Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9335082" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That's cool and good for you (sincere).&nbsp; But that isn't how things have gone down here on ENW.&nbsp; IMO, its one of the more weird (yet unsurprising) things I've seen in this hobby.&nbsp; This is my inventory of it:* Originator of thing x explains it (in long-form essay and in all manner of elaborations).* Years later, independently (neither [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] nor I know Ron Edwards...and there were others still, also independent of both the originator of the essay and myself etc, who made the same observations), some folks who know thing x and have played thing n a lot say....hey this thing n has values and system architecture that generate an orientation to play that looks damn near the spitting image of thing x.* Many detractors (who utterly hate thing y, hate and misunderstand both thing x and REALLY HATE the originator of thing x) say BOO HISS NO!* Some decade+ later, originator of thing x says the equivalent of...&quot;just read and played thing n for the first time...to my surprise, its a type of thing x.&quot;Now who thinks that puts things to bed?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; Independent assessment by multiple observers didn't do it.&nbsp; Decades and vast seas of accumulated words depicting how it does it didn't do it.&nbsp; The originator of the essay independently vetting the claim won't do it.&nbsp; Nothing_will_do it.&nbsp; Its not about the veracity of the claim or the evidence.&nbsp; Its about the BOO HISS.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9335082, member: 6696971"] That's cool and good for you (sincere). But that isn't how things have gone down here on ENW. IMO, its one of the more weird (yet unsurprising) things I've seen in this hobby. This is my inventory of it: * [I]Originator of thing x[/I] explains it (in long-form essay and in all manner of elaborations). * Years later, independently (neither [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] nor I know Ron Edwards...and there were others still, also independent of both the originator of the essay and myself etc, who made the same observations), some folks who know [I]thing x[/I] and have played [I]thing n[/I] a lot say....hey this [I]thing n[/I] has values and system architecture that generate an orientation to play that looks damn near the spitting image of [I]thing x[/I]. * Many detractors (who utterly hate [I]thing y[/I], hate and misunderstand both [I]thing x [/I]and REALLY HATE the [I]originator of[/I] [I]thing x[/I]) say BOO HISS NO! * Some decade+ later, [I]originator of thing x [/I]says the equivalent of..."just read and played [I]thing n [/I]for the first time...to my surprise, its a type of [I]thing x[/I]." Now who thinks that puts things to bed? Of course not. Independent assessment by multiple observers didn't do it. Decades and vast seas of accumulated words depicting how it does it didn't do it. The originator of the essay independently vetting the claim won't do it. Nothing_will_do it. Its not about the veracity of the claim or the evidence. Its about the BOO HISS. [/QUOTE]

Verification