Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7417627" data-attributes="member: 48965">That's interesting but do you have anything to back this disagreement up with, because so far I've seen one style that eschews pre-authored content that has validity around worldbuilding being &quot;bad&quot; for it.&nbsp; And even with that one I would say worldbuilding isn't relevant for it vs. actually being bad.Lol... what a way to dismiss the other side of a conversation...&nbsp; Don't address their responses and counterpoints, just declare their perspective as emotionally driven and use a bad analogy (oh the irony) to characterize their responses as both illogical and ill-infomed.&nbsp; See it's this type of declaration that gets conversations emotionally driven.&nbsp; How about this... some posters have made specific points around why worldbuilding is bad (Outside of the original context of the article which was left behind some time ago in this conversation) and those points have been countered, not with emotion but with fact.&nbsp; How about addressing those specific counterpoints as opposed to throwing out a blanket dismissal or arguing about definitions? Yep that's exactly what the arguments for worldbuilding so far have been based on (and this doesn't apply to the ones against worldbuilding because??)... persecution complexes... *sigh* ... I can't even... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 7417627, member: 48965"] That's interesting but do you have anything to back this disagreement up with, because so far I've seen one style that eschews pre-authored content that has validity around worldbuilding being "bad" for it. And even with that one I would say worldbuilding isn't relevant for it vs. actually being bad. Lol... what a way to dismiss the other side of a conversation... Don't address their responses and counterpoints, just declare their perspective as emotionally driven and use a bad analogy (oh the irony) to characterize their responses as both illogical and ill-infomed. See it's this type of declaration that gets conversations emotionally driven. How about this... some posters have made specific points around why worldbuilding is bad (Outside of the original context of the article which was left behind some time ago in this conversation) and those points have been countered, not with emotion but with fact. How about addressing those specific counterpoints as opposed to throwing out a blanket dismissal or arguing about definitions? Yep that's exactly what the arguments for worldbuilding so far have been based on (and this doesn't apply to the ones against worldbuilding because??)... persecution complexes... *sigh* ... I can't even... :erm: [/QUOTE]

Verification