Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 4896975" data-attributes="member: 177">No confrontation is taken.&nbsp; It is a fair question.&nbsp; What you are calling a &quot;double standard&quot; is actually me trying to work both ends of the problem.I the Vintage Gaming thread, you asked me how to avoid offending people.&nbsp; I said, in effect, &quot;Don't poke 'em in the sensitive parts&quot;.Now, I am turning to the pokee, and saying, &quot;Let's try to be more reasonable about what we call sensitive parts.&quot;It's called compromise and cooperation.&nbsp; You make some effort to not offend, then make an effort to not be offended.&nbsp; No double standard there at all.Well, I would probably be a bad example, as a moderator.&nbsp; Starting stuff in a mod's thread would rather like coming in from playing in the rain, actively getting Mom's attention, and then pointedly dropping them on her newly-mopped floor.&nbsp; But, to your point, say I used an alt.&nbsp; I still expect I could do it.You see, there are worlds of difference between the ends of the following spectrum:1) &quot;I LURV my 4e!&nbsp; I always hated X about 1e!&nbsp; 1e is the SUXX0RS, and only loosers play it!!1!&quot;2) &quot;I hate X about 1e.&quot;3) &quot;After Gygax and Arneson passed, I ran a couple of memorial dungeon crawls with 1e.&nbsp; While I'm not giving up my 3e or 4e games for it, I'd like to do a six-session mini-campaign with 1e.&nbsp; Thing is, I always had a bit of a problem with X, which always seems to bring about Y, which doesn't work for me.&nbsp; Have any of you had any luck in working around it within the system?&quot;The first is clearly antagonistic.The second is a simple opinion.&nbsp; It is not judging the edition as a whole, or the people who play it.&nbsp; It makes no generalizations beyond a specific item.&nbsp; However, neither is it particularly constructive.&nbsp; Not much point to it, as stated.&nbsp; There may be some risk that people will assume there must have been a point - which isn't really your fault, but you could have avoided it.The third is actively non-partisan, and constructive.&nbsp; It is focused on a specific problem, and asking for help in dealing with it so that people can have more fun.&nbsp; Very difficult to call this one edition warring.&nbsp; If I were to post as you dare me to, I would aim for this sort of tone, and could probably get it done.To relate this to your earlier question - I was suggesting that you aim for the third tone when speaking to avoid offense.&nbsp; And now I'm urging listening folks to accept the second when they see it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 4896975, member: 177"] No confrontation is taken. It is a fair question. What you are calling a "double standard" is actually me trying to work both ends of the problem. I the Vintage Gaming thread, you asked me how to avoid offending people. I said, in effect, "Don't poke 'em in the sensitive parts". Now, I am turning to the pokee, and saying, "Let's try to be more reasonable about what we call sensitive parts." It's called compromise and cooperation. You make some effort to not offend, then make an effort to not be offended. No double standard there at all. Well, I would probably be a bad example, as a moderator. Starting stuff in a mod's thread would rather like coming in from playing in the rain, actively getting Mom's attention, and then pointedly dropping them on her newly-mopped floor. But, to your point, say I used an alt. I still expect I could do it. You see, there are worlds of difference between the ends of the following spectrum: 1) "I LURV my 4e! I always hated X about 1e! 1e is the SUXX0RS, and only loosers play it!!1!" 2) "I hate X about 1e." 3) "After Gygax and Arneson passed, I ran a couple of memorial dungeon crawls with 1e. While I'm not giving up my 3e or 4e games for it, I'd like to do a six-session mini-campaign with 1e. Thing is, I always had a bit of a problem with X, which always seems to bring about Y, which doesn't work for me. Have any of you had any luck in working around it within the system?" The first is clearly antagonistic. The second is a simple opinion. It is not judging the edition as a whole, or the people who play it. It makes no generalizations beyond a specific item. However, neither is it particularly constructive. Not much point to it, as stated. There may be some risk that people will assume there must have been a point - which isn't really your fault, but you could have avoided it. The third is actively non-partisan, and constructive. It is focused on a specific problem, and asking for help in dealing with it so that people can have more fun. Very difficult to call this one edition warring. If I were to post as you dare me to, I would aim for this sort of tone, and could probably get it done. To relate this to your earlier question - I was suggesting that you aim for the third tone when speaking to avoid offense. And now I'm urging listening folks to accept the second when they see it. [/QUOTE]

Verification