Fuck E-Prime

[Josh]

[Robert Bohl]

I don't advocate E-Prime for other people, really. I have decided to use it myself when talking about issues of taste. I would prefer it if others did as well, and I'll tell them why, but I don't see it as "restricting others."

[EjoThims]

What, exactly, is E-Prime?

It sounds as if it's an effort to phrase writing in such a way as to eliminate the basic assumptions we are usually taught to make while writing, speaking, and even thinking.

Sometimes eliminating such assumptions can widen one's perspective and help tackle issues.

Usually though, it's an exercise in futility, as at the basic level, everything is based on one assumption or another, made without proof and taken on faith.

Such as the assumption that what I see (or otherwise perceive) around me is what is actually around me, or the assumption that even if what I see (or otherwise perceive) is actually there, it's also actually as I perceive it.

[Omen of Peace]

I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
I just skimmed through it and it's much narrower than what you guessed, EjoTjims. It does seem stupid if used dogmatically (like in Josh's "fire is hot" example).

But I'd agree with Robert Brohl that it can be valuable for issues of taste (like Josh's "Serenity sucks" opinion).

[EjoThims]

I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
I just skimmed through it and it's much narrower than what you guessed, EjoTjims. It does seem stupid if used dogmatically (like in Josh's "fire is hot" example).

Ah, seems I got the goal mostly right (the end goal is a removal of the need to rely on assumptions of the reader's intelligence in determining the origin of statements), but the execution is bland and, to my mind, pointless. We already have all the tools in place to phrase things in the desired ways without removing such convenient and flexible tools as 'to be' and the passive voice.

Philosophically, it's important to think about things in a way that places their origin in the proper hands, it's true (such as in self analysis removing the habit to think in terms of "he/she made me mad" and instead learning to think in terms of "I became angered when he/she X because of Y"). But linguistically, I don't believe that eliminating the need to learn the difference between opinion and fact (including how to identify that difference) is a valuable move, much less actually accomplished by this silly system.

Plus, it removes the potential for so many vivid and creative forms in the language, destroying imagery that rests on common assumptions more basic than other assumptions it leaves intact.

I won't go so far as to say that blanket, unsupported statements on material to which the reader may not already be aware is all that is ever needed, but I will agree that E-Prime, as I am now demonstrating, is a waste of time and effort. It is also, at best, a self masturbatory passive attempt to hold the writer above the reader, and at worst a direct insult to the reader's intelligence.

[Josh]

I will also point out that people are over obsessed with this concept of fact/opinion.

Note that the primary reason people want the distinction is to avoid "hurting feelings" and to self validate things that others find inferior.

Looking beyond the concept of dismissing the opinions of others is much more useful in the long run.  The moment you ask people to pay money for your intellectual property is the moment that you have to set aside your feelings.  As a reviewer my loyalty is to the hobbyist.  And if they will be disappointed, I have to let them know.  That's the way it is.  Don't like it?  Don't sell your product.

The other thing is people don't like to hear that something they like is of low quality.  Again, get over it.  Lack of quality and wide satisfying appeal does not mean you might  not like it (I like the tv show cleopatra 2525).  Understanding the truth is more important and better in the long run than self deception.  For example, I love the Destroyer Novels.  Do I think they are literature, no.  Does that make them less fun, no. 

Also, you can have fun playing a game, even if the game is not itself fun.  Roleplaying is fun.  Your friends are fun.  The event might be fun.  A good game will be more fun (generally) but a crappy game can still be fun, in spite of the system.


 

[Shoggoth]

I'd never heard of E-Prime before now, but from reading the Wiki page on it I like it.  Certainly not in everyday conversation, but as an additional tool in the interpersonal relations toolbox (along with such things as active listening) I can see it being really useful.  It (would seem to) encourage the speaker to at least give some cursory examination to what is knowledge and what is fact, and I like that.

[Robert Bohl]

It seems to me like Josh has a belief in objective truth. Either that or, based on experience with him, he may not have this belief, but speaks as though he does.

[Josh]

Objectivism, as I understand it, belives that it is posible to say that one bit of music is better than another. 

I don't think that. 
What I think is that there are qualites by which things can be measured. In music a direct measure is tempo.  An indirect measure is 'what emotion do you feel'.

In other words math and science.

I reject the concept of personal reality (not to be confused with subjective reality) which thanks to WW lots of gamers belive. 

Personal reality is the idea that nothing can be true except what each individual thinks is true. (subjective means you acknowledge that there is a reality you just can't know it)

Clearly oxygen exists and always existed.

I don't think there is a best game. But I think games can be accurately described. That is why we talk about payouts.

If anyone thinks they cannot I would be interested in hearing why.

[Shoggoth]

Objectivism, as I understand it, belives that it is posible to say that one bit of music is better than another. 

I don't think that. 

I find this statement really interesting, and I'd like to explore it for a bit.  I would prefer to not start another "bash on Josh" thread, but it opens up a question for me.

You say that you don't think it's possible to say one bit of music is better than another, but you DO frequently say that one GAME is better than another.  There are arguments on both sides of those statements.

