Your Show, Its Profile, and Marketing.

[Wordman]

…

[clarkcd]

But seriously, scooter...

Since we're discussing Josh and the personality he conveys over the medium of text then I'd like to throw my voice into the ring and discuss the personality this type of posting conveys.  Sure it's tangential but I believe it to be germane to the discussion at hand.

To me, when someone calls someone else things like scooter, champ, sport, etc it conveys the least amount of respect one can give another person while remaining "civil".  Perhaps it's my own point of view but I have never seen anyone respond in a positive manner when being addressed in such a manner.

I don't want to be accusatory, this is just observational.

[flannel]

Since we're discussing Josh and the personality he conveys over the medium of text then I'd like to throw my voice into the ring and discuss the personality this type of posting conveys.  Sure it's tangential but I believe it to be germane to the discussion at hand.

To me, when someone calls someone else things like scooter, champ, sport, etc it conveys the least amount of respect one can give another person while remaining "civil".  Perhaps it's my own point of view but I have never seen anyone respond in a positive manner when being addressed in such a manner.

I don't want to be accusatory, this is just observational.

Accusatory is fine, Clark--an accusation isn't a bad thing, shouldn't be taken as one.  By itself, its just a putting down of a foot on something.  I don't mind a bit.

I think you're about spot on, too.  Me?  I write exactly like I talk--of course, I think it probably comes off a lot more playful and respectful in person; but that's no excuse for it coming across as uncivil or disrespectful online.  No worries...

...can I still say "hoss", though?  I fret that I might sound too much like a robot without at least that level of personal flair. 

[Shoggoth]

Someone asks “should I buy Vampire?”  The answer is “no.”
The facts are: There are better games and Vampire is of a low quality. 

Now conditions might include: All my friends play now and will not play anything else, I can get it used for a dollar, I spend thousands on gaming books...and so on.  It remains withing the realm of possibility that you might get the book.  But the general or that particular case are the clearest examples to discuss. 

Here's the problem with this - When someone asks "Should I buy Vampire" the correct answer is another question - what kind of game are you trying to buy?  If they want a Simulationist game about playing a goth vampire dripping with color and they could give a shit about mechanics, and they don't have the skill, time or inclination to modify a better system to work with vampires, then the answer is yes.

If Josh wrote more phrases like the one starting "Now conditions might include", he'd me much more palatable.

I think you're about spot on, too.  Me?  I write exactly like I talk--of course, I think it probably comes off a lot more playful and respectful in person; but that's no excuse for it coming across as uncivil or disrespectful online.  No worries...

...can I still say "hoss", though?  I fret that I might sound too much like a robot without at least that level of personal flair. 

Flannel, I've skipped over many of your posts for 2 reasons -

1)  Conversational English is not and should never be treated the same as Written English.  There is a big difference between polite casual written English and conversational, and words like "hoss" and "pal" sound incredibly condescending.

2)  You spent more than a dozen very long posts in one thread to say essentially "You used hyperbole", and managed to turn the entire thread into a smug and semi-incoherent classroom session on logic.  We don't want to be taught how to argue.  We want to be argued with.

[flannel]

Flannel, I've skipped over many of your posts for 2 reasons -

1)  Conversational English is not and should never be treated the same as Written English.  There is a big difference between polite casual written English and conversational, and words like "hoss" and "pal" sound incredibly condescending.

Well, a caveat there is "Conversational English is not and should never be treated the same as Written English, except in the case of conveying conversation"--an addendum, small but important, I think.  So, you'll start reading my posts if they're merely technical written English, free of colorful vernacular and analogy?  "Dry", essentially? 

I don't mind, but if we're saying that's what it takes to get your attention--it just is what it is.  I can come past "meet me halfway" and take it the whole distance myself.  The manner in which I write isn't terribly important at all to the points I'm making--if I have to sacrifice the former for the latter, that's not a problem.  Totally doable.  I just want to be clear about what's being given as a standard for muster, here.

2)  You spent more than a dozen very long posts in one thread to say essentially "You used hyperbole", and managed to turn the entire thread into a smug and semi-incoherent classroom session on logic.  We don't want to be taught how to argue.  We want to be argued with.

