the apparent problem at hand). Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).

3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people using it as attack at 3.5. I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.

To add to these connotations there are also multiple occurances of people saying that some situations are not similar to the Pokemon situation. Just upthread when Shadowfax was said to be a Pokemount (summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed) and people came out saying that it wasn't that situation at all. I myself think it's a valid comparison and good source to use if you want to change the flavor of the ability; but when it was suggested as an alternative flavor use the idea was shot down handedly. This conveyed to me an attitude of "how dare we suggest Shadowfax is a Pokemount" and this comes across to me as an elitist attitude.

MagicMart: Wal-Mart has some controvercy attached to it. It doesn't matter at this point if those controversies are justafied or not - they exist. Wal-Mart has a reputation (negative and posative, deserved or not) for cheap products, cheaply made products, bulk purchases, all stores being the same (at least all the stores of a certain size being the same as chain stores usually do), bullying smaller stores, bulllying suppliers, not being kind to its work force, overseas labor problems and not caring for the customer.

To add to this the earlier additions of D&D that had the cartoon of the wizard buying the wand off te shelf doesn't help matters any.

Referring to the purchase of magic items as Magic Mart or Magic Wal-Mart carries with it (in my view) the connotations of it being bland (all stores the same), impersonal (how often do you get the same cashier?) and having no 'magic' in magical item (chain stores). The media isn't Wal-Mart's friend (constant reporting on the controversies) which leaves a bad sense of Wal-Mart in the back of a lot of people's heads (and yes, I do sometimes shop there, last night in fact).

The entire Magic Mart aspect has a certain Edition Wars slant to it as well. 3.X is the first (to my knowledge) to embrace the idea of buying and selling magic items. As the paladin's mount above this lends the purchase of magic items to be a fairly common shot at 3.X and has been used in multiple Edition War threads. Even earlier editions (in my mind) made this style out to be a 'lesser' and 'more junvenile' style of play. The cartoon I mentioned earlier is obviously (to me) an attack on that style of play and so this bring an elitist attitude to the concept.

I'm going to be going on vacation (to Origins) in a couple of hours here (meeting up with a friend and we will heading there tomorrow) shortly. I don't own a laptop so I won't be able to easily have a back and forth but I hope this sheds some light on where I'm coming from with these two terms and where I honestly believe others are coming from as well. I'll continue to comment while I have the time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

the reader has the responsibility to attempt to read as the writer intended.

100% of the history of all written and oral communication would entirely disagree with you.

What do you mean you hate dogs? And what, exactly, do you have against Nebraska?

It is true that the writer has the responsibility to communicate effectively with his target audience (which is not always "as many people as possible"). However, effective communication is, and always has been, communicating in such a way that a listener/reader who takes the responsibility of attempting to understand the speaker/writer can do so (or nearly do so). The days of believing that the reader/listener is a passive being, and that full responsibility falls upon the writer/speaker are long gone. Communication is a dynamic, multi-party process.

If "MagicMarts" doesn't communicate to the reader what you want it to communicate, it is bad communication

There is scant indication that this is the case, though, which has already been addressed:

There is a difference between reaction and meaning, which are conflated here.

When I say, for example, "pokemount", it conveys a specific meaning. It conveys a denotation of this edition's paladin's mount, and a strong connotation of my distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.

It might also provoke a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount?" Possibly with an irrational conflating that distaste with a distaste for the game system as a whole, or with those who like the current edition's paladin's mount. However, I don't know of a single example where the term "pokemount" was intended to carry this secondary connotation. Nor, frankly, do you need to use the term "pokemount" to garner the same reaction -- you need merely to imply a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.​

Moreover, if it is true that if one feels that a term iss a loaded statement, part of the requirement in having a balanced conversation once the term gets used is to be able to tell the other person why one felt it was a loaded statement, that it has taken so long for anyone to explain why "pokemount" or "MagicMart" are considered offensive seems to indicate to me very strongly that the idea that they are offensive is itself irrational.

This is not unlike my question to Hussar about MagicMart as a descriptive term. If MagicMart is not viable as a descriptive term, under what circumstances would MagicMart be viable as a descriptive term?

This is simply, IMHO, a case of moving goalposts. No matter what, these terms are "offensive", "mythical", "legendary", or "not descriptive".

Ourph put it far more concisely than I when he said "For every buzzword you take off the table, the hypersensitive "wrongbadfun" police will find another word to get upset about. The problem isn't the words; it's the reaction."


RC

 

[Jedi_Solo]

It wasn't 20 pages. Or, at least, it wasn't just me for 20 pages.

Moreover, if you then ask "Why?", the odds that "because it reminds me of Pokemon" is going to satisfy you if you find the term itself offensive seems (to me) slim indeed.

Exactly. My responce would be 'what aspect of it that remind you of Pokemon don't you like.'I think i get this from my father who has a degree in psychology but I find it helps a conversation a lot if we can get to what people mean and not just what they say.

