The Gaming Den

@ TarvishArtair:

Yeah, I get the whole refutation of an argument by math route. But it's like I was trying to explain to Roy. You say to someone: "I have calculated the precise surface area of this apple by means of tried and tested mathematical theorems" and they say to you "I like the taste of oranges. Orange juice is better without the pulp LOL."

The argument just doesn't work if the person you are engaging is using a different yardstick. They don't care about hypothetical situations which indicate class balance problems, because that has never been an issue in their games. They play games, they don't create situations to break-test the game rules. You are beating your head against a wall, and it just ends up with the both of you frustrated and confused.

I wasn't going to call it, being polite and all. But I say Sock Puppet is a Sock Puppet. With PR up his ass.

Caedrus wrote:Look, if you're referring to three freakin' people, it's not okay to refer to them as "the den" any more than it is fair to refer to them as "the BG" or "the WotC" or "the paizo" (since these people have posted on these sites as well).

Yes, you are correct, it was sloppy to refer to all of the Den in an inclusive way, which was why I made that very point and attached an apology to it in the last paragraph of my post. I have been a bad Sock Puppet. I'm probably going to get punished by my Owner later, and get locked in the sock drawer again. Of course, it could be worse, as far as punishments go. Once, I got left out on the table in the living room, with the TV on, tuned to Fox News, with the remote control just barely tantalizingly out of my reach, while my Owner went out with his friends for a marathon session of Call of Cthulhu. It is arguable which of us achieved a greater understanding of mindbending horror that evening.

Caedrus wrote:I'm not sure you actually understand what the word apologist means.

It has not a goddamn thing to do with saying you're sorry. It is in fact the accurate term for someone defending something. Before you whine about choice of words, maybe you should learn what they actually mean.

I'm completely aware of what the definition of the word is. However, the use of the word "apologist", in this case, can be considered to be leading, or an argument in semantics at best. Let's say we've got someone who digs on 4E; they could be fairly referred to as a 4E "supporter"; calling them a 4E "defender" implies that they have something that needs to be defended; calling them a 4E "apologist" implies they have something they need to apologize for. There are so many synonyms in the glorious English Language, that the precise words that you use can be used to convey their own individual connotations.

@ Starmaker:

A big heaping helping of "I concur" to just about everything that you wrote, with just one important clarification. I do not have a problem with Frank's writing style. I came here because I read and enjoyed the Tomes; I was expecting it. Besides, who am I to say just how he conducts himself in his own space? Every being on Earth has a God-given right to sit around your own living room in your underwear, scratching yourself and drinking cheap beer while you yell at the TV, if that is how you choose to spend your time. So if Frank wants to be overbearing and dismissmive in this, his own living room, it's none of my concern. (It's a different story if he chooses to take that overbearing and dismissive behavior into someone else's living room, as any reasonable person should know. I don't know - maybe Frank likes getting banned from other forums so it can increase his "martyr cred" - I certainly don't know him well enough to psychoanalyze the dude.) It's the overall negativity as it applies to selection of focus that chaffs my hide.

sigma999 wrote:Socky has a few good points but it must be sorted from the emotional context.

Thanks for understanding - I was abused as a young Sock Puppet. This is my third felt nose, and my googly eyes don't match each other anymore.

PhoneLobster wrote:...being polite and all.

I like you. You're funny.

Whoo... this was a blast. But since I don't want my raison d'etre to be bitching at people about people bitching at people, I'll stop bitching about people bitching about me bitching about people bitching about people... (Yeah, that sentence actually does parse correctly, I think) I'm calling it quits with this stuff. I'll spend any more time here lurking trying to sift through the gaming material to look for something good, and just ignore the BS threads.

Since all this was only directed at three people (really, Caedrus? only three people?) I'll just say to the Troll-Man, the Ogre-Man, and the Bugbear-Man: shame on you.

To anyone else who got upset or offended, relax. I am a Sock Puppet. I'm not meant to be taken seriously. I'm made out of terrycloth, for Christssakes. I can't talk unless someone sticks a hand up my ass! poop-chute! (sorry, kids. don't use that kind of language in front of your mom)

Eh, I'm out of steam. My babies (they're athletic socks) need feeding, and my dog (Desticatus Crepundium) needs to get walked. I have important things to do, so TTFN!

It might be fair to assume that on this forum, someone arguing for 4e is an apologist de facto since as many have noted, 4e supporters are immediately put on the defensive by our pre-existing content. The list of complaints for that edition loom large on these forums.

