Stance Theory: The Hegemony of One Character

[greyorm]

(/me rubs hands... wow, it's been ages since I've been able to fight with Raven. We agree way to often these days... ;p )

No, YOU'RE wrong!! ;)  Ahhh...memories *sniff* {wipes away a little tear}

In the first place, it's not me that sees a problem and me that wants change. It's about 6 - 10 guys who asked me to get the ball rolling with this thread.

So why doesn't one of these 6-10 guys get the ball rolling themselves? (as there are 6-10 of them, you would think at least one could post a message to the Forge?) Seriously. If they're interested in developing this further, if they see a problem, and you aren't and/or don't, then fuck 'em. Really! Let them present their own case.

And why them and not you? Well, there's a couple of reasons. The main one would be the one above: you have to have interest in order to participate, and following from that, as below:

So, my role in this thread is basically to watch and see what comes out.

That seems very non-Forge to me. Making a statement and then watching to "see what happens", and to a lesser extent, asking a question for the sake of seeing the replies. Poll-type threads are not allowed? (ie: "Hey, what do you think about THIS?")

Mike Gusiq(?) pulls that crap on the RPG-Create list constantly, and you've seen how annoyed everyone gets by it, and for good reason. So I hope you see my point here.

Another of the the problems with you setting up the thread, and the "sit back and see" style, is also strongly tied to the following:

What kind of new ground can we cover? New ground is not covered by posts that A) attack the validity of the thread's existence in the first place, or B) are hung up on explaining the old theory to people who don't understand it yet.

The problem isn't that new ground can not or should not be covered, it is the necessity of covering new ground in the first place. No one who currently agrees that the current Stances really are enough can cover new ground, because there's nothing there to convince them there is new ground to be covered ("What do you mean we 'must have missed a continent'? We've mapped the entire globe by satellite!"). Make sense?

In order for a thread to progress as you've indicated you'd like, someone has to be able to put the necessary effort into it. This isn't you, as you've already noted, due to either lack of interest or desire to sit back and watch. As such, it has to be one of the 6-10 folks who are interested and want to push the envelope.

Further, if the initiator of a thread claims "X is wrong," the weight is on their shoulders to prove that "X is wrong" and prove that new territory even waits to be discovered. Otherwise, they are just asking us to "simply accept that this doesn't work" and go from there.

Why should anyone "simply accept" that and then spend time on it, since it hasn't been yet proven that it really doesn't work and time should be spent on it?

Of COURSE you are going to get defenses of the existing theory and restatement of its definitions, you haven't yet proven that the existing is broken, and especially so if there are posted statements that "refute" existing theory but are erroneous in their foundations for that refutation.

(Besides, didn't you read Chris's recent thread? Slow posting is good. I have *read* every post here. I just don't bang out a reply the instant some poster's comments make an emotional tug.)

Yes I have, and I wasn't asking you to (bang out a reply for emotional tug).

I'm pointing out that you were being rather pushy in demanding other people expand the subject, especially since you cannot expect an, "Oh, you're RIGHT! OF COURSE! How could we be so blind. Here's some new material for you to digest. Thank you for telling us we were wrong and demanding we fix it without proving that it is broken" answer for all the reasons given above.

So, read my post again. I did, in fact, present something more complete, and something new. For example, I outlined a whole bunch of Director-like stances that are not defined in relation to character.

Yes you did, my bad. I happen to think all that should have been included in your first post, not all the way on the second page near its middle, and that because it was not, you have no reason to complain about the direction the thread took.

Though even if it had, I'll point out it would not have prevented the supposed problem you protest: that the criticism is decried as arising from faulty understanding. The basis you provide for the reassessment of the stances was criticized earlier in the thread when proposed by someone else.

As I noted above, that is the nature of the game: you must prove malfunction or limited function before function can be improved; and responses indicating "you don't get it" (backed with explanation) are valid responses, because not understanding what you are criticizing (and yes, even not understanding that your comprehension is incomlete) is an utterly human thing -- check out any first year philosophy class at your local community college for a very simple litmus test of this idea: where "not getting" an idea is a valid criticism of the critic.

So, that's why the thread's "validity" was attacked -- entirely reasonably, in my view -- and why no one was offering up new ground. I note that Thomas' recent efforts in this same vein are proving fruitful, however, so you don't need to give up the fight yet regarding the expansion of the Stances.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Closed, please. New threads have been spawned, and if you wanna keep anything else in this one, please spawn it.

Best,
Ron