Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 5043898" data-attributes="member: 4453">I think a less snide and more appropriate question for this particular thread, is whether 'sandbox' automatically excludes collaborative world-building.Or we could carry on with another 8 pages of you attempting to muddy the waters.Almost as odd as these incredibly irrelevant-yet-condescending analogies you keep trying to pass off as wisdom.Cite?I'm asking the questions mate, and attempting to clarify your vague and evasive answers.Well since some of us don't have the same old-skool credibility or right to an opinion as you, could you explain why this is any more helpful, or even correct, as a definition than just clearly stating what is and isn't allowed?I only just yesterday found out that collaborative world-building = badwrongsandbox, which surprised me since I thought we had the term more-or-less pinned down.Maybe you should be clearer instead of inventing new and pointless analogies.So far the only position I've seen approaching consensus is that sandbox is a theoretical absolute, and even then a couple of posters disagree.As for hostility, get over yourself. Ariosto =/= 'sandbox' so try and be a bit objective. There is no reason for anyone to be hostile to a play-style we can't even satisfactorily define, and besides, people will play how they play, regardless of what they call it.Which brings me back to the key point. This is entirely a matter of terminology; what exactly is a 'sandbox' and can it only be defined by what it isn't?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snoweel, post: 5043898, member: 4453"] I think a less snide and more appropriate question for this particular thread, is whether 'sandbox' [b]automatically excludes[/b] collaborative world-building. Or we could carry on with another 8 pages of you attempting to muddy the waters. Almost as odd as these incredibly irrelevant-yet-condescending analogies you keep trying to pass off as wisdom. Cite? I'm asking the questions mate, and attempting to clarify your vague and evasive answers. Well since some of us don't have the same old-skool credibility or right to an opinion as you, could you explain why this is any more helpful, or even correct, as a definition than just clearly stating what is and isn't allowed? I only just yesterday found out that collaborative world-building = badwrongsandbox, which surprised me since I thought we had the term more-or-less pinned down. Maybe you should be clearer instead of inventing new and pointless analogies. So far the only position I've seen approaching consensus is that sandbox is a theoretical absolute, and even then a couple of posters disagree. As for hostility, get over yourself. Ariosto =/= 'sandbox' so try and be a bit objective. There is no reason for anyone to be hostile to a play-style we can't even satisfactorily define, and besides, people will play how they play, regardless of what they call it. Which brings me back to the key point. This is entirely a matter of terminology; what exactly is a 'sandbox' and can it only be defined by what it isn't? [/QUOTE]

Verification