Most of even the rabid 4e haters have acknowledged that it isn't the devil, just that it has plenty of flaws. It is routinely described as a game that can easily be played by a bunch of people short on the learning curve who just wanna relax and kill some mobs over a few beers. It does that alright. I suspect most don't begrudge people for playing it or even liking it, hell, tons of people play far more flawed systems.

But when the system is discussed on its objective merits, it's impossible to avoid pouring out the hate. It has plenty of problems and to turn a blind eye to them isn't what we're all about.

As for PR... well, this whole thread is something of a joke since he was one of the worst offenders at what he called out the rest of the board for. I think other than the paizo invasion, the flaming has gone done noticably with his departure.

Personally, I think the lowdown of this forum was the time when the "Threads that make us cry" thread had to be shut down. It was really a time when I couldn't read anything smart here.

I don't know whether to laugh or laugh at this.

... And I meant the events that led to closing of those threads. I am definately not a morning person.

Lame thread is lame. I'm gonna go and see if the 4uccess races idea is tractionable or not.

Socky, apologist has always had a specific meaning. Someone defending an argument.

If people don't know what it means, then I can't do anything about that, now can I?

It's like people who think that Draconian means some dragon dude that fights from some bullshit diety. It means extremely harsh, usually in terms of laws and rules and punishments. Not "dragon dude".

We can't be at fault if someone doesn't actually know what a word means. Can we? I mean, it's not like dictionary.com has a password on accessing it. Nor is google.com difficult for most people to access.

Also, can it with the personal attacks on people's names, it's only going to make people think you're racist. Frank uses his real name, he always has. Something you're obviously too scared to do. Me? I just keep this nick b/c it's how I now name most of my accounts on the interweebs. It's now out of date, but w/e, that's inertia.

The ogre-man and bugbear-man things are weird. Mostly b/c I keep thinking of Otto the Bugbear when you mention them, but he's hardly a regular here, although he does like to use stuff from here, and claim that it's his own invention.

virgileso wrote:I think most of the rumours of the Den's infamy is from the Paizo boards. That seems to be where the majority of our new people hear about us.

I've noticed at least three or four people within the last week who specifically joined to defend Pathfinder. Psychic Robot and Roy, two of the more infamous posters here, are both people who migrated from Paizo.

Lol. I laughed for a good 15 seconds there. I did not 'migrate from Paizo'. I came here because WotC was Failing hard and someone referenced me here because they had seen my work (note: this is before the constant bullshit instilled in me a deep rooted hatred for humanity, so much less bitter then and much less use of the word Fail, among other things). I did not even know about the existence of Paizo until someone started talking about Pathfinder somewhere. So I looked into it and thought it had promise at first, but was quickly and repeatedly disappointed by all aspects of it.

I am also fairly certain PR came here from WotC, and started up on Paizo after.

It is worth mentioning though that I was not nearly this harsh on idiots until I spent some time on the Den.

Roy, do you have eyes, or spear cannons, in your face?

I can't tell, because you're a human, and there's no table that tells me what a human is in 4e. D:

Yeah, Roy and PR came from WotC boards.

Still, they did harp on the paizo problems fairly at length and without detail.

-Crissa

Judging__Eagle wrote: I'm gonna go and see if the 4uccess races idea is tractionable or not.

It is, but you need to take out the animal head people.

Like... fast.

Sock Puppet wrote:Since all this was only directed at three people (really, Caedrus? only three people?) I'll just say to the Troll-Man, the Ogre-Man, and the Bugbear-Man: shame on you.

While I'm not going to put down an actual number, I do in fact think that the number is smaller than some would make it out to be, because I find that usually, the people doing all the complaining about people being rude are making those accusations for all the wrong reasons.

Really, in my experience, by far the rudest people are the ones who complain most vehemently about rudeness (usually as a way to deflect arguments to ad hominem and personal discussions rather than actually addressing points). And said people tend to target the more intellectually capable people, because their twisted, backwards mindset tells them that...

-Argument is a negative and uncivil thing. It represents anger or whatever and is some sort of social flaw.
-People who disagree with you, regardless of stated reason, are closed-minded and will never change their views, and you should tell them so instead of addressing their reasons for disagreeing with you.
-Long, detailed posts are "angry rants" or are "on the defensive cuz I'm winning."
-The way an argument is presented matters, not what the content of the argument actually is, and you should totally let people know they're being rude if you emotionally don't like what someone has to say (which is of course flaming, personal attacks, baiting, and of course rude. But these people don't see hypocrisy).
-Hypocrisy? What's that?
-Logical fallacies? Who cares? And it's rude to point problems with people's reasoning out to people!
-You shouldn't prove people wrong, because being proven wrong is demeaning.

