Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8053984" data-attributes="member: 6914290">First things first. I acknowledge that snark without substance doesn't really add to a discussion and I should have thought twice before posting.I have no personal issue with Treatmonk. Guessing so based on less than 20 words is a pretty monumental leap. My 'issue' is with the pattern of behavior.The video in question, is deliberately inflammatory and is full of arguments that are some combination of incomplete, internally inconsistent, or intentionally ignore normal D&amp;D gameplay (has anyone yet tried to defend the role of horses in his argument?). A lot of time went into this. 45 minutes of video requires scripting, shooting, editing, sound, graphics, etc. So it's not like any of the inconsistencies or omissions are just 'off the cuff'.And Treatmonk holds himself out as a system master at D&amp;D (optomancer or whatever). And, this board, including you, has regarded him as such, which is fine; I enjoyed the wizard guide too.So our starting place is with an 'expert' who makes a provocative video, presented as being data-driven, which employs arguments most generously described as 'questionable'. But it's not like the behavior stopped there. Treatmonk decided to then engage with the resulting discussions, apparently on multiple message boards. And, near as I can tell, he has provided zero substantive response to any of the criticisms regarding his methodology, here or elsewhere.So, he's making inflammatory content, and then following it around the D&amp;D community, discussing it without explaining it, and then disengaging when pressed on his arguments. This is heat, not light.I don't think he's dumb. I think the behavior is cynical...which is a sentiment better conveyed with context rather than simple snark, I realize now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gammadoodler, post: 8053984, member: 6914290"] First things first. I acknowledge that snark without substance doesn't really add to a discussion and I should have thought twice before posting. I have no personal issue with Treatmonk. Guessing so based on less than 20 words is a pretty monumental leap. My 'issue' is with the pattern of behavior. The video in question, is deliberately inflammatory and is full of arguments that are some combination of incomplete, internally inconsistent, or intentionally ignore normal D&D gameplay (has anyone yet tried to defend the role of horses in his argument?). A lot of time went into this. 45 minutes of video requires scripting, shooting, editing, sound, graphics, etc. So it's not like any of the inconsistencies or omissions are just 'off the cuff'. And Treatmonk holds himself out as a system master at D&D (optomancer or whatever). And, this board, including you, has regarded him as such, which is fine; I enjoyed the wizard guide too. So our starting place is with an 'expert' who makes a provocative video, presented as being data-driven, which employs arguments most generously described as 'questionable'. But it's not like the behavior stopped there. Treatmonk decided to then engage with the resulting discussions, apparently on multiple message boards. And, near as I can tell, he has provided zero substantive response to any of the criticisms regarding his methodology, [B]here[/B] or elsewhere. So, he's making inflammatory content, and then following it around the D&D community, discussing it without explaining it, and then disengaging when pressed on his arguments. This is heat, not light. I don't think [B]he's[/B] dumb. I think the behavior [B]is cynical[/B]... which is a sentiment better conveyed with context rather than simple snark, I realize now. [/QUOTE]

Verification