For music, many people (including me) say that you CAN grade music, CAN claim that one piece of music is better than another.  Miles Davis is clearly a more skilled instrumentalist and composer than the guy who teaches band at my local high school, and I'm willing to bet that if we put Sketches of Spain side by side with that guy's recordings I can make a case that yes, in fact, the Davis's music is flat out BETTER.  The important thing here is that I have to lay out my criteria and stick by them - if I grade on musicianship, composition, and performance I can rank Sketches of Spain higher, and call it better.  If my only criteria is "which do I like better", and I can't stand Sketches of Spain, then perhaps Miles might lose out, but you can make those judgements (and they ARE judgements) from a solid foundation as long as you have well established criteria.  The evaluation can be scientific, but the weight of the criteria and the final account is a judgement, and needs to be treated as such.  The fact that 99% of people would rate Miles Davis as better than the high school band teacher doesn't even make it fact - it just makes it common knowledge, which is different.

I see rating games the same way.  You can judge any number of metrics of a game, and you should - how clean is the system?  Does it support the kind of play that the game is purporting to provide?  Is the color well written?  How long do the mechanics take to resolve?  Those are facts.  But when it comes time to say "Is game A better than game B" (as you often do Josh), it has to be supported with the criteria used to make the judgement.  If someone else considers the game world to account for 90% of the value of the game, and that color is fantastic, then the terrible system that you used as 90% of the judgement really doesn't enter into it much and the game is fantastic.  You know the game is crap, they know the game is great, both of you have facts on your side to prove it.  Is Game A better than Game B?  I think we can know that.  We just have to make our criteria known.

Knowledge and fact.  Subtly different.

[EjoThims]

it is posible to say that one bit of music is better than another. 

I don't think that. 

I, however, very much do.

Or are my second grade failures on the recorder able to be compared to Mozart?

Now, if you mean genres or styles of music, it becomes much harder to claim that one is any better overall than another.

But there is very obviously crap music, just like there are very obviously crap movies.

I don't even think it's a problem of criteria.

The problem is that too many people confuse personal taste and actual quality.

"Which I like better" is a way of expressing taste, but it has no bearing on the actual thing being evaluated.

[Omen of Peace]

You can judge any number of metrics of a game, and you should - how clean is the system?  Does it support the kind of play that the game is purporting to provide?

I agree with some of your points, but even the latter is not easily answered. It can be easy to show that a specific mechanic doesn't work (fixed DC checks in D&D 3.5E like Diplomacy for instance), but complexity muddles things up. "Supporting a kind of play" is eminently subjective.

As for music comparisons: as EjoThims pointed out, when the gap is not huge it seems preposterous to "rank" composers. Beatles or Rolling Stones ? Liszt or Chopin ?

[awaken DM golem]

I took a few Linguistic courses, but not enough to get a Minor in it.
There's a basic non -argument in Linguistics, about Prescriptive Grammar vs. Descriptive Grammar.
Pre- vs. De-
So English Teachers use Pre-
Linguists use De-

ESL - english or any other language learned after the prime learning years of 3 - 8, sticks in the brain in all sorts of weird locations.
ESL speakers understand each others' B-minus graded "perfect" english quite well.
This even if persnickity English teachers turn up their (collective) noses.
I personally have no trouble at all understanding deeply accented english, no matter the far off back ground.
Greek, French, Spanish, Chinese, Zambia versions of shorty english ... no problem.
I carted around a bunch of South Korea security guys, just after 9/11. They didn't all get good grades in their translation classes.

Tying in the tangent ... this E-prime looks to me like someones "nifty" attempt at a slightly simplified english.
Good luck, he'll need it.

Y'know those trade betting sites, where yes/no penny bets are placed on various ideas.
I'd bet my personal fortune (not that it amounts to anything at all), on ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. ZIPPO. NOTHING. period

(but that's just me)
 

{ ... the very minor dialect of english, I speak, drops the "to be" in some sentence structures, and I can't remember any examples right now ... }
 

[Shoggoth]

You can judge any number of metrics of a game, and you should - how clean is the system?  Does it support the kind of play that the game is purporting to provide?

I agree with some of your points, but even the latter is not easily answered. It can be easy to show that a specific mechanic doesn't work (fixed DC checks in D&D 3.5E like Diplomacy for instance), but complexity muddles things up. "Supporting a kind of play" is eminently subjective.

I agree that it can get pretty muddy, but I think we can make some fairly objective judgements, even about something like "supporting a kind of play".  If you are playing a game where the focus is court intrigue, I would say categorically that D20 does NOT support that kind of play, just as we can look at BW and say that it DOES support that kind of play.  If no mechanic exists to resolve a conflict that you want to deal with in play, then it doesn't support it, and vice versa.

As for music comparisons: as EjoThims pointed out, when the gap is not huge it seems preposterous to "rank" composers. Beatles or Rolling Stones ? Liszt or Chopin ?

Certainly trickier, I agree.  But again, it all comes down to the criteria that you choose to go with.  If we're talking about whether something is just plain "good" or not, well then, we're living purely in opinion land.  But if you are actually grading criteria - complexity of composition, emotionality, musicianship, etc, then you can definitely say one band is "better" than another, as long as you state your criteria and justify your grading.  I for one couldn't tell you who is "better" between Liszt or Chopin, but I get if we got a PhD in music theory in here they could tell us which writes more complex music, which is harder to play, which is more consistent in tone from piece to piece, etc.  Given that, with criteria stated clearly, I'd say it's fair game.