In the case, then, of being argued with... when that, through discourse, comes to a point where the difference between "accurate" and "inaccurate" is the manner in which argument was presented (let's say the presentation of False things as True things, then concluding things based on that; or when reasons for "inaccuracy" in others are because of fallacious reasoning; or when the key to whether or not something is or isn't "accurate" hinges on a technical relationship between propositions)... is it still improper or unacceptable to cover "how arguments are sound or unsound"?

I will say, I'm flexible here--I accept you may know more about "what's appropriate" here than I do.  But, from what I can tell... lectures and counterpoints about "you're reasoning badly" or "you're making logical fallacies" or "I'm objective, therefore..." have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG standing tradition here.

Or were those inappropriate, too?  Or is just "how long you hang onto it"?

EDITED TO ADD:  Feel free to ignore some of this, I think we wound up on the same page on the other thread.

[Shoggoth]

Well, a caveat there is "Conversational English is not and should never be treated the same as Written English, except in the case of conveying conversation"--an addendum, small but important, I think.  So, you'll start reading my posts if they're merely technical written English, free of colorful vernacular and analogy?  "Dry", essentially? 

I don't mind, but if we're saying that's what it takes to get your attention--it just is what it is.  I can come past "meet me halfway" and take it the whole distance myself.  The manner in which I write isn't terribly important at all to the points I'm making--if I have to sacrifice the former for the latter, that's not a problem.  Totally doable.  I just want to be clear about what's being given as a standard for muster, here.

I'm more than happy to meet you half way.  I'm a little dry in my writing style myself.  I've been trying to use more line breaks in my writing on boards, for instance, as that seems to break up the flow of text and makes it much easier to read.

In the case, then, of being argued with... when that, through discourse, comes to a point where the difference between "accurate" and "inaccurate" is the manner in which argument was presented (let's say the presentation of False things as True things, then concluding things based on that; or when reasons for "inaccuracy" in others are because of fallacious reasoning; or when the key to whether or not something is or isn't "accurate" hinges on a technical relationship between propositions)... is it still improper or unacceptable to cover "how arguments are sound or unsound"?

I will say, I'm flexible here--I accept you may know more about "what's appropriate" here than I do.  But, from what I can tell... lectures and counterpoints about "you're reasoning badly" or "you're making logical fallacies" or "I'm objective, therefore..." have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG standing tradition here.

Or were those inappropriate, too?  Or is just "how long you hang onto it"?

Naw, telling someone that they're reasoning badly or they're making logical fallacies is totally appropriate.  My perception, however, and I could be wrong here, was that you responded to a hyperbolic statement with a counterargument of an extremely restricted example, then drove that point into the ground.

Granted, you weren't alone there.  Not at all.  And I like where the thread's gone now.  But it was an example of people not pulling back to look at the whole picture, and arguing nitpick arguments that really meant nothing in context.  We should have been redefining terms, not arguing minutiae.

[flannel]

I'm more than happy to meet you half way.  I'm a little dry in my writing style myself.  I've been trying to use more line breaks in my writing on boards, for instance, as that seems to break up the flow of text and makes it much easier to read.

I haven't noticed, myself--but I don't mind much the "how" of someone's writing.  I tend to notice propositions and points more than anything else, no matter how buried.  So, no worries from me about your flow.

Naw, telling someone that they're reasoning badly or they're making logical fallacies is totally appropriate.  My perception, however, and I could be wrong here, was that you responded to a hyperbolic statement with a counterargument of an extremely restricted example, then drove that point into the ground.

Granted, you weren't alone there.  Not at all.  And I like where the thread's gone now.  But it was an example of people not pulling back to look at the whole picture, and arguing nitpick arguments that really meant nothing in context.  We should have been redefining terms, not arguing minutiae.

Oh, definitely to be fair, it all got boiled down into that one little rock-hard technical statement--you're right about that.  It only got there because I was told that little rock didn't exist, which was a lot like throwing the brakes on the train (derailing it).  It quickly became an exploration of how Josh reasons things and resolving that with how he has said he reasons things (and resolving that with how he states others should).

