Gameology-Fu

[Omen of Peace]

You are right.  You didn't ask us to tell you "exactly what 4E was like in all ways".
When people responded by actually correcting erroneous points about 4E, you would make your judgement on the corrected point, but you continued to say 4E sucked by citing a different point based on 3rd edition rulings.

I was trying to indicate that you refused to put forth any effort to find any information on the points you were criticizing 4E for.
Each time a point was clarified, you demanded that we answer on another point.

You may not have explicitly asked us to give you all of the information about 4E, but had it continued, that would have been the end result.

My primary gripe with your behavior in that thread was your stubborn unwillingness to put forth any effort and your arrogance to presume that it is our responsibility to demonstrate that a fact is a fact, rather than simply telling you that your claims were unfounded.

I'm continuing this side point because it is a concrete example and because I was there. I fully agree with Dan2. When you attacked 4E, we could answer the first post constructively as if you were asking for information in strange ways. When you kept doing so after we told you that 4E was different and you should check it out, it came across as 1) intellectual dishonesty (criticizing something you don't know at all) 2) disrespect for us since you were putting an unreasonable burden on us. We even discussed our perception of your posts in that thread IIRC, to try and show you that you were approaching it the wrong way.

If many people are telling you you're not doing it right, maybe you're not doing it right. It doesn't mean you're wrong either, but to be part of the community you need to speak the same basic language.

[Straw_Man]

However, the author has the right for the reader to attempt to understand "what the hell is this person trying to say" before the reader begins attacking them.

Emphasis mine.

Where on earth do you get that idea? No offense, but I don't read every book because the author has any rights whatsoever: I read because I was enticed to.

If everyone person that though they deserved my time were to make it a law, I'd have no time at all. Stand by what you write, and how you write it. If your message is not understood well and you come off as stupid, asinine, rude, or worse, question first your own self rather that those who did not take the time to understand you.

[Elennsar]

The author has the right for the reader to attempt to understand. The author does not have any right to insist that you read his work to begin with, but he has the right to have his work be read with an open mind and eye.

Omen: If I was mistaken on any/most/all of the points, then you had the opportunity to say so and point out that 4e worked like Y instead, or to point to a convenient and reasonably priced method of finding out. And as stated, buying the books fails at least the second part of that.

Were you obligated to basically quote the entire core? No.

[Talen Lee]

he has the right to have his work be read with an open mind and eye.

Actually, I think you'll find that is the right that the author very much does not have. And you're not an author, you're a cranky man bickering on an internet forum.

[Elennsar]

Yes, he does. Is it a right that's always respected? No. Is it a right that any author is entitled to? Yes.

If you don't want to read something by someone, then don't. If you do, you owe it to the author to read it fairly.

As for the cranky man comment: So, are we interested in "let's mock", or "let's talk"?

[Omen of Peace]

Omen: If I was mistaken on any/most/all of the points, then you had the opportunity to say so and point out that 4e worked like Y instead, or to point to a convenient and reasonably priced method of finding out. And as stated, buying the books fails at least the second part of that.

I still don't understand how you can expect us to your basic homework for you.

Look to the CharOp posting guidelines for another way to consider this : help us help you (or its harsher version: we do not live to serve you). Come with basic knowledge, ask your questions nicely and you shall be rewarded. The onus is on you (and now we're joining the "communication 101" topic).

edit: and as for 4E you can check out all the Design & Development articles on the WotC website. You'll only get some pieces of the puzzle but it's better than nothing.

[Dan2]

Yes, he does. Is it a right that's always respected? No. Is it a right that any author is entitled to? Yes.

If you don't want to read something by someone, then don't. If you do, you owe it to the author to read it fairly.

An author is not entitled to that right, nor is it a right at all.

Where did you come across the notion where a fair reading is a right?

There is nothing that says a person has the right to be treated with respect, anywhere.  And a fair reading is simply a matter of respect.

[Elennsar]

I expect you to state "This is incorrect, it works like this." I do not expect you to fill me in on everything on 4e, but I do expect you to if you're going to mark something as wrong to indicate what is the case or suggest a convenient and affordable method of finding out.

Not simply "You haven't played 4e so you can't comment. Nevermind if your comments are valid suspicions (or true anywhere)! You haven't actually played, so you don't get to say anything!"

Which made up a great deal more of the thread than it should have.

Dan: Where did you come across the notion that you get a right to be as mean spirited and hostile as you like?

Bold=edit.

[Dan2]

Dan: Where did you come across the notion that you get to be as mean spirited and hostile as you like?

Because nothing says otherwise.  There are rules made to restrict, and rules made to allow.

Rights set a baseline for treatment of other people.  There is no natural or legal right that requires or dictates that I not be mean-spirited or hostile to another person.

Now, can you actually answer the question?

With the edit:

Dan: Where did you come across the notion that you get a right to be as mean spirited and hostile as you like?
Bold=edit.

I get that right from the 1st amendment granting me freedom of speech and expression.

[Talen Lee]

And the rejoinder right is that other people can call you out for it. Under their freedom of speech and expression.

[Dan2]

And the rejoinder right is that other people can call you out for it. Under their freedom of speech and expression.

