What defines the "edition war" and why are participants / moderators opposed to them?

[YourSwordIsMine]

THIS

<snip>

...is the best edition of dancing.

hmmmm... donuts....

 

[Dice4Hire]

no good can come of it.

partly because everyone already knows

OD&D(1974) is the one true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

Edition wars never die mainly because certain people make comments like this at every opportunity.

 

[Rel]

Edition wars never die mainly because certain people make comments like this at every opportunity.

Like who?

 

[Maggan]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that diaglo was being facetious.

And I'm pretty sure Diaglo was being repetitious.

Which by coincidence is why I've stopped reading most criticism of any edition. There's nothing new, and no one on any side seems to be listening to each other.

It gets a bit repetetive.

/M

 

[Umbran]

And I'm pretty sure Diaglo was being repetitious.

Leave the poor guy alone. He has a nervous tic, is all.

 

[Piratecat]

Man, I love donuts.

But I find it equally irking that, in many peoples' minds, statement A is bad but statement B is OK:

A: X-edition sucks.
B: X-edition sucks, IMHO.

Here I disagree. I think there's a huge difference between saying "You're wrong" and "I think you're wrong," or "That's not a fun way to play" vs. "I think that's not a fun way to play." I won't blame someone for holding a personal opinion that's different from my own, but my inclination is to be angry, strident and defensive if a person flatly declares me to be incorrect.

Of course, that's assuming that I'm not provably wrong. But you know what I mean.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My opinion: I would rather "listen" to the repetitive, illogical rants of the disgruntled and enraged nerds, than to the constant "no more editions wars threads" chanting coming from the "stop-rocking-my-boat" mini-mods.

Well said. I completely agree. On the other hand, they are being forced at gunpoint to read the (arguably contentious) threads, so one should take that into consideration.

I think the anonymity of the internet encourages people to be rude.

Well said. I completely agree. My first couple of years on the internet ('90 to '92 or so), I used a "handle." I stopped doing so when I realized how many people consider anonymity to be a license for all kinds of otherwise out-of-character behaviors.

Me, I'm exactly the same dickhead IRL as I am online, and I'm perfectly okay using my real name (and, scary enough, my real picture) as some indication of that.

But I find it equally irking that, in many peoples' minds, statement A is bad but statement B is OK:

A: X-edition sucks.
B: X-edition sucks, IMHO.

Well said. I completely agree. Or, as I posted recently, some folks could really use a repeat of the elementary school lessons we all had in distinguishing statements of fact from statements of opinion. You're absolutely right that "IMO" and similar qualifiers should serve as rhetorical emphasis or diplomacy, not as necessary acronyms.

It dilutes communication, obfuscating it in a kind of politically correct jargon.

Ironically, "politically correct jargon" is, itself, a code phrase with no objective meaning.

 

[Turtlejay]

Is this turning into a meta-edition war? People who hate edition warring arguing with people who hate being tattled on?

Of course, this thread was doomed from the beginning with the title it has, so it was inevitible. . .I'm just kind of horrified that there is so much support for the threadcrapping that edition wars generally *start* with.

Jay

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Edition wars cause canker sores and bunions.

 

[FireLance]

"Edition war is Baator!"
"No, edition war is the Nine Hells!"
*Kill! Slay! Rumble! Ravage! Devastate!*

See?