For my bet, I just /had/ to know whether I could trust his judgement... evidenced by a tiny rock of truth that could have and should have been beyond bother (as far as arguing with).  A tiny Truth should be easy enough to acknowledge as a tiny Truth and then everyone can relax because its evident we're being Objective at that point--displaying a mutual understanding of the expectations we have of each other.  Fighting it, though?  Denying it?  Ignoring it?

I just couldn't go forward in good faith, onto more complex and more gray-space-issues, knowing all we'd have done is kick the can of tiny rocks down the road.

Its a shame it happened in some threads, but it was going to happen in one of them--probably best we got that out of the way and got the measure of each other done with, then.  I've got a pretty clear picture of how he reasons, I'm sure he's got his own of how I do it.  It'll cut down on the static in the future.  And hopefully cut down on improper use of Logic terms, as well.

We can move, heartily, on.

[Dragon Snack]

Honestly, while I agree with the premise of your original post (and I "speak Josh"), since I've read your own posts your point has lost a lot of credibility.  The "how" of someone's writing IS important, in fact, one could mistake your first post as trying to convey that...

Not that it matters much, but you can thank Shoggoth for not getting docked g-fu.  Your "Deleted scenes" thread is pretty douche-baggy.

...can I still say "hoss", though?  I fret that I might sound too much like a robot without at least that level of personal flair.

Well, you've already tainted it by association when you busted out your 'scooters', 'champs', et al.  That and the fact that the 2 people called Hoss that come to mind first (for myself at least) were fat idiots (Boss Hoss from Dukes of Hazzard and Hoss from Bonanza), well...

But then, I always thought it meant horse.  There are precious few contexts where you can call someone a horse without being antagonistic.

[flannel]

Honestly, while I agree with the premise of your original post (and I "speak Josh"), since I've read your own posts your point has lost a lot of credibility.  The "how" of someone's writing IS important, in fact, one could mistake your first post as trying to convey that...

Not that it matters much, but you can thank Shoggoth for not getting docked g-fu.  Your "Deleted scenes" thread is pretty douche-baggy.

What is g-fu and why is more or less important?  (I once tried to look it up, but couldn't find information about it)

And "douche-baggy" or not, it is what it is.  I had no luck in getting answers to two things, I restated them with a summary of what I'd been seeing as responses to it.  If we distill it of flavor (which is fine enough, I don't mind), there are still two relevant questions on the table--however they're phrased.  Either they have answers or not.

If he don't want to answer them, I obviously can't /make/ him--but I can't express them much more clearly than that thread.

Well, you've already tainted it by association when you busted out your 'scooters', 'champs', et al.  That and the fact that the 2 people called Hoss that come to mind first (for myself at least) were fat idiots (Boss Hoss from Dukes of Hazzard and Hoss from Bonanza), well...

But then, I always thought it meant horse.  There are precious few contexts where you can call someone a horse without being antagonistic.

Believe it or not, its a term of respect where I come from and the circles I run in--kinda like "Boss".  Sort of a passive acknowledgement of greater authority.  Which given that this is his house, in part, made sense at the time.  (and its Boss Hogg, sir; and Hoss from Bonanza was awesome--my opinion there, of course)

*shrug*

To each his own, then.  Have I not addressed my vernacular, in this thread, to your satisfaction then?  Not sure what more there is to say about it, really.  Was my response to similar apprehensions from Shog inadequate for you?

[Cam_Banks]

You're just lucky you can't hear my New Zealand accent when I type.

For what it's worth, I accept Josh's recent attempts to come across less like the way he has been and Zeke and Meg's efforts to defend his points without simply ignoring the fact that a lot of people (self included) have come away from those posts either offended or just flabbergasted.

It's very easy to buy into a negative discussion, but it's hard to shake the uncomfortable feeling of treading through crap afterward. I think we would all be better served by remaining (mostly) positive and welcoming.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Someone asks “should I buy Vampire?”  The answer is “no.”
The facts are: There are better games and Vampire is of a low quality. 