Exactly!

But there's no right requiring a person to be treated with respect.

[Elennsar]

There is a natural right that all human beings treat each other with decency.

The right to freedom of speech and expression does not grant you the right to be mean spirited or hostile.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Bold and bold italics are mine.

Me going around screaming that "whites are evil!" may be something that Congress cannot prohibit me from doing, but that does not mean that I cannot be forbidden to do so by any other body.


More to the point: Gameology fu is meant to reflect gameology, not popularity. So why is it used as a "we respect/like" rating?

[Talen Lee]

And the rejoinder right is that other people can call you out for it. Under their freedom of speech and expression.

Exactly!

But there's no right requiring a person to be treated with respect.

Now, personally, I feel people should treat other people with a certain basic level of respect, until proven otherwise. This is why you shouldn't be an asshole to the girl behind the counter until she's proven she's incompetent, and why I read people's posts on forums.

But the idea that somehow, because I said it means that other people have to listen and work at understanding me, when the onus for basic communication lies on myself. Elennsar's stance is that he's so important, and so special that he merits special rights and special attention despite him not playing the same game as the rest of us. That stance, that selfish, mewling, petty behaviour, is something I do not respect, nor do I feel any need to respect it.

[Ubernoob]

Internet is international.  Bill of Rights doesn't apply here.

[Dan2]

Decency is notably different from respect.
You can treat someone with decency and still be a complete and total ass toward them.

Also, that is exactly what the freedom of speech and expression grants me the right to do.

Uber: good point

[Elennsar]

Talen: No, my stance is nothing of the sort. I insist that what I actually write be read, not what someone else might have implied or what you think I implied or anything other than what was actually written.

I expect to have to ask for clarification of what other people write at times and I expect that other people will have to ask that of me at times and the world will survive someone saying "Hey, I don't get this. Could you clarify?", instead of shuddering to a stop because someone admitedly their understanding might be wrong.

Dan: Not really, no. And no, it isn't. The freedom of speech and expression is the right to speak and express yourself without interference by Congress, not "without interference of any other form", up to and including  me challenging you to a duel for being insulting.

The fact duels were illegal being a seperate issue, of course.

[Talen Lee]

Talen: No, my stance is nothing of the sort. I insist that what I actually write be read, not what someone else might have implied or what you think I implied or anything other than what was actually written.

Except we have. What you've said is such things as:

What's the difference between giving someone negative fu and being a loser who has to compensate for being unable to make a persausive point by blaming the other person?

There is one? That's new.

Which says anyone who gives out -fu is a loser. You say as much. This brands everyone who uses a functional tool with your own prejudices. It's exactly what you say. And it makes you look peevish and whiny. So I call you as such - and you're pissy about that for some reason.

[Dan2]

Clearly, we have a divergence of worldview.

[Darius Stronghand]

RE: Asking for information, and being dissatisfied with the response.

I'd like to enter in the form of an anecdote.  I've been playing D&D for 3-4 years now.  I picked it up as a side hobby in high school, and convinced some folks to play with me.  I even wound up DMing after a year of watching on of my seniors work the screen.  When he graduated, it sorta fell to me.  Even DMing for 3ish years, I've made plenty of bonehead mistakes.  I thought the best way to make challenging encounters was to just pick a single higher-CR monster.  I allowed a PC to be a minotaur, Forgoing the 7 racial hit dice, and thinking that compensated for letting him start as that race at such a low level.  I had no problem with PC's murdering each other.  I figured a were-bear cleric PC would somehow work itself out, and prove to be fruitful.  I thought Magic Item costs just went up 1,000 GP per magic item level.  I thought blaster wizards were the greatest thing since the Playstation 2.  And with each of those screwups, something has visibly gone wrong.  The level 3 minotaur stomped over everything.  The were-bear spent most of the campaign trying not to shift to bear form.  The party super-sized their equipment and turned every encounter into a trifle.  The single, big huge monster either fell with little more than a thought, or annihilated the party.

I'd watched someone DM for a year, but when the job fell to me, I was still clueless.  Worse still, I didn't know I was screwing up the things I did.  The only way I did so, and the only way I've gotten better as a DM is to do it.  My mistakes either showed me the correct solution, or prompted me to research, and find out what was wrong. 

...And that's what this rambling story is about.  You and I both surely have a fair bit we still don't know about Gameology.  However, there comes a point where it's not feasible to look off the other kids in class, and instead to go try stuff on your own.  By far, the most effective form of learning is by screwing up.  In the immortal words of a Magic School Bus driver, "Take chances, make mistakes, get messy."  We'll get more out of gaming if we don't focus on arguing points or belaboring others for information, and focus on trying things for ourselves.

I hope this story was insightful, or at least entertaining.  I'll head back to lurking, now.

[Elennsar]

Talen: I'm "pissy" about you insisting on your interpetation of a sarcastic and cynical comment being True regardless of what I say I meant by it.

Darius: Entertaining, yes, useful, who knows. Worth reading, but I'm not sure what to take away from it.

Then again, that's life. We get information and sometime after the fact the brain says "OH! DUH! That's what it meant!"

Stupid human brain. Work FASTER!, damnit.