The Food For Thought Project

[Straw_Man]

  I am familiar with the cave, what I responded to was the the automatic assumption that your opinions put you on the surface. Perhaps we're both in the cave and we're seeing different shadows and you assume yours is more 'platonic' than mine. We can disagree, but don't expect me to endure them quietly.

  I doubt I'm whining, I'm addressing what I feel this thread suffers from. Certainty. Why invite debate if your attempting to create your own elegant theory in vacuum? Seriously, this isn't a scientific process, this feels like being shouted down by someone who's theory's bear poorly under scrutiny from my perspective.

  From your perspective it seems a public service perhaps, that is being scorned by ignoramus'. I can appreciate that, but unless you wish for feedback, perhaps a thread isn't the best medium. A finished paper that you post or link to may work better.

[Josh]

  I am familiar with the cave, what I responded to was the the automatic assumption that your opinions put you on the surface. Perhaps we're both in the cave and we're seeing different shadows and you assume yours is more 'platonic' than mine. We can disagree, but don't expect me to endure them quietly.

It is a metaphor of perspective.  The situation is that you have only seen a very small selection of games.  There is a world you have not seen.

[woodenbandman]

^Dude he knows what the cave is.

I think, Josh, that you're actually making the mistake of the cave. The whole point of the cave was to show that though we think we've seen everything, we are still blind. The man who came out of the cave in the anecdote was thought by the students to have 'become enlightened,' but Plato just came right back and said "um, no, he's even more confused."

You're basically saying "I've seen the light, everyone else couldn't be correct because I'm correct." The situation is that you have a concept of what a good game is and you won't allow anyone else to have their own definition of a good game. We can refine your definition all you want and you can give use your opinion of a good game, but at the end of the argument, nobody is convinced because the parties involved are arguing different points.

[Josh]

^Dude he knows what the cave is.

I think, Josh, that you're actually making the mistake of the cave. The whole point of the cave was to show that though we think we've seen everything, we are still blind. The man who came out of the cave in the anecdote was thought by the students to have 'become enlightened,' but Plato just came right back and said "um, no, he's even more confused."

You're basically saying "I've seen the light, everyone else couldn't be correct because I'm correct." The situation is that you have a concept of what a good game is and you won't allow anyone else to have their own definition of a good game. We can refine your definition all you want and you can give use your opinion of a good game, but at the end of the argument, nobody is convinced because the parties involved are arguing different points.

No.

The world is larger more complex and more interesting than you know.  And if you choose to see it you will.

I don't think I have seen everything.  I just have seen more than most.

[Straw_Man]

^Dude he knows what the cave is.

I think, Josh, that you're actually making the mistake of the cave. The whole point of the cave was to show that though we think we've seen everything, we are still blind. The man who came out of the cave in the anecdote was thought by the students to have 'become enlightened,' but Plato just came right back and said "um, no, he's even more confused."

You're basically saying "I've seen the light, everyone else couldn't be correct because I'm correct." The situation is that you have a concept of what a good game is and you won't allow anyone else to have their own definition of a good game. We can refine your definition all you want and you can give use your opinion of a good game, but at the end of the argument, nobody is convinced because the parties involved are arguing different points.

  Ding! What I was driving to but you got to it first. I want to see Josh's proofs for his definitions. He wants to give the definitions without having to go through the nitty gritty of proving them, since he's already done it in his head.

[Josh]

^Dude he knows what the cave is.

I think, Josh, that you're actually making the mistake of the cave. The whole point of the cave was to show that though we think we've seen everything, we are still blind. The man who came out of the cave in the anecdote was thought by the students to have 'become enlightened,' but Plato just came right back and said "um, no, he's even more confused."

You're basically saying "I've seen the light, everyone else couldn't be correct because I'm correct." The situation is that you have a concept of what a good game is and you won't allow anyone else to have their own definition of a good game. We can refine your definition all you want and you can give use your opinion of a good game, but at the end of the argument, nobody is convinced because the parties involved are arguing different points.

  Ding! What I was driving to but you got to it first. I want to see Josh's proofs for his definitions. He wants to give the definitions without having to go through the nitty gritty of proving them, since he's already done it in his head.

You never need proof for definitions.  You are defining things so everyone is clear what you mean. 

What you might mean are the fundamental arguments.  And that is what all the threads labeled "Food for Thought, Basic" are.  And that is nitty gritty, it does not get any more basic. 

[woodenbandman]

Well, E = MC² is a definition. You need to prove that.

[Josh]

Well, E = MC² is a definition. You need to prove that.

No, that formula is derived.

A defenition is
E = Energy, M=Mass, c=the speed of light

[woodenbandman]

Let me say this, then: With your definitions, you are "proving" things that are false. Example:

Looking at the situation from dispassionate neutrality.  the timid wallflower player (Timmy) can be just as disruptive to overall play as the aggressive jerk player (Aggie).   Every time it is Timmy's turn he takes forever to decide what to do and then always ends up doing something lame.

A quiet and timid player is not always the player that takes forever and decides to do something lame. That's a false dichotomy and it's bullshit. My group has one player who is quiet and timid, but he generally knew what to do (granted his character was a charger, so he charged a lot). We also had 2(down to 1 now) guys who were loud and obnoxious and were not only generally not interested in the game a lot of the time, but also took forever to decide what to do and then always ended up doing something lame.

You do this constantly. You start with saying something like "People who are disinterested in the game are disruptive," but then you move on to say that "all people who are shy are disinterested in the game and suck at it."

Also you often define things in an unfairly broad manner and then don't appreciate the fact that your definition isn't functional. For example: "It is never okay to kick someone for in-game reasons." You define In-Game reasons as things that occur In-Game. That does not address the situation, it doesn't help to clarify jack shit... it's a worthless definition. You also refuse to accept that In-Game stuff does not disappear the instant the DM says "see you next session." There is no In-Game and Out-of-Game, there are only problems.

[Josh]

the timid wallflower player (Timmy)can be just as disruptive to overall play as the aggressive jerk player (Aggie).

Can be as disruptive.  Note that I also point out that the aggressive player can be good.

[woodenbandman]

You then said that Timmy does XY and Z.

[Josh]

You have my permision to just pay attention to what the point is and ignore hyper nit picky phraseology issues when discussing the point.

You are conflating concept of improving clarity and arguing the point.

[Midnight_v]

I like the idea behind this alot Josh. Just sayin...