Skipping your continued insinuations that I’m not paying attention; since the blog specifically mentions other written materials and organized play, it’s a bit silly to say “if you just look at the books”
Well, you keep saying we're disagreeing when we reached an agreement. I don't know if you weren't paying attention, but you did make statements that ignored this. I was taking the more charitable route, I thought, as the alternative implies intent.
I don't think it's silly to look at how game rules present themselves. YMMV.
Really, you think saying you are strong supporters makes you look like crackpots? That seems a bit excessive. Also a bit aggressive.
Hmm, when a statement is pointed out as needlessly dismissive, you resort to further dismissals. And then point that problem back at others. This is an interesting data point -- do you feel that you are gaining something with this approach, and, if so, what?
Irony alert! Ovimancer starts by asserting that they know better than me because they have been “discussing game design” (with the insinuation that I am clueless) and then, when I state “I work in analytic sciences” adds 20+ words to explain why their credentials are better than mine, closing with “let’s not try to out credential each other”
No, I was saying that the words made more sense to me because I have been in circles that routinely use them. This wasn't a claim I knew better than you, but a reason why the words did not seem vague or contradictory to me, along with a pointer that there are places to learn more if you are interested. You can continue to take offense at everything, I suppose, but again, I ask what value you think to gain from this?
Sorry, Ovimancer, I’m not excited about your debate style. I don’t need continuous needling and aggrsession when trying to discuss things; based on your posts in this thread, this seems a pattern for you which I’m not excited about engaging in. I’m not going to be replying to you in this thread anymore.
See, from my point of view, you're the one being aggressive. You're making strong statements about the position of others, and reacting aggressively when those people correct you about their own views. You're the one invoking other people as support for your arguments and becoming belligerent when they dare to contradict what you say they think. I mean, I suppose you can blame me for this, not sure what the point of that is except to continue with your ideas without contradiction.
Summarizing, the last ”culture” in the blog article seems to confuse people who have studied it carefully, and it seems both vague and contradictory to me. The fact that a solid group does not exist for the single most popular cluster of players seems a pretty strong failing to me. If a theory of cultures does not encompass the most common culture, it has very limited utility.
I'm not confused by it,
@Manbearcat doesn't appear confused by it,
@Campbell doesn't appear confused by it. Are there areas where further clarity is needed, sure, but to say "confused" is making a rather strong statement. Further, claiming the confusion of others, when they aren't saying this, is girding your argument with false testimonials. You'd do better to stick to what you think, or do you feel you need to cover of others to support your opinions? I have no problem with you thinking the article is vague and contradictory. I'd love to engage in a discussion of exactly what you think is contradictory and see if there's any agreement on this, or if further elucidation can help clarify issues seen as vague.
Also, the article didn't say that these cultures are monolithic, or that games or groups are monolithically one culture. It's really pointing out play agendas, many of which are compatible, while some are not. The argument that the article fails because you cannot find monolithic groups completely described by the cultures in the article is a failure to grasp what the article is actually trying to do. No one is just one of these cultures, and the article says this explicitly.
