Why all the resistance?

[Poxface]

I have been following the g/n/s discussion on and off for quite sometime.  To answer you question "Why all the resistance?", just go back through this thread and read all of the replies.  I think you will find your answer by examining the implicit attitudes in these posts.

Additionally, it would be helpful in your discussions of the model to place a link in your posts that reference the model in its current state including definitions of current terms.

Finally, one criticism I have of the model is that it seems to preclude the recognition of a player that has multiple game goals.  I believe that any game designed with only one goal will fall flat with me.  In addition, premise should be included in this discussion.  A game without an interesting premise, regardless of how interesting its mechanics may be, is not worth playing.

Respectfully,

Jeff

[greyorm]

Finally, one criticism I have of the model is that it seems to preclude the recognition of a player that has multiple game goals.  I believe that any game designed with only one goal will fall flat with me.

Greetings,

I'm fairly certain that it is accepted that a good game will or should really have only one goal, even if it mixes other styles in it for different types of resolution.

My own personal experience has shown time and time again (and well before I ever became aware of the three-fold as a means to understand the problem) that the goals conflict with one another and trying to implement two or more at once is the quickest way to a bad game.

As well, I've become less fond of mixed-mechanics games, in that the contrary mechanics may overshadow or rather confuse the intended goal of the game (I have another post somewhere on the boards about this very subject, in regards to the narrative game I played which used gamist resolution, and suffered greatly for it).

From my perspective, the goals might be considered different end-points in a race; if you are running in that race, trying to cross any more than one of the end-points of the race is going to be frustrating.  Which track do you run down?  How do you run in two different places at once, cross two different goal-lines at the same time?
(especially if they are in different directions)

Thus I personally believe and find that trying to make a game meet all three or even two of the "goals" is an exercise in futility and frustration, and I'm a little suspicious of anyone who says they always try to meet more than one goal (not meaning to disparage or insult you), as it says to me they haven't really grasped the three-fold.
However, I'm also open to being proven wrong.  I'd love to hear how you meet more than one goal in a game, and how you make it work!

[Blake Hutchins]

I'll have to agree with Jeff from the perspective that the other thread "All Out Dissection" describes Simulationists as reacting out of fear. That's bound to be a huge turn-off for anyone who classifies themselves as Simulationist. Ron's speculations regarding Simulationism is like saying Narrativists are afraid of competing or intimidated by immersive gaming.

In re-reading that thread, I was struck by how many arguments went like, "Gamists think X and therefore do Y," or "Simulationists are afraid of X and so choose Y." Who here would describe themselves as Simulationist or Gamist? I know we have some, and most of us have passed through those phases at one point or another, but maybe we should be more careful about ascribing feelings and detailed psychology to approaches we no longer share. For example, Ron is typically cautious about making statements about Gamism because he maintains he doesn't get that motivation. That thread highlights a discussion among (primarily) Narrativist players and designers that can easily come off as elitist to non-Narrativists.

Now I happen to know Jeff pretty well; we work in the same building. He's a self-described Simulationist with both Gamist and Narrativist leanings (and I don't believe the model rules out such a profile). He's lurked on the GO discussions off and on, so he's broadly familiar with the model. I find him critically minded but quite positive about new ideas in gaming. It's interesting that he's had such a negative reaction from such a short exposure to the Forge. That to me says a lot about how our discussions affect newcomers.

I have no problem with the Forge slanting toward Narrativism, but without censoring or neutering the robustness of our exchanges, how might we address this?

Best,

Blake

[greyorm]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, it is quite apparent that my preferred style is simulation.  Looking back at the way I run games and how I've judged whether they were good or poor.

Thus please don't turn this into a "Narrativists are out to convert you to G/N/S!" or "Only narrativists say you can't have more than one goal!" or "Narrativists are snobs!" which is what this is all starting to sound like to me.

I'm a simulationist, and I can hack it, I'm not offended, confused or otherwise about the model, the discussions or anything else here on the Forge.

I see no "attitude" displayed, nor elitism running rampant 'cross the discussion boards.  The whole "attitude" is a mischaracterization of the point of the discussion that has been harped on before (and by me, no less).
The responses here aren't putting down just anyone who disagrees or has questions the model: they are putting down resistance that is based on ignorance and pettiness.

