WOTC is hiring a new Game Designer for D&D

[Umbran]

Yeah Chicago is more than just references and citations, it's also a style guide; much like Strunk & White's Elements of Style (which I think is frankly overrated compared to Chicago).

Yes, well, let us note the *real* difference between the two.

Elements of Style is 105 pages in small-page paperback format. You can carry it in your backpack and not notice the weight.

Chicago Manual of Style is 984 pages in full-size page hardcover. It will break a toe if you drop it on your foot.

Strunk & White are therefore roughly one bazillion times more accessible than CMoS. The CMoS is awesome for professionals, doing formal writing, especially if they are using references in their work. S&W are for the other 99% of people, who just want to remember whether to use, "its," or, "it's," when writing a letter to grandma. As an everyday reference for the everyman, CMoS is using a bazooka to kill a fly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

CMoS is using a bazooka to kill a fly.

But when the bazooka hits... it is SOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes it is. Rape, cancer, death, war, sexism are all serious issues are you saying people are not allowed to make jabs about them?.

No. No it is not OK to make jokes about rape or cancer. Especially in a public forum with strangers (anywhere, not just here) when you have no idea who around you has been raped, or has cancer, or been to war. What is wrong with you? I mean, I know gamers have a reputation of not having social skills, but this is pretty baseline stuff here. I can't think of a single instance where a joke about rape or cancer would be OK in a public setting.

 

[cmad1977]

But when the bazooka hits... it is SOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!

The CMoS sections I referenced in regards to your post say that your usage of exclamation points is incorrect.



(Bazooka noises) fwoosh.... BOOM!(note the single exclamation point)

 

[Sadras]

No. No it is not OK to make jokes about rape or cancer. Especially in a public forum with strangers (anywhere, not just here) when you have no idea who around you has been raped, or has cancer, or been to war. What is wrong with you? I mean, I know gamers have a reputation of not having social skills, but this is pretty baseline stuff here. I can't think of a single instance where a joke about rape or cancer would be OK in a public setting.

I have already apologised but thanks for jumping on the bandwagon after.
Might I also suggest you should watch some Jimmy Carr and familiarise yourself with the rest of the world.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have already apologised but thanks for jumping on the bandwagon after.
Might I also suggest you should watch some Jimmy Carr and familiarise yourself with the rest of the world.

I'm very familiar with Jimmy Carr (and the rest of the world, having lived in a half dozen countries in the period of a decade). Making a personal jab at me doesn't make you any more justified. I'm also familiar with Eddy Murphy in the 80s, but that doesn't mean it's OK to go around making AIDS jokes about gay people calling them bigoted pejoratives, does it? This isn't a tough choice here, and the fact you're doubling down is troubling.

 

[TwoSix]

I have already apologised but thanks for jumping on the bandwagon after.
Might I also suggest you should watch some Jimmy Carr and familiarise yourself with the rest of the world.

While I love dark comedians like Jimmy Carr and Anthony Jeselnik, when you're going to view a comedian, you're giving consent to hearing something terribly offensive. A public forum doesn't have that same tacit agreement of consent.

I've made dark jokes personally about every topic above you've listed, plus more. But I do that in my front of my friends, who enjoy that sort of thing. I don't do that at work. Treat the forums like you'd treat a co-worker who's an acquaintance, not a friend.

As an aside, if you've got something terribly dark and funny, feel free to PM me. I guarantee I'll laugh.

 

[Sadras]

Making a personal jab at me doesn't make you any more justified.

You do realise your post was riddled with jabs right?

I'm also familiar with Eddy Murphy in the 80s, but that doesn't mean it's OK to go around making AIDS jokes about gay people calling them bigoted pejoratives, does it?

I never said it was. My Jimmy Carr comment was in relation to

Especially in a public forum with strangers (anywhere, not just here)

I can't think of a single instance where a joke about rape or cancer would be OK in a public setting.

This isn't a tough choice here, and the fact you're doubling down is troubling.

I had already apologised by the time you made your post. What is troubling to me is that you saw it fit to pick up another stone with your "What is wrong with you?" comment and then implying something about my social skills.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, well, let us note the *real* difference between the two.

Elements of Style is 105 pages in small-page paperback format. You can carry it in your backpack and not notice the weight.

Chicago Manual of Style is 984 pages in full-size page hardcover. It will break a toe if you drop it on your foot.

Strunk & White are therefore roughly one bazillion times more accessible than CMoS. The CMoS is awesome for professionals, doing formal writing, especially if they are using references in their work. S&W are for the other 99% of people, who just want to remember whether to use, "its," or, "it's," when writing a letter to grandma. As an everyday reference for the everyman, CMoS is using a bazooka to kill a fly.

The problem with this argument is that you are using the internet to make it.

I don't doubt there was a time when having a sleek, streamlined, accessible style guide made out of dead trees was a handy and useful thing to have.

Nowadays, when it would take less time to Google the difference between "its" and "it's" than it would to look up in even a slim, 100-page style guide? Elements of Style is a relic of the past.

Worse still, Elements of Style treats many rules as dogmatic when they are, as many things are in English grammar, quite flexible; and that's at best. At worst it treats perfectly acceptable grammar usage (and oftentimes superior stylistic choices) as incorrect, which has led to a legion of obnoxious prescriptivists acting as if the English language and the rules that govern it were codified in stone and handed to Grammar Moses for all of us to keep in perpetuity. The slavish insistence that the singular they is always incorrect is probably the worst outcome here, but there are others.

EoS is hacking a bush down to its stump and calling it the only acceptable way to do topiary.

 

[Umbran]

Nowadays, when it would take less time to Google the difference between "its" and "it's" than it would to look up in even a slim, 100-page style guide?

Whenever you don't have wifi on your laptop. For many, that means roughly any tie they aren't specifically at work or at home.

Elements of Style is a relic of the past.

By the very same argument, so is CMoS, because anything in there can be looked up online as well. The issue isn't actually about the form factor, but about the scope - a source with a large scope is very difficult to search, especially if you don't know the exact name for what you are looking for. The limited scope of Elements of Style makes it very easy to use for the most general of writing tasks.

Of course, this critique also assumes that you trust the internet to answer your questions, which is... perhaps not the wisest assumption to make. I suggest that the value in these things comes from their accepted authority, which "the internet" doesn't have.

Worse still, Elements of Style treats many rules as dogmatic when they are, as many things are in English grammar, quite flexible; and that's at best.

The same can be said for CMoS. Any time you have an authoritative source, this will happen - check it out, we all have PHBs, and we then argue over what rules changes are appropriate!

The point of a style guide is to be prescriptive! The highest value in CMoS to the academic world, for example, is in its prescriptive definition for references. The point is to have everyone using the same format, so that everyone can read the condensed form of information without ambiguity. If you give information that isn't in the agreed-upon format, you can print it, but the audience won't know what it means, and will not be able to find the referenced information!

My writing teachers were all pretty clear on this point - first, know and follow the rules. Only once you know and follow the rules can you choose to break them specifically to generate the impact you desire. For this to happen, the rules must be agreed upon first, and that's what style guides (and, indeed, grammar and usage rules in general) are for.