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

[rounser]

Then there are peoplt that are jerks.

That's a cute way to dismiss folks who simply think the designers were jerks for doing what they did with something they cared about. But it certainly reframes reality in a convenient way for your perspective, I'll give you that.

 

[Umbran]

Encyclopediacally-speaking? Objectivity is the subjectively-perceived, communal view attempted to be communicated between collectively-identifying, recursively-processing, self and other-reproducing, multi-cellular "things". In other words, it's a merely a group of people who share a common belief rather than just one person spouting an opinion, which would be subjective belief instead.

Howandwhy99 is sitting in a chair. Umbran walks up with an apple, and holds it over Howandwhy99's head. When Umbran lets go of the apple, it falls and lightly bonks off said head.

This is objectivity. No amount of communal viewing or common belief changes how the apple falls. Objectivity is not common belief - it is what happens irrespective of what we believe.

 

[Snoweel]

simply think the designers were jerks

Just because they're living your dream doesn't mean the designers don't have feelings too mate.

Is there really any difference between the people who think the designers of 4e are jerks, and anyone who thinks anyone else is a jerk?

 

[Raven Crowking]

No amount of communal viewing or common belief changes how the apple falls.

Careful....you're straying into religion here.

Objectivity is not common belief - it is what happens irrespective of what we believe.

I would agree, with the caveat that, since our only mode of experience is perforce subjective, there is no means by which we can determine exactly what happens irrespective of what we believe. All we have is a model (map) of our subjective experiences thus far, used to predict future occurances. We have no proof that our model (map) is correct. Indeed, it is almost a certainty that events will occur which will force us to revise it.

Even if our model was 100% correct, we would have no way of determining that. All we could say is that observation corresponds to the model so far.



RC

 

[rounser]

Just because they're living your dream doesn't mean the designers don't have feelings too mate.

I don't want to be a game designer. And "jerk" is Paradox's word, so I was using language he'd understand.

Is there really any difference between the people who think the designers of 4e are jerks, and anyone who thinks anyone else is a jerk?

It is, as I pointed out, a great word to dismiss and dehumanise people who you don't want to see the perspective of or give any legitimacy to. A useful emotional shorthand for bigotry, in other words.

 

[Garthanos]

Keefe the Thief: I would rather that, when people look at my post, they would see what I in fact wrote. I did not "label" anything. Perhaps you could speak for yourself?

A succinct and verbatim repeat of what I actually wrote there:

You emphasized the extremity of differences in editions.. he called that trench digging... and didnt repeat it. I could dig out far more fundamental differences between any Version of D&D and Burning Wheel, Any version of D&D and Fate... Any version of D&D and HERO .... and WOD etc etc.

 

[Piratecat]

I think we're about done here, so I'm swinging the thread shut.

 

[Umbran]

I would agree, with the caveat that, since our only mode of experience is perforce subjective, there is no means by which we can determine exactly what happens irrespective of what we believe.

I would agree, with the caveat that this is not relativistic rocket science, so that absolute exactness is not required - waiting for such is equivalent to nihilism. The computer you are typing on was created with lack of exact knowledge of how electrons behave, but it was sure good enough, right?

Also, don't conflate accuracy and precision. Precision is how exact your measurements are - to how many decimal places can you measure. Accuracy is correctness. That the apple falls is not subjective, and is accurate. Exactly how fast it falls we might quibble about, and may be subjective to how each of us measures, or our particular frame of reference, so it might be subjective.

Anyone who does not agree with the fact that the apple falls is moving away from Earth so fast that we cannot effectively communicate with him or her anyway, so they may be ignored

And, all of this is neither here nor there - Edition Wars are primarily based on none of that, but instead upon whether my bonking Howandwhy99 on the head with an apple is the height of comedy, or an indication that I have a vicious personal vendetta against him to be mercilessly pelting him with fruit.

(Edit: Whoops! P-cat closed the thread while I was writing this. My apologies!)

 

[Piratecat]

My thanks to folks who asked about this.

I'm going to swing this thread back open as well. Please just stay away from blanket insults and the like. I'm still of the opinion that there's not a whole lot left to be said on the topic of edition wars that isn't going to stir up arguments, but I'm absolutely willing to be proven wrong.

 

[Snoweel]

It is, as I pointed out, a great word to dismiss and dehumanise people who you don't want to see the perspective of or give any legitimacy to. A useful emotional shorthand for bigotry, in other words.

Fair enough.

But if that's the case, then surely it's the height of bigotry for anyone to assume the developers of 4e have only the basest of motives.

Is there any difference between assuming the worst about somebody and caling them a 'jerk'?