If anyone sees more than that, they're searching.

If anyone has a problem with the ignorant and petty being decried, they're nuts.
Is that harsh?  No.  Why give any credence to those types?  That's just asking for it.  Humility and openess have their places, but not at the expense of rationality.

So, again, you may perceive an attitude or some sort of elitist motivation, but I think a close examination will not bear either perception out.

[Mike Holmes]

The problem IS due to miscomunication. They ARE seeing something that is not there. This doesn't change the fact that this is happening and possibly to people who we might do well to have aboard. Intelligent people make mistakes on occasion. So all I'm advocating is to just be a little careful.

Nobody is suggesting we court idiots. Just be careful not to alienate an intelligent person just because they don't understand the model as well necessary to get that it's not insulting or degrading to them.

Don't read more into this than is there.

Mike Holmes

[Ron Edwards]

I've said it before: the "All-out Dissection" thread presented an idea. I and Paul presented it specifically for purposes of debate. A lot of people treated it very rigorously, and I think we all got somewhere.

That's what the Forge's forum is for - presentation and discussion of ideas. I cannot make you feel bad. An idea cannot make you feel bad. When I, or anyone else, presents an idea for discussion, it needs to be treated in terms of its merits and flaws. It may die a horrible death, but only because it is terminally flawed - not because it "makes" anyone feel bad.

No one "called" Simulationist players anything. No one said "they suck." Does this goal bear the relationship to Gamism that I suggested, or doesn't it? That was the question.

I have spent so much time, and so much bandwidth, defending the "rights" of Gamist and Simulationist play and design, that I have NO idea how anyone can perceive contempt toward those goals in my posts. I'll go further and speak for all the regular posters here in that regard. We have established our credentials as fans of ALL quality role-playing, and of ANY system that serves the interests of its users.

I don't see any reason to hold back on examining any relevant ideas about game theory, design, and play.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

Quote:
'Thus please don't turn this into a "Narrativists are out to convert you to G/N/S!" or "Only narrativists say you can't have more than one goal!" or "Narrativists are snobs!" which is what this is all starting to sound like to me.'

I'm only reacting to the title of the thread and the ostensible purpose behind its discussion. This isn't about slamming narrativists. Hell's bells, I consider myself one! However, purely in the context of asking "why the resistance to the G/N/S model," examining the tone of our rhetoric is surely fair game. I used to be a trial lawyer, and so dealt with the ins and outs of persuasion. If we want other folks to examine the model and they're resistive because we're not doing a good job of explaining it, then we should rephrase our message. If we don't care about whether anyone else accepts or embraces the model, then let's simply move on.

Quote:
'I'm a simulationist, and I can hack it, I'm not offended, confused or otherwise about the model, the discussions or anything else here on the Forge.'

Great. You also know Ron pretty well (I assume from your stuff on and in Sorcerer forums and Soul), and you're surely not a newcomer to the discussion and personalities here. Therefore you may not be the best bellwether for assessing whether the rhetoric here is off-putting to newcomers. No flame intended, but if we're concerned with garnering wider acceptance of the Threefold Model, we do need to think about how our discussion impacts people encountering it for the first time.

Quote:
'I see no "attitude" displayed, nor elitism running rampant 'cross the discussion boards.'

I agree that's not the intent, but you know everyone and you're familiar with the environment and the style of exchange here. Look at it from the point of view of someone dropping in for the first time.

Quote:
'The responses here aren't putting down just anyone who disagrees or has questions the model: they are putting down resistance that is based on ignorance and pettiness.'

Here's where the rubber meets the road. What's "ignorance and pettiness"? By itself those labels sound pretty elitist to me. I haven't seen much here that's petty, and it's easy to categorize someone as ignorant if he hasn't read all the latest stuff or if he misunderstands the model. Again, this thread is in the context of questioning why people resist the threefold model. "Putting down resistance" isn't what I'm about here, and I suspect it's not what anyone else is about. I find the threefold model illuminating and useful. Personally, I don't care if anyone else does, though it's nice to share ideas with like-minded folks. I like the debate that questions and evolves the model, and though I don't want to retread the same ground continually, neither do I want to set up any sacred cows.

Quote:
'If anyone sees more than that, they're searching.'