Now conditions might include: All my friends play now and will not play anything else, I can get it used for a dollar, I spend thousands on gaming books...and so on.  It remains withing the realm of possibility that you might get the book.  But the general or that particular case are the clearest examples to discuss. 

Here's the problem with this - When someone asks "Should I buy Vampire" the correct answer is another question - what kind of game are you trying to buy?  If they want a Simulationist game about playing a goth vampire dripping with color and they could give a shit about mechanics, and they don't have the skill, time or inclination to modify a better system to work with vampires, then the answer is yes.

If Josh wrote more phrases like the one starting "Now conditions might include", he'd me much more palatable.

Semi off topic, I don't think Vampire is a simulationist game at all.

You do need to consider the context of where I type, rather than considering it the general case.

[Shoggoth]

Someone asks “should I buy Vampire?”  The answer is “no.”
The facts are: There are better games and Vampire is of a low quality. 

Now conditions might include: All my friends play now and will not play anything else, I can get it used for a dollar, I spend thousands on gaming books...and so on.  It remains withing the realm of possibility that you might get the book.  But the general or that particular case are the clearest examples to discuss. 

Here's the problem with this - When someone asks "Should I buy Vampire" the correct answer is another question - what kind of game are you trying to buy?  If they want a Simulationist game about playing a goth vampire dripping with color and they could give a shit about mechanics, and they don't have the skill, time or inclination to modify a better system to work with vampires, then the answer is yes.

If Josh wrote more phrases like the one starting "Now conditions might include", he'd me much more palatable.

Semi off topic, I don't think Vampire is a simulationist game at all.

You do need to consider the context of where I type, rather than considering it the general case.

I'd love to get into a debate about the GNS attributes of WoD.  But clearly this is not the thread.

As far as the context goes, would it kill you to type one more sentence to supply that context, rather than relying on the person you're arguing with to "get" it?  I don't really have a problem trying to connect the dots, but your reliance on hyperbole has caused more than one misunderstanding during arguments.  Flannel just puts a very fine point on it.

[Dragon Snack]

What is g-fu and why is more or less important?

G-fu is Gameology-fu.  It's a rating system that this site has.  Like I said, not that it matters much.

Believe it or not, its a term of respect where I come from and the circles I run in--kinda like "Boss".  Sort of a passive acknowledgement of greater authority.

Interesting...

Hoss from Bonanza was awesome--my opinion there, of course

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the "kind hearted" end of the "big stupid guy" spectrum.

Have I not addressed my vernacular, in this thread, to your satisfaction then?

Yes, you have.  I was just pointing out that Hoss may be something you should ease back into using, given your previous posting and the implications it has to a broad range of people (to whom it isn't a term of endearment).

[flannel]

Yes, you have.  I was just pointing out that Hoss may be something you should ease back into using, given your previous posting and the implications it has to a broad range of people (to whom it isn't a term of endearment).

Phew... well, good we got that out of the way, then.

(totally wanted to add a "hoss" to that)

[Zeke]

I wasn't going to say anything, but growing up in Maine, someone calling me Hoss meant they were making a  fat joke. It's a kind friendly sort of fat joke, like Tiny or Gordito, so it doesn't really bother me, but as DS said it's something to be aware of.

[AfterCrescent]

Someone asks “should I buy Vampire?”  The answer is “no.”
The facts are: There are better games and Vampire is of a low quality. 

Now conditions might include: All my friends play now and will not play anything else, I can get it used for a dollar, I spend thousands on gaming books...and so on.  It remains withing the realm of possibility that you might get the book.  But the general or that particular case are the clearest examples to discuss. 

Here's the problem with this - When someone asks "Should I buy Vampire" the correct answer is another question - what kind of game are you trying to buy?  If they want a Simulationist game about playing a goth vampire dripping with color and they could give a shit about mechanics, and they don't have the skill, time or inclination to modify a better system to work with vampires, then the answer is yes.

I really have to jump in here and disagree. And this could be just my opinion, but it helps me see Josh's posts a little clearer than others (I think).

When someone asks a question, it is generally because they want an answer. If I asked "Why is the sky blue?" I don't want you to tell me why the ocean has tides. I want you to answer that question. Get what I mean?

