Payoffs

[contracycle]

Ron Edwards wrote:

This is foul.

Gareth, you have a choice.

Either the reasons you're here are paying off, for you and others, or they're not. If not, then you must decide whether continuing to be here is worth your time.

I am telling you that from my perspective, clearly they are not. Plenty of ideas get proposed here and incorporated. If yours aren't, then either they aren't making some kind of cut, or you are being ignored or devalued in some way.

Stay or go. If you stay, and if you choose not to post in Actual Play or Indie Design, then you'll have nowhere to post when the forums change over. Which will solve the problem for everyone.

This makes no sense at all.  Self-evidently, there is obviously a payoff otherwise it would already be the case that I would not be here.  And that payoff is simply being able to discuss these matters with other people who want to solve them.

And equally self-evidently, if my ideas are not being incorporated then that is indeed my problem.  But that is not of course wholly true as I have contributed to some strains of throught.  What does this have to do with you precisely?  Why do you bother to comment on it?

However the factor you choose to ignore, the real issue raised by your rant, is why YOU feel the need to restrict certain lines of discourse.  Why YOU need to come out swinging to prevent certain topics being discussed.  What the hell skin off your nose is it that someone proposes a way to analyize the problem?  And thus your claim about my ideas not been incorporated is disengenuous, because if you assert that these discussions should not be happening for some inexplicable reason, then you are personally intervening.  WHY are you doing this?  If you don't want to help why not just get the hell out of the way of those who do?

As for the forum change, if it is the case that you are going to reconstruct the site such that no theory discussions are to be permitted, then sure, I won;t have anywhere to discuss these things.  Fine - do whatever you want, I have no claim on what you do with your site.  I can't really understand what that has to do with anything - things come and things go.  Why you should choose to suppress discussion of theory, or at least give up on it, I'm not entirely sure but I'm equally not interested in second guessing your motivations.  You do whatever you want, and discuss whatever you want - but why the fuck do you presume to tell OTHERS what they should discuss.  Why the hell do you care in the first place?

Your whole stance is irrational as far as I can see.

[Andrew Norris]

Gareth,

I'm sure Ron will either get to this, or ignore it, whichever he feels is appropriate. I'd just like to look at the situation from my perspective.

You understand that you have no power to change Ron's mind or the direction of the site. Yet you're still bitching about it. Obviously there's no productive goal in sight, nor is one possible; you want people to debate you for the sake of debating. That's about as far from the purpose of this site as you can get. And from what I can see, that doesn't represent any kind of new wrinkle in your posting style.

You're not going to get anyone to engage you in a pissing contest -- much less the administrators -- so I think you've answered your own question about what the payoff is.

[contracycle]

I'm sure Ron will either get to this, or ignore it, whichever he feels is appropriate. I'd just like to look at the situation from my perspective.

I'm fully expecting him to ignore it as he has never been able to explain his position.  I will then accept his default.

You understand that you have no power to change Ron's mind or the direction of the site. Yet you're still bitching about it. Obviously there's no productive goal in sight, nor is one possible; you want people to debate you for the sake of debating. That's about as far from the purpose of this site as you can get. And from what I can see, that doesn't represent any kind of new wrinkle in your posting style.

Thats plainly ludicrous.  First off, I have never proposed nor desired any change to the direction of the site.  And I most certainly do NOT want to debate purely for the purpose of debating - that is precisely why I have proposed a METHODICAL approach, so the debate actually has a chance to produce RESULTS.  What part about producing actually playabale games is it that you find contrary to the goals of the Forge?

Please address the actual issue if you wish to comment.

[greyorm]

I'm sorry to say it, Gareth, but Ron's right: you are a jerk. You publically call him a whiner twice, then turn around and act all aghast that he's pissed off about it, claim it isn't your fault and that he's the one with the problem, and then hurl more insults because you both have a public ego-battle. Give me a break.

The truth is that the majority of your posts are argumentative and often inflammatory, mainly because you sneak hardline, insulting socio-political content into enough of them that it becomes aggravating to read what you've written -- not because what you're saying is true, but because you're a self-assured, unempathic ass about it and act completely incapable of being in-the-wrong.

It's like you were born without that little switch in your head that tells most people their behavior or statements are insensitive, insulting, or assinine -- or that you simply don't care and can't be bothered to behave like a human being because you believe it would tarnish your perception of self as a rational being.

Whatever the case is, no one really gives a crap about your message because, no matter how right you might be about something, you have no ability to state it in a way that people will listen to. You're just angry young communist with his fist in the sky unapologetically giving a finger to the evil world...and then blaming everyone else or painting it as their problem when they take offense, and call them idiots because they refuse to listen.