I respectfully disagree. When is someone's questioning the model NOT based on "ignorance or pettiness"?

Quote:
'If anyone has a problem with the ignorant and petty being decried, they're nuts.
Is that harsh? No. Why give any credence to those types? That's just asking for it. Humility and openess have their places, but not at the expense of rationality.'

A lot of judgment going on here, and that's what seems to lurk under the surface of the discussion here. Again, if someone offers a constructive idea, we should deal with it constructively, even if we disagree vehemently with the content. I'm not suggesting in the least that we avoid or minimize rational debate, but (again) if we're concerned with the "saleability" of the model, then we should attend to the tone of our rhetoric. You can be perfectly rational without turning people off.

Quote:
'So, again, you may perceive an attitude or some sort of elitist motivation, but I think a close examination will not bear either perception out.'

*sigh* Elitism can be in the eye of the beholder, y'know? I don't think anyone here intends to be elitist. I don't think the model is elitist, but I do think the model-as-presented carries the implication that narrativism is the top of the pyramid. Maybe as Ron says, we're leaning toward championing narrativism because doing so has traditionally been an uphill battle. The bottom line is, there has been resistance to the model, and I've seen some pretty dismissive responses to possible explanations.

Anyway, this is not meant to be a flame or an attack in any way on anyone. I've cited to a couple of ideas Ron mentioned in other posts, and if I've misquoted him, I apologize. Let me wrap this up by emphasizing this: if we want the model to be accepted by a larger portion of the roleplaying community, and a significant portion of that community perceives the model as elitist, then yes, we should damn well take a look at how we're transmitting the message.

But if we don't want to garner wide or wider acceptance for the model, then this entire thread is unnecessary. Since I don't care about proselytizing, I'm going back to Theory 201 in hopes of reducing my ignorance.

Best,

Blake

[Ian O'Rourke]

I tend to agree with Ron. I'm not advocating that we disregard any sense of being polite, or using a sensible tone in our discussions - I don't think we've crossed that line yet.

When it comes to worrying about how the discussion might be perceived I tend to come from a different angle. It's a simple one: most people shy a way from serious discussion and instead perceive it as an attack or someone being bully. I'm not saying this has happened here, but it's happened in the past and I think this acts as something else we have to watch out for.

We can't ruin the discussion because some people can't handle the debate (I know this sounds bad, but some people cannot get to grips with the issue of ideas standing up to strong argument).

I've started to think I have a lot of simulationist in me, but I've not been insulted. The whole idea of discussion is to put an idea out there to see how it holds up to argument. At times people feel uncomfortable with this, believing their belief is just right and should win through.

As I say, don't think it's happened here yet, but I just thought I'd put the apposing argument in (with regards to our discussion being offensive).

[Blake Hutchins]

Good point, Ian. I certainly do *not* suggest we should castrate debate to spare people's feelings. Only if we're trying to "sell" the theory should we look at how it's presented. Absent an FAQ or summary explanation of the theory, we're stuck with newcomers trying to piece it all together from wading through copious posts, and they may well perceive some ideas and arguments as elitist and then opt out of reading further. All I'm asking is, do we care about this? If we do, then we should put up an FAQ and summary and maybe a disclaimer that arguments aren't directed at marginalizing anyone's gaming preferences, maybe combined with an "enter at your own risk" warning.

Best,

Blake

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-05-23 18:26, Blake Hutchins wrote:
All I'm asking is, do we care about this? If we do, then we should put up an FAQ and summary and maybe a disclaimer that arguments aren't directed at marginalizing anyone's gaming preferences, maybe combined with an "enter at your own risk" warning.

I think that is a very good point. While we me hammer at each other on these boards, it's probably not the best way for new people to encounter the model?

A FAQ people can be pointed to, which sells the model, without 'dumming it down' would be an excellent resource.

Even if some people think it's not necessary, look at it from a 'covering your arse' point of view, which is sometimes a valid and productive strategy. When the debate gets heated, people can't complain we are not working from the same 'central document'.

I think it's a good idea.

[Logan]

A faq would be great, but somebody's got to write it. Unless somebody else wants to or has a better plan, I can do that. I'd want Ron's agreement before doing anything with it, just so we're all on the same page. Then, it'd be very good if we could post it somewhere here on The Forge.