For me, it isn't so much that I find Pokemount or MagicMart offensive but that the elitist (as I percieve them) connotations of these terms is what sets me on edge.

I'd be willing to bet that the person who uses the term Pokemount dosn't like the aspect of the mount popping in an dout of existance. But I want to confirm that. Maybe it's that they alwas see this white and red ball flaoting around, maybe they see the mount having a lightning bolt for a tail. Each of these are similar but slightly different. The more I know where they are coming from and the more they know where I am coming from the more likely we can find a common ground and have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Jedi_Solo, thanks for taking up the gauntlet, and hope you enjoy Origins.

Both terms are simple single use phrases that in-and-fof themselves have no real meaning - and I don't just mean lack of an official dictionary definition.

I think that this has been adequately refuted ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Pokemount is a term that was coined to compare the ability of the Paladin's Mount to that of an aspect of an animated TV show.

Agreed. And it is further agreed that Pokemon is targetted at children, and cheaply made, and exists for marketting. However, I don't understand how you jump from that to

Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).​

You seem to be suggesting that if one views the 3.5 paladin's mount as having a strong point of similarity (that the speaker/writer obviously finds distasteful) then it must (1) share all points of simillarity, i.e., be virtually identical in all aspects, and (2) that the speaker/writer must be unable to determine the difference between his/her own tastes and a universal sense of what is good or not.

In other words:

It might also provoke a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount?" Possibly with an irrational conflating that distaste with a distaste for the game system as a whole, or with those who like the current edition's paladin's mount. However, I don't know of a single example where the term "pokemount" was intended to carry this secondary connotation. Nor, frankly, do you need to use the term "pokemount" to garner the same reaction -- you need merely to imply a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.​

That the listener/reader equates one point of similarity as meaning all points must be similar, and that, therefore, the statement/term must be a personal attack is, frankly, irrational. It is like saying that if you don't like David Carradine's original Kung Fu, it is rational to find the monk class insulting.

Or, as you said,

To add to these connotations there are also multiple occurances of people saying that some situations are not similar to the Pokemon situation. Just upthread when Shadowfax was said to be a Pokemount (summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed) and people came out saying that it wasn't that situation at all.​

but, this shouldn't surprise us at all because it was never the "summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed" aspect that people objected to. It is more the "instantaneous/other dimensional/can get to anywhere" aspect that people object to (IMHO and IME). Moreover, it is an example of how the listener/reader in this case refuted the idea that one point of similarity means that all points must be similar.

Far from being "how dare we suggest Shadowfax is a Pokemount", it is merely "you are misunderstanding the term as we use it" -- often, I note, with specifics attached as to what the term means and how it does/does not apply.

3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people using it as attack at 3.5. I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.

If you change this to

3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people pointing it out as an example of where they are dissatisfied with 3.5. I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.​

I would agree with you.

However, this still leaves open the question of why anyone's not liking part (or even all) of 3.5 would be offensive to you.

I could point-by-point your reasons for finding MagicMart offensive, but since there is a great deal of repetition, I will not do so now. The only major thing to add here is that, while 3.X may be the first edition to "officially" embrace buying and selling magic items, 2e is at the very least schitzophrenic on this topic. The first (and, at this point, the best) official MagicMarts belong to 2e, not 3e.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd be willing to bet that the person who uses the term Pokemount dosn't like the aspect of the mount popping in an dout of existance. But I want to confirm that. Maybe it's that they alwas see this white and red ball flaoting around, maybe they see the mount having a lightning bolt for a tail. Each of these are similar but slightly different. The more I know where they are coming from and the more they know where I am coming from the more likely we can find a common ground and have a meaningful conversation.

I think, deep down, it has to do with what sorts of fantasy resonate with you. Sometimes, a writer or a DM or a game system can reach past grown-up logic and evoke a portion of the "magical" logic of childhood. I think, for example, that Stephen King is particularly good at this. Many of his situations seem plausible not because they are, but because when we were children we believed them to be. The same, for me, with Tolkein. They take strands of our folk subconscious, as well as the links between language and meaning, and make things that are frankly implausible seem to make sense at the time.

Depending upon our makeup, different things can ruin that suspension of disbelief. For some people, that includes pokemounts. For others it doesn't. For some, pokemounts enhance the experience.

Hence, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Agreed. And it is further agreed that Pokemon is targetted at children, and cheaply made, and exists for marketting. However, I don't understand how you jump from that to

Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).​

Because I honestly feel that whoever coined the term (besides being congratulated on being a good enough word-smith to coin a term that has lasted this long) that if they wanted to highlight posative aspect of the ability they wouldn't have chosen a (as agreed between us at least) cheaply and poorly made cartoon for comparison.

Maybe Shadowfaxian (maybe not instantly but it didn't very long for him to show up) or maybe like a Final Fantasy summons spell. FF Mount, maybe?

When I first read the term Pokemount I "knew" that it was being used an insult. Obviously I couldn't know for sure without reading the rest of the post but the term instantly hit me as an insult style term for the reasons listed above.