And the list goes on. And the thing with all these statements is... pretty much the opposite is true. It is not flaming to tell someone they're wrong and that their logic is crap for x and y and z reasons. It IS flaming, baiting, and personal attacking to say that a person is rude, not to mention a fallacious argument if it is used to deflect or reject a person's points.

I'll take someone telling me to eat a bag of cocks ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over that intellectually bankrupt garbage.

Edit: Regarding the "closed-minded" bit, a bit of an illustration. To anyone outside of the accuser's personal bubble of delusion, the conversation looks something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0

The thing is, everyone rejects countless ideas. Rejecting ideas doesn't make you closed-minded. Rejecting new ideas (or opposition to your held beliefs) out of hand, regardless of evidence, without any reason makes you closed-minded. The idea that you should "just respect people's beliefs" for example can be said to be closed-minded, because you are not allowing new ideas to challenge those that are held.

calling them a 4E "apologist" implies they have something they need to apologize for.

No it doesn't. The term "apologist" has absolutely nothing to do with saying you're sorry for anything.

Sock Puppet wrote:The argument just doesn't work if the person you are engaging is using a different yardstick. They don't care about hypothetical situations which indicate class balance problems, because that has never been an issue in their games. They play games, they don't create situations to break-test the game rules. You are beating your head against a wall, and it just ends up with the both of you frustrated and confused.

At the risk of feeding sock puppets with more troll's blood and turning them into abominations... or at least Aberration-type monsters...

That's true, but that is why it is all the more important that when someone who is ACTUALLY using the yardstick of "It's fun for me" goes and defends the math of how it works in front of a bunch of other people who were complaining about how the math works... and believe me, the Den is by no means the only group which grouses about terrible math... they should be punched in the metaphorical balls until they cry uncle and shut up. While I do not condone personal attacks, I see no reason to not tear them apart and hang them by their own argument.

Because they are conflating their personal enjoyment with basic math. This is not acceptable, because you cannot have a further discussion with them. You can either ignore them, in which case they continue to rant on and probably derail the argument by getting other people who aren't ignoring them to argue with them, or you can tell them to piss off, which generally starts brusquely ("No, your proofs are wrong") and can get just plain out rude if they persist.

But the opposite is true if you have people who attempt to argue math in a discussion about the fun of the game. Now, there is certainly some cross-pollenation ("It isn't fun to do crazy mathematical backflips" and "It'd probably be more fun if we rigged the probability to succeed at certain things more often"), but ultimately if someone comes in to an argument about the entertainment and spirit of the game and brings up a bunch of mathematical drivel they too should be driven off with torches and pitchforks.

There are of course arguments about neither by itself... many arguments are directed at portions of the game entirely, and both their fun and mathematical feasibility are in question. But then there are arguments that fall clearly on the side of one or the other. And people who aren't prepared to participate and add to those specific discussions must be told to get lost, because they are ruining it for everyone else, like that one heterosexual guy at the lesbian orgy. Even the bisexual girls will be pissed off because you're irritating their lesbian partners.

If you're totally butch for numbers or you're totally gay for group thespianism, don't go harassing the people in the other group. It's rude. And while not all of the people who show up at the Gaming Den and start arguing things are making this particular offense, a number of them are.

Okay, Caedrus, let me put it in this specific way: Use of the term apologist seems TO ME to imply something that needs apologizing for, and use of the term defender seems TO ME to imply something that you need to get defensive about. I’ll admit that I’m just arguing semantics, and in this battle I seem to be an army of one. So I’ll take my college credits, my legal cigarettes, and my don’t ask/tell policy and leave it right there. You win.

”Judging_Eagle” wrote:Lame thread is lame.

Uh, obvious statement is obvious?
This is one of the current internet memes that I understand the least. Stating that something is indeed exactly what it actually is seems, well, redundant. Maybe I just don’t get the joke. Maybe you had to be there. Maybe it helps if you’ve had a couple of drinks first.

”Judging_Eagle” wrote: Also, can it with the personal attacks on people's names, it's only going to make people think you're racist. Frank uses his real name, he always has. Something you're obviously too scared to do.

Terribly sorry. I didn’t mean it to come off as a personal attack, and I certainly don’t think of myself as racist. Spineless? Sure. But racist? I didn’t think that you vertebrates were even considered to be a race against which I could be –ist. You could call me a coward, and you wouldn’t be the first. You could say that I don’t smell pleasant, and I’d agree that I do indeed need to get washed. But I’ve never been called racist, classist, or sexist. Hell, since I’m not even anatomically correct, I don’t even know which sex I would be against, were I so inclined.

Frank’s got a name which is easy to poke fun at, so I made a cheap shot. Granted. It won’t happen again, Mr. Eagle. And you’re right, it’s not fair of me to not use my real name. So, once and only once, I’ll reveal that I am actually Mark Knopfler. Please don’t give away my secret identity.