Because of the holiday weekend, it'll be about a week before I have it ready. I figure, we've been without it for this long. One more week shouldn't cause too much trouble.

Best,

Logan

[greyorm]

Therefore you may not be the best bellwether for assessing whether the rhetoric here is off-putting to newcomers.

I'm also, as Ron once put it, a 'watchdog.'
I'm the first one to see offensive material, usually the first to mention it; and I take it personally no matter who it is directed at.

I honestly can't see how a rational individual who took the time to read through the discussion threads on the "Why all the resistance?" would come to the conclusion that there is an elitist air to them.

The only way I can see anyone doing that is if they skimmed the posts, didn't ponder the material very long and went with their gut reaction.

Thus, considering that I don't see it in this instance, I must turn my problem-seeking radar from the group to the individual making the accusation.
You wouldn't be the first or last person to accuse others of behaving in a certain fashion when they are not because you think they are.

Now, I may be wrong and there may be an attitude of this sort occuring even unintentionally, but I personally doubt it because I don't see it.

You may be interested to note my response to the other thread being discussed, "All-out Dissection", wherein I did see offensiveness due to poor phrasing and brought it up.

(for your reference, I'm speaking in whole about your statements as I percieve them: that the group and all the discussions here overall seem to be displaying this elitism/attitude.)

Here's where the rubber meets the road. What's "ignorance and pettiness"? By itself those labels sound pretty elitist to me.

Frankly, I'm having trouble seeing this statement as anything but a deliberately infuriating response meant to provoke hostility.

You're telling me calling black "black" or white "white" is wrong and cruel/wrong/bad ("elitist") because I'm saying that not everyone is informed/knowledgeable or interested in honest, mature discussion.

Well, surprise!
They aren't.

Any intelligent individual knows what ignorance and pettiness are and can point it out in another, unless they've lived in a small, dark closet cut off from social contact their entire lives.

So I'm certain you are well aware of what both are and when someone is either, so your asking for defintions and implication that such judgements are elitist is absurd and just looks like a desire to start an argument.

But people who can't deal with reality -- being called ignorant when they are -- without the equivalent of a social security-blanket reassuring them every second that they are OK and accepted are simply not fit to discuss anything with or consider.

It isn't worth the time it takes to deal with them because all discussion with such individuals is ultimately fruitless -- there is no way to deal with disagreements in a constructive manner because anything you might say which is a disagreement or a disection of their stance is an "attack" against them via their beliefs.
You have to constantly ensure that nothing you say could be taken in the slightest way as insulting by them.

In fact, I can't stand people who are so socially retarded by a warped form of politeness that they wouldn't tell anyone they'd just been shot out of fear of upsetting someone.

Now I'm not saying that we should all be a bunch of insult-hurling maniacs, completely without empathy or politeness, but I expect a certain level of maturity in any discussion partner as well: they must be able to deal with normal practical-polite statements without my needing to resort to elaborate methods of soothing a socially crippled, co-dependent ego.

People who fail to educate themselves and go with gut reactions on subjects they know little about are, who shy away from any sort of confrontation, are, in my experience, not to be trusted in discussions because they lack the general maturity necessary for engaging worthwhile conversation.

Do you disagree?

"Putting down resistance" isn't what I'm about here, and I suspect it's not what anyone else is about.

I think you misunderstand what that was in response to.
It was a response to Jeff's assertion that if one reads through this thread and reads all of the replies one find that the answer to the resistance lies in the attitude of the posts.

My response was that a reading of the posts shows there is no such attitude displayed towards anyone and everyone who might disagree, that the complaints and disparaging "attitudes" were directed towards a particular sub-group: those who know little to nothing about the threefold and choose to judge it anyway (ignorant), and those who have been informed about the threefold and continue to deride it with the same tired deliberately misconstrued arguments (petty).

Saying that I'm implying the Forge is about putting down resistance misses the context entirely.

I respectfully disagree. When is someone's questioning the model NOT based on "ignorance or pettiness"?

The ability to seperate wheat from chaff is a skill learned at an early age.  One can easily seperate crackpots and loons from honest speakers with little difficulty and knowledge of the subject being spoken about.