And unfortunately that whole attitude bleeds through into all your other interactions. You need to reread all the posts about charitable reading, reading for mutual understanding, waiting to post (to avoid posting out of emotion or for argument), understand the difference between argument and discussion, and basically figure out what you have been doing wrong.

Take your response to Andrew, for example: you completely ignore his points about the lack of purpose for this thread, about its complete lack of utility in providing a positive direction of discourse. You complain about Ron's behavior, demand he explain himself, and when Andrew responds to that, you then complain to Andrew that he is not dealing with the real issue you raised and state that your real purpose in this thread is all about creating a methodology -- nevermind your titling the thread "Payoff" and the stream of complaints about Ron and his irrationality! -- and so tell him to "fuck off" in not so many words.

You need to grow up and quit acting like a disaffected, all-knowing teenager if you ever want anyone to take you seriously.

PS -- And I don't want to hear anything about "Well, Ron doesn't __fill in the blank__" as a response, even if Ron is screwing up, too. I hear that argument all the time from my 6 and 9 year olds whenever one of them gets in trouble for something, and you're waaaay older than that, so you know better, regardless of how much you might be fuming with self-righteous anger over what he did.

[joshua neff]

Andrew, Raven, why are you guys even responding to Gareth's post? The only reason this is public, and not a private message to Ron, is to get attention. He dangled bait and you guys took it. But this is not an appropriate post for public viewing, this is not a serious matter that deserves anyone's attention, and all anyone does by responding is give Gareth more of a stage to strut. Everyone here should know better.

[greyorm]

Josh, call me an optimist. While what you state may well be the case, I am hoping otherwise. Gareth does occasionally have intelligent things to say, so it would be nice to see him contribute without all the baggage and with an understanding of the art of conversation/persuasion instead of hard-fisted pulpit-banging.

Maybe it will take a rational public slap -- one not intended solely to tear him down, but also provide some positive social direction -- to get him past that hump, or maybe I am just being a fool and both he and I will both be proven wrong about how intelligent he actually is.

'Cause honestly, I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

[Andrew Norris]

Hi Joshua,

I thought about that, and I mostly agree with you. In the end I decided if telling someone "We're not your audience, and we don't want to hear this" still gives them the audience they want, then so be it.

What I'd like to get across is that grandstanding and personal issues aren't welcome here, not just because the administrators say so, but because we as a community want to keep this place productive. There's a million other sites where that kind of behavior's allowed.

But yes, you're right. We've spent more than enough time on this.

[Jason Lee]

There is certainly truth on both sides.  Sustainability of ideas on the Forge is affected by the social dynamic (just like any group of people).  Theory does need more actual play context.  But that's not what this is about.  This is just a personal problem between Ron and Gareth.  This has precisely dick to do with the Forge and its content.  Take sides if you want, but a thread like this is just a popularity contest.

Forums and email are worse than the phone.  People find it really easy to be an asshole, sometimes accidentally, when they don't have to look someone in the eye.  Just forget to think about how the reader might feel about what you write and the emotions will start flying.  Lots of people reply in ways that piss me off.  After reading such posts I put a filter on them that says "the other person doesn't want to be a prick", I respond, and then see if they still seem like a prick after the second reply.

Is that what started this particular spiral?  Maybe.  Probably not, because there is history at work here also.  Something to think about though.

[contracycle]

Andrew, Raven, why are you guys even responding to Gareth's post? The only reason this is public, and not a private message to Ron, is to get attention. He dangled bait and you guys took it. But this is not an appropriate post for public viewing, this is not a serious matter that deserves anyone's attention, and all anyone does by responding is give Gareth more of a stage to strut. Everyone here should know better.

It's not to "get attention", it is to get an answer.  But that appears to have become rather unfashionable.  I don't care whether an answer is proivided here, by PM, or carrier pigeon  I just want to know what his beef is.

Greyorm wrote:

Take your response to Andrew, for example: you completely ignore his points about the lack of purpose for this thread, about its complete lack of utility in providing a positive direction of discourse. You complain about Ron's behavior, demand he explain himself, and when Andrew responds to that, you then complain to Andrew that he is not dealing with the real issue you raised and state that your real purpose in this thread is all about creating a methodology -- nevermind your titling the thread "Payoff" and the stream of complaints about Ron and his irrationality! -- and so tell him to "fuck off" in not so many words.

This thread is quite purposeful - I have asked what it is that Ron gets from swinging in on his bat-rope to stop discussions; I do not understand at all what he gains from so doing.  Apparently, neither do any of you.  To propose that I want to change the nature of the Forge is and was just ridiculous - its a complete non-sequitur as I pointed out.  THIS thread is not about what my particular ideas are at all but only about why it is that Ron intervened in that thread at all.  After all, if it had simply been left to run its course I cannot see what would be lost and then we would not be having this discussion in the first place!