So, Mr. Eagle – can I call you Judging? – I feel as if I’ve gotten to know you so well in the short space of time that we’ve had together. What is “Judging” short for, anyway? Judgemental?
SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING KIDDING. Sorry, I couldn’t help it even though I should have. Please don’t shoot me, officer, I have a family and I pay my taxes on time. Really.

Everybody seems to be getting hung up on certain particulars that I said, which is admittedly my fault. I only wanted to spew a little bit, but once the ball gets rolling its hard to stop (I was a ball of string in a past life). All of the felgercarb I’ve been putting out there has obscured what I wanted to say, so I’ll reiterate my thesis statement one last time, short and sweet:

There are so many brilliant minds here at the Den, I just wish they would use their powers for good instead of evil. It’s obvious to everyone that you have a bone to pick with 4E and Pathfinder, it has been done to death already. Any more of that will just make y’all seem petty and exclusionary. It’s time to move on, and be creative instead of destructive.

And just to show that I am as good as my word, I have been looking through IMOI, and I like a lot more than I even expected I would. Koumei, I love your stuff. Thanks!

sigma999 wrote:

Judging__Eagle wrote: I'm gonna go and see if the 4uccess races idea is tractionable or not.

It is, but you need to take out the animal head people.

Like... fast.

Why?

They're better than the other option, which was Polar Bears.

And... it's not really animal-headed people; it's more like human-torsoed animals. Specifically, and only critters with hooves.

Ibixian

Yakfolk

Goatboy

Equiceph

And of course, the archetype:

Socky; If there's a volcano about to blow up and consume a city; would the people who point out that people will have to move in order to be safe be called "shit distrubers" or "doing good"?

That's pretty much what TGD is. The people that see where whatever is going to head. The thing is human beings for a good part don't like having to think critically. It's a lot of work, and tiring. So they call the people that point out problems "shit disturbers", or they handwave them away with things like "well... it hasn't affected ME yet. So, whatever, I'm not listening."

Also, yeah, racist. Any time you attack a person's name because you don't like the way that it sounds, you're making a statement about their descent. That's racism.

Just call me JE, or Eagle. I'm not "mr" anything. The name is based on an image that applied to me a long time ago. An eagle holding a set of scales, and trying to get both sides to be even. Judgemental is hardly a part of that.

Look, without animal headed people, you might as well be recolored humans. I don't get people who show hate for animal-people and yet make games with five or ten 'races' which are just humans with different colors or foreheads. And yet they complain about animal headed races!

I know people who prefer human faces on their characters, 'cause they can't empathize or don't want to be attracted to animal faces. That's honest. But this sheer hate for animal-people is just lame.

Anyhow, when you mix in judgmental words like 'fatty' or 'gay' you're screwing with your message. Keep the insults personal, not to groups.

-Crissa

JE: Repost that last post as a new post in your thread. We'll continue from there.

I'd been hesitant to post in it yet since it appeared incomplete so far.
You should reserve another space or few before we begin...

Caedrus wrote:

Sock Puppet wrote:calling them a 4E "apologist" implies they have something they need to apologize for.

No it doesn't. The term "apologist" has absolutely nothing to do with saying you're sorry for anything.

Well, as much as I hate to apologize for Mr. Puppet, he never actually used the word "sorry" as you quoted him. And if an apologist isn't apologizing for something... then we need new dictionaries. This time it was youuuuuu assuming that apologist/apology implies contrition and being sorry- Oh snapple!

I think he is objecting to the notion that someone who supports 4e must be required to defend 4e here; however, I think it is still a reasonable assumption to make since the weight of the posts around here pretty-much demand that it someone is going to be actively supporting 4e then there are questions to address upon those merits.

Now if a 4e supporter comes here and sez "I like this game because X, Y, Z and I want help doing W," then there is no need to grill them over A, B, C. If X, Y, and Z are notions imported from crazy town though, then they may have come to the wrong place as I suspect many of us will get hung up on that.

Caedrus wrote: I'll take someone telling me to eat a bag of cocks ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over that intellectually bankrupt garbage.

Crissa wrote:Look, without animal headed people, you might as well be recolored humans. I don't get people who show hate for animal-people and yet make games with five or ten 'races' which are just humans with different colors or foreheads. And yet they complain about animal headed races!

I know people who prefer human faces on their characters, 'cause they can't empathize or don't want to be attracted to animal faces. That's honest. But this sheer hate for animal-people is just lame.

Once the elves, dragons, kender, and kobolds go up against the wall the furries are next.