For example, I hang out on some science boards occasionally, and there are crackpots aplenty there spouting wild theories, who someone with a basic education in the subject can avoid, but we also get our share of good, honest "alternate science" discussions with people who know their subject and can deal with questions and criticism.

You seem to believe that we're all a bunch of fundie loons ready to jump down the throat of anyone with a question or comment on the model, banging our holy texts and slaying the heathen.  We're not.
There's a difference between honest and dishonest questions and discussion, though.

In fact, such discussions have taken place already...there have been polite, intelligent disections of the model and disagreements with it by intelligent individuals who know what they were talking about.

There's your answer:
When is someone's questioning the model NOT based on "ignorance or pettiness"?
When that person is an informed, thoughtful individual who can deal with criticism in a postive fashion.

A lot of judgment going on here,

I'm not a Christian, so I have no problems about throwing stones.  I'll make informed judgements and speak my mind on them: reality is as it is.

Again, if someone offers a constructive idea, we should deal with it constructively, even if we disagree vehemently with the content.

I take serious issue with any inference that this is not already what occurs here.

*sigh* Elitism can be in the eye of the beholder, y'know?

However, I nor anyone else is responsible for what is in your eye.

This is exactly the reason for my earlier rant on the use of "elitism" as a dirty word.  Such people are generally socially insecure, thinking that because someone disagrees with them, they think they are more superior.

But there's a big difference between being pro-narrative and anti-anything else.  Most folks don't seem to get this, though; in their minds, you're either for or you are against, because our culture styles the world very black&white.

So if someone is going to be "put off by rhetoric", especially when that rhetoric falls without the bounds of polite conversation and exploration of issues (which it does), it isn't our problem.  It's THEIRS, no one controls their perceptions or assumptions except them.

I don't think anyone here intends to be elitist. I don't think the model is elitist, but I do think the model-as-presented carries the implication that narrativism is the top of the pyramid.

This has been discussed before, and, frankly, is BS.
This is actually what the entire "Why all the resistance?" thread is about.

Anyone reading the model and coming to the conclusion that narrativists are painted therein as "the best thing to be" is putting their own interpretation and insecurities/delusions-of-grandeur onto the model and not reading what is written.

This is simple truth.
_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-05-23 20:35 ]

[Logan]

Raven, Blake,

You both make good points. The fact is, this discussion has been going on for a while. A lot of the views presented and the people presenting them are pretty well established, at least within this topic.

It's only natural for people to find the debate and have questions. A faq should answer them. It's perfectly understandable for some people to think this whole discussion is somehow elitist. It is. It's not snobby elitist, but it's elitist from the perspective that we who post here are secure enough, maybe arrogant enough, in our knowledge and view of RPGs to think that we can classify and analyze the way they work. We extend it even further by also looking at the behavior of players and GMs. But you find that certain kind of elitism on any dedicated discussion board. It's expected. The people who are having the discussion talk about what they know and what interests them. If some of the viewpoints are off-base, that's quickly revealed.

A faq should give everyone an equal starting point, but the 3-fold model and the related discussion is never going to have mass-media appeal. As a group, we're a fragment on the fringe of a niche-market hobby. The people who show up here are the people who are interested, we're interested in what the have to say, and the discussion will go the way it goes. What more do people want?

Best,

Logan

[greyorm]

Logan,

I agree, and have agreed elsewhere (I think) that we should have a FAQ discussing all these issues.  Ron's been discussing all this stuff for quite a while, a sight longer than I have been reading about it, and even much of what is being brought up here is over my head (the terms brought up over in RPG 201 have me at a loss).

Let me restate myself, actually: we shouldn't just have a FAQ, we absolutely NEED a FAQ.

[Blake Hutchins]

Raven:

My apologies for not responding more quickly. I wanted to take some time to think and make sure I'd cooled down before posting an answer. Thanks for your thoughts. I agree an FAQ is essential.

All that said, I do have some bones to pick, and it may make for a long post.

First of all, I wasn't pointing to the "Why the resistance?" thread, but to the totality of the discussion. Neither was I pointing to anyone in particular, certainly not Ron, who has admitted his biases and perceptual filters up front in very constructive ways.