If someone asks "Should I buy Game X?" And, for whatever reason, Josh believes/thinks/knows Game X sucks compared to 20+ games, he should say "No." Which he does. And it makes sense, because the poster asked a general question.  It shouldn't be the job of the answerer to ask more questions.  Can it help the situation? Sure. But it shouldn't be (again, in my opinion) his/her job to do so. The question is a general one, so it deserves a general answer.

Now, on the other hand, if someone asked "I'm thinking of buying Game X, would it be good for my gaming group?" then that is a specific situation and deserves a specific answer. Josh responded to my thread in the Kitchen Sink with a question for specifics, since I posted a specific question. In that situation, if Josh just said no, without a background knowledge of my gaming group and/or a posted analysis of my group, then that would be an asshole move.

Specific answers should handle specific question and general answers should handle general questions. That's my take on it (and how it seems to me that Josh posts). It's really the job of the seeker of knowledge to properly frame the question if he/she wants a specific or general answer.

[Shoggoth]

Specific answers should handle specific question and general answers should handle general questions. That's my take on it (and how it seems to me that Josh posts). It's really the job of the seeker of knowledge to properly frame the question if he/she wants a specific or general answer.

I have to respectfully disagree with this.  Part of the difficulty of learning anything is reaching the point where you are knowledgeable enough about the subject to ask meaningful questions about it.  If someone is asking a general question without any kind of qualifications, it's likely that there are situational modifiers to that question which will color the answer in some direction.  Cryptic answers may serve Zen masters well, but they have no place in our hobby.

This is particularly true with something as subjective as role-playing games.  I'll be the first to agree that games can be judged on objective levels for quality, but like it or not taste is a major component of the industry.

For that reason, a question like "Why is the sky blue?" is a poor choice of comparison.  That question is a scientific question with many layers of detail and abstraction, but the questioner's perspective will have no bearing on it. 

In contrast, "Should I buy X" is the same thing as "Would I LIKE X", and that's a question that requires a little more information to answer meaningfully.  There is a very real danger with RPGs of mixing personal taste with discrimination for quality and a one word answer can mean either.

Just to belabor the point, I'll give an example, and maybe alienate a bunch of people at the same time. 

I have personally grown to hate almost all mass-produced fantasy fiction.  I hate Salvatore, I hate Lackey, I hate Jordan, I hate Goodkind.  I hate the derivative writing, I hate the recycled tropes, I hate the modern trend towards trilogies that turn into 12 book epics that drain any and all meaning from the story.  I consider the quality to be very low for these reasons, and the fact that most people who love them have to justify them with the statement "But it's just fantasy" just makes me hate it more.

HOWEVER.  If someone asks me "Should I buy The Eye of the World?" I have to consider why they're asking me.  If they can't get enough of 6 semi-distinct characters running around a fantasy world wringing their hands and brooding, then the answer is probably YES, and I'd be remiss to just say "No, it's crap, here's a book by Thomas Pynchon, read some real fiction."

[Dragon Snack]

(totally wanted to add a "hoss" to that)

I would have laughed...

[AfterCrescent]

Shoggoth:
Then we disagree on the core concept, which is fine. As I said, it is my opinion, and I just figured the concept might be useful to some.

When I hear "Should I buy X?" I believe it's more a "Is X good?" and not a "Would I like X?" If X is a book, and I ask, should I buy X, the question is closer to "Is X a good book?" Yes there are opinions, but there are also qualifications. Whether I'd like the story of X is irrelevant to the question. If X is a well written book, then should I buy X is answered with a yes, especially since I didn't ask "Would I like X?" or "Is X a well written FANTASY (or other genre) book?"  I didn't ask a specific question, so I shouldn't expect a specific answer.

Again, maybe that's just me, but if I want a specific answer to a question, I'll ask the question. I won't ask some broad, general, likely crappy question.

[Shoggoth]

Fair enough, AC.  The older I get, the more I'm saddened by what people think is "good", and I guess I'm just jaded.

Also, I'm genetically incapable of not giving too much information.