Disappointed with the Forge (re: White Wolf)

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Um, if I may moderate ...

I suggest that this thread is a good place for thoughtful commentary on all those White Wolf etc threads, even for (thoughtful) venting. But folks, don't attack/defend in this thread. Doug's got it right about that.

This where your input is a fair statement for us all to read as, just like Doug put it, co-kinda-moderators together. If we keep it thoughtful, that's what this forum's good for. We're just learning where people individually stand, if they care to comment. No need to worry about disagreeing or defending.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

One central question in my mind that I think the Forge can help me with is how to reconciule strong concept with my desire for a Baroque, toolkit-style implementation. I enjoy and promote drift, but want the advanatges of a strong anchor or orthodoxy. The drift I want is one that is conscious, rather than inadvertant, and supported by my basic feelings regarding the essentially dynamic, consensus driven nature of gaming that I enjoy.

In that case, Malcolm, if you haven't already, I suggest looking at the inactive Scattershot Forum, as Fang was trying to design a game that could be deliberately Drifted in any direction.

And I assume you've already looked at Universalis, which certainly supports concious Drift.

[greyorm]

Come on, Rev.  Attacking someone and then agreeing to stop talking about the issue is bad net etiquette.

Is accusing someone of an ad hominem attack and name-calling when no such thing was done bad netiquette?

"I don't like you, but look I jumped behind the wall that says 'I'm done!' so you can't get me."  Take it to private email, PLEASE.  That last post was out of topic for my thread and doesn't belong here.

But Malcolm's statements (as above) belonged here?

I guess I'm completely at a loss here as to what your criteria for judging when someone is "attacking" is and what comprises "bad net etiquette"?

From your reaction, I'm guessing that saying, "No, that's not what I'm doing. Here's what I'm doing. Now, can we move past all this, or talk about the issues in the appropriate thread?" is an attack or wrong, but making accusations isn't. Or is it just responding to accusations that is wrong?

I ask as I simply don't understand your criteria for making the call, Johnathan.

Is it that we have moved, as a site, into the grim and gloomy territory where "not liking how someone has behaved" is a crime, and frowned upon for being a terrible thing? (and thus must never, ever be talked about publically)

I think that is a rather important question to answer in terms of our community, and interactions here. Do we want intellectual honesty, where polite disagreements and actual feelings are allowed*, or do we want bunny hugs and rainbow kisses for everyone, so nobody ever feels bad no matter what they do?

While that's a little over-the-top, I think this also might be fairly important to understanding "what went wrong" in the recent White Wolf threads, in that I think there were assumptions coming from both sides of that equasion about "what I accept as valid interaction with me, with you" that caused communication problems and hostility.

* And you'll note I did say I was willing to admit and talk about the defensibility and nature of some of my statements towards Malcolm in previous threads. I'm even willing to apologize, but no discourse has happened along those lines, yet.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey!

Knock off the freakin' dialogue and defense! If you said your piece, let it sit for posterity, don't hash it out in terms of individual reactions and interpretations.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Ron,

I asked purely because honestly "I don't get it" -- not because I'm being defensive, or at least I'm not trying to be -- and to raise a point for consideration there at the end, along those lines.

[Ron Edwards]

Raven, the first half of your post is a quote-based response that is basically a retort. The last half is lost. Read it over and I hope you can see that.

If you would write these things out first, then go back and figure out what is postable, you'd be saving me a huge pain in the ass, and keep the thread itself from prompting defensive replies. You are too damn fast on the typing trigger.

And finally, I do not have time to deal with moderation of this sort, especially for such a marginal thread topic ("how I feel") to begin with. I'm letting it continue on the barest hope that someone might post something else thoughtful, which has happened now a couple of times - just enough.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Alright, where you see a retort, I don't...or didn't. I do see how it could be taken as such and encourage defensiveness, so, point taken. Please, everyone, strip out the specific quotes and the specific responses to them; the rest is the meat of the post.

[Jonathan Walton]

I think there were assumptions coming from both sides of that equation about "what I accept as valid interaction with me, with you" that caused communication problems and hostility.

That's it exactly.  What began as criticism got taken as a "baseless attack" by both sides.  Then there were angry demands that people back up their "baseless" claims, which both parties were (understandably) not really motivated by, and then came the accusations that questions were being intentionally ignored.  Once everyone switched into defensive mode, I don't think there were any real attempts to save things from degenerating, except for an occasional comment by John Kim or someone else who wasn't deeply involved in the spat.

Honestly, though, I'm not sure what we can do about people having different standards for valid interaction.  I mean, everyone who comes to the Forge probably has those.  The Forge itself (as enforced by Ron) generally has pretty decent standards for what it considers to be acceptable interaction.  I happened to strongly disagree with Ron on this one, but we've already discussed that privately.  

I'd suggest that people not be so quick to jump to the defensive, especially with posters who you haven't really built up a relationship with.  It's quite possible that either A) they haven't yet been socialized to the discussion style of this community, or B) they didn't mean their comment as an attack, but you're led to read it that way.  Get a clarification before assuming.  Say, "Gee, Malcolm, it sounds like you're making blanket statements about all indie RPGs that I find to be insulting, especially when I've specifically designed Archon Space Hunter Zenon to appeal to newbie gamers.  Are you saying that indie RPGs CAN'T appeal to newbies, or just that most published indie games are for a more experienced audience?"

[Callan S.]

Hiya Jonathan,

Looking past the industry credentials which a poster might have (which I think is a good idea to do most of the time), and just seeing them as a poster; If you think that every poster who turns up to an open forum will be able to contribute to you, your putting yourself in a poor position.

I first encountered it in the palladium forums. That's where I learned that basically by imitating certain arguement methods I could argue both sides of a discussion fairly easily. And that if I were to do so, I would get a lot of posting attention back, which would reinforce my methods of arguement. Indeed, people who argue this way like to see themselves as stirrers of debate and provoking thought. But ultimately these methods, as they can do both sides of an arguement, go on forever. Without any beneficial conclusion possible, there is no point to this stirring of debate/thought.

HOWEVER, what I think your running into here is the genuiness of forge posters who think it will lead to some conclusion and thus get into it. The heat rises because their used to working out some sort of conclusion before it gets that heated, rather than it getting to this point.

People are getting heated because they believe in the other posters ability to work with them to some conclusion. I've done this and will do this again myself. But being more cynical, I've realised I'm responsible to myself, once I see the signs, to disengage by a large or complete extent. I think people are listening too hard.