Second, and this evidently bears repeating, I do NOT accuse anyone here of "elitism." I am not calling ANYONE elitist. To crib from Ron's comment in another thread, NO ONE is on trial here. However, the bulk of the discussion on the model has been carried by a community that sings the virtues of narrativism, and I think it's fair to say the discussion has picked up a certain implicit bias in favor of narrativist play. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. All I have said is this: it is possible for readers to *misunderstand* the discussion to portray narrativism as a more creative or mature form of roleplaying. This reaction could therefore lead to their rejection of the model. I don't agree with that these people do so in some sort of bad faith, or because they're stupid or unreasonable.

Let me explain my thinking.

A newcomer to the Forge has to piece together the model and follow the permutations of what has grown into a huge discussion. This person is automatically at a disadvantage. There are a lot of posts here, and many of the precursor arguments took place at GO. I can't speak for anyone else, but I followed things at GO for quite some time, so I come to the Forge armed with a sense of the history of the topic. Even so, there's a good deal to follow here, and I don't always have the time to keep current. My point? A newcomer may ask questions or form an opinion based on incomplete understanding or a misunderstanding of the model. He or she may even have an knee-jerk reaction based on this misunderstanding. Having a knee-jerk reaction doesn't automatically make someone a jerk. It doesn't make them ignorant. It doesn't make them petty.

Honestly, I'm surprised at the extent of the defensiveness from some people here, particularly you. Just because the possibility exists for reasonable people to misunderstand and reject the model doesn't mean anyone here has done anything wrong. It doesn't detract from the quality of the discussion. It doesn't put anyone on trial. And it certainly doesn't call for condescending ad hominem attacks cloaked as "rational disagreements."

Why is it so difficult to accept that an implicit bias has crept into the discussion about the model? In matters of science, the biases of the observer or theorist are taken into account. All I've suggested is that a perception of such a bias may be turning people off to the G/N/S model. And I asked whether it was worth trying to find ways to compensate.

It does come down to this (which I'll repeat yet again): if we care about new blood taking the model on its own terms, let us make available a summary that's digestible in a manner that eradicates the potential for misunderstanding the purpose of the discussion. I'm not talking about being PC, nor about trying so hard to be inoffensive that we shrink from calling a spade a spade or neuter any part of the discussion.

Now let me suggest something else: you have essentially proved my point with your post.

I approached this constructively, with no intent whatsoever to infuriate anyone or troll for a negative reaction. The limitations of purely written communication without the benefit of paralinguistic cues makes it easy for someone, such as yourself, to misapprehend my message. Your entire response has been predicated on mistaking the perception of bias in the model or the discussion for actual bias on the part of individuals here on the forum.

In the spirit of calling black "black" and white "white," let me move on to a critique of your style of argument, because I think it's pertinent. It's needlessly inflammatory, and not because you're telling hard truths. I'll add my opinion that it very likely contributes to any negative perceptions of this forum.

I'm the first one to see offensive material, usually the first to mention it; and I take it personally no matter who it is directed at.

You may be too quick to take offense, sir. Are you saying my post was offensive? Not merely wrong, but offensive?

Thus, considering that I don't see it in this instance, I must turn my problem-seeking radar from the group to the individual making the accusation.

I am flatly uncomfortable with this assertion. You "must" direct the argument away from the other person's argument and turn it to the person? Well, you certainly did that. Having missed the distinction between a perception of "elitism" and the actual existence of such an attitude, you responded in what came across as a dismissive, needlessly condescending manner. You introduced a number of tangential issues and resorted to ad hominem comments and blithe dismissals of points you disagreed with – after quoting out of context or (in my case) completely misunderstanding the point made. It may be a perfectly valid, if demagogic, argumentative style, but for purposes of this forum and preserving the congeniality here, I don't think "turning to the individual making the argument" is constructive.

However, (neither) I nor anyone else is responsible for what is in your eye.

Y'know, I can only see this comment as intended to provoke an emotional reaction, thereby perhaps derailing a reasoned response. Another ad hominem shot, in other words.

