Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9269931" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I find the very idea of hater-appeasement offensive when it comes to including purely optional elements in a leisure activity. It is, explicitly, making the &quot;unreasonable&quot; those who get to define what is and isn't present. One must dance to their tune. As opposed to, y'know, just telling them that it's unreasonable to hate something because someone else can enjoy using it in a way you (generic) don't like, that doesn't cause any harm to you (generic) or anyone else.Hater-appeasement should be actively repudiated. Instead, it is held up as a horrible conundrum: &quot;How do we appease the haters, without just flipping the bird to folks who like this stuff? Oh, I know! We deprecate the things they like, so that the haters get official recognition, but the fans aren't actually excluded.&quot;This would, in fact, be exactly why a user on this very forum, genuinely without a trace of malice, explicitly said to me, &quot;Be happy that you have rules for them at all.&quot; Because posts like this? Yeah, they were a very clear reminder, &quot;If the haters had been vocal enough, we probably wouldn't have included dragonborn at all.&quot;Edit: And evil_reverend--better known as Robert Schwalb--did not confine lopsided or inaccurate statements to just this post. See, for example, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/new-staff-blog-run-away.321400/" target="_blank">this ENworld thread from the time</a>, reacting to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120415235426/http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/04/13/run_away!" target="_blank">a different post</a>. One that, again, cast disparaging (and in this case, false) statements at 4e (in this case, the claim that people only started using focus-fire tactics because of 4e.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9269931, member: 6790260"] I find the very idea of hater-appeasement offensive when it comes to including purely optional elements in a leisure activity. It is, explicitly, making the "unreasonable" those who get to define what is and isn't present. One must dance to their tune. As opposed to, y'know, just telling them that it's unreasonable to [I]hate[/I] something because [I]someone else[/I] can enjoy using it in a way you (generic) don't like, that doesn't cause any harm to you (generic) or anyone else. Hater-appeasement should be actively repudiated. Instead, it is held up as a horrible conundrum: "How do we appease the haters, without just flipping the bird to folks who like this stuff? Oh, I know! We [I]deprecate[/I] the things they like, so that the haters get official recognition, but the fans aren't [I]actually[/I] excluded." This would, in fact, be exactly why a user on this very forum, genuinely without a trace of malice, explicitly said to me, "Be happy that you have rules for them at all." Because posts like this? Yeah, they were a very clear reminder, "If the haters had been vocal enough, we probably wouldn't have included dragonborn at all." Edit: And evil_reverend--better known as Robert Schwalb--did not confine lopsided or inaccurate statements to just this post. See, for example, [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/new-staff-blog-run-away.321400/']this ENworld thread from the time[/URL], reacting to [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20120415235426/http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/04/13/run_away!']a different post[/URL]. One that, again, cast disparaging (and in this case, false) statements at 4e (in this case, the claim that people only started using focus-fire tactics because of 4e.) [/QUOTE]

Verification