I remind you that you were the one who brought up "ignorant and petty," even boldfacing them so they'd stand out. My "eye of the beholder" comment you referenced above was meant to go to the fact that these are emotionally loaded terms often applied in a derogatory fashion, so I am very, very careful before I direct them at someone. Moreover, they're often subjective conclusions not arrived at via nice, clean, bright-line tests, meaning that although your definitions (thank you for supplying them, BTW) feel objective to you, they're subjectively applied. What you call ignorant, I might call an incomplete understanding. What you call petty, I might call stubborn or merely unconvinced. If you're defending your right to call someone ignorant, fine, but that person may have a legitimate issue. Slamming them may feel good, but it does little to advance your point of view. I'd hate to think someone isn't qualified to comment or ask a question because they haven't sifted through all the hundreds of posts made on the model between here and GO. And I don't think this is what you're suggesting they do, yet when does a person have "enough" knowledge of the model to satisfy you they are not "ignorant"?

You may be interested to note my response to the other thread being discussed, "All-out Dissection", wherein I did see offensiveness due to poor phrasing and brought it up.

Good deal. I'm curious, though. How do you define "offensiveness"? Offensive to you personally, or more generically what you perceive as offensive to all and sundry?

Frankly, I'm having trouble seeing this (rubber meets the road) statement as anything but a deliberately infuriating response meant to provoke hostility.

Sorry. It absolutely wasn't meant that way, and it surprises me that it came across like that. Again, my apologies. I'm not interested in pissing people off. It may happen as an unintended consequence of frank discussion, but it's not a goal in any way, shape, or form.

So I'm certain you are well aware of what both are and when someone is either, so your asking for defintions and implication that such judgements are elitist is absurd and just looks like a desire to start an argument.

Nope. Asking for definitions is the first step toward finding common ground. I do think that such judgments can be motivated by a desire to put someone down. I try not to judge someone in terms of ignorance or pettiness -- or elitism or self-righteousness, for that matter. At least in these forums. I try to abstain from judgment of the person, unless he or she acts like a complete ass. Even then, I prefer to address the reasoning rather than make it personal. Neither do I simply declare my opinions fact and dismiss any requests for support as irrelevant or suspect.

In fact, I can't stand people who are so socially retarded by a warped form of politeness that they wouldn't tell anyone they'd just been shot out of fear of upsetting someone.

And how is this relevant? Given that I've articulated a suggestion you disagree with, why are we moving into rant territory? While your metaphor made me chuckle, I don't think this is really pertinent. I and others have repeated often enough that we're not in any way seeking to curtail debate.

People who fail to educate themselves and go with gut reactions on subjects they know little about are, who shy away from any sort of confrontation, are, in my experience, not to be trusted in discussions because they lack the general maturity necessary for engaging worthwhile conversation.

Do you disagree?

Yeah, at least on the sweeping judgment about people "not to be trusted." What about people who make mistakes and/or go off half-cocked? It just seems that you're drawing a lot of lines in the sand here, that's all.

You seem to believe that we're all a bunch of fundie loons ready to jump down the throat of anyone with a question or comment on the model, banging our holy texts and slaying the heathen.

Good grief, no! Where the hell did you come up with this? I've never suggested anything is religiously motivated, nor that there's some kind of holy writ or cult of personality or whatever going on here. This is way, way, way overstated.

Look... *takes deep breath* ...it may be that I'm completely off-base on the "implicit bias" or "perception of elitism" thing, but I've seen other people here – not fly-by-night ignoramuses by a LONG shot – share this perception. Discussing it and clearing the air can only be a good thing, provided we do so constructively. Do you disagree?

I have no problems about throwing stones.

I don't shy away from calling things as I see them, either. I respect that quality in others -- to a point. I also respect tact and civility. I'd like to think that if you and I were talking over a couple of beers, we'd be having a great time and could agree to disagree without rancor. I do want you to know that I've visited your site and enjoyed your art. I'm happy to acknowledge that I could certainly have done a better job explaining my points and position here, so I'm certainly open to criticism on that front. For what it's worth, I honestly thought I was being clear enough. Clearly I wasn't (and I'm not pointing fingers here, either, just for the record). So there's a good example of my own flawed perceptions and bias, huh? Communication is imperfect. We should allow for that and ask for clarity before pulling out the flamethrowers. Then, too, the old saying about glass houses comes to mind. I try to be very careful about when I throw stones and what I throw them at.

I'll wrap up this tome by saying I agree wholeheartedly with Clinton. Let none of us post when pissed.

Best,

Blake