I just posted a thread relating to this in a different light over at RPGnet. See, I haven't witnessed any more negativity at The Forge over the last few years than I have at any other online community. The amount of ire that The Forge draws very much confuses and (to a lesser extent) rattles me. What concerns me isn't the reputation of The Forge itself, but the fact that despite not having done anything to overtly deserve it, people tend to identify Forge members as overly hostile elitists. Why is that?

jdrakeh wrote: I just posted a thread relating to this in a different light over at RPGnet. See, I haven't witnessed any more negativity at The Forge over the last few years than I have at any other online community. The amount of ire that The Forge draws very much confuses and (to a lesser extent) rattles me. What concerns me isn't the reputation of The Forge itself, but the fact that despite not having done anything to overtly deserve it, people tend to identify Forge members as overly hostile elitists. Why is that?

Hiya,

All split.

I'm not really seeing a thread topic, jdrakeh. It's pretty clear that people are going to react to whatever in whatever way, depending on the people and the two whatevers. I'm not sure there's much else to be said about it.

But I could be wrong, so if you can identify a specific topic that we can discuss, which isn't limited to speculating about what's going on in others' heads, then go for it.

And folks? C'mon: no speculating about what's going on in others' heads, please.

Best,
Ron

Hi folks,

People like or dislike things for whatever reasons, sometimes good, sometimes not. But ultimately the hostility has very little to do with the Forge itself, and more to do with folks vying for ego dominance by showing how much "better" they are than someone else by parading their opinion and throwing out personal attacks.

And this happens on both sides, whether for or against the Forge.

You'll find that this happens also for D20, Savage Worlds, White Wolf, metaplot, or anything else that happens to be in vogue as the hot button opinion topic of the day.

Chris

Ron Edwards wrote:
C'mon: no speculating about what's going on in others' heads, please.

jdrakeh wrote: Several of the behaviors that the more rational detractors complain of Forge posters exhibiting are, in fact, behaviors that I've noticed myself exhibitng to one degree or another (lately, I've been making an effort to curb those behaviors).

Mark Johnson wrote:
Such as? I would read the original thread a bit more closely, but at 17 pages, it was a bit much to take in one sitting.

Hi folks,

Some major things to think about when posting anything(anywhere, not just rpg.net) are:

-Are you providing NEW(not previously posted in this thread) information to the discussion?
-Are you repeating yourself?
-Are you defending the Forge(or anything)? If so, why? Against whom? What can they really do?

Where people usually get caught up is the folks who I call chameleon trolls. They ask questions that are reasonable enough, or polite enough, but they never seem to acknowledge anything you've posted. In fact, the pattern is that you stretch further and further to meet them halfway, and before you know it, you're way off balance and arguing about something that has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

Eventually, frustration builds, because you keep thinking that the person is open or aware enough to actually have a discussion, when in fact, they have already made up their minds and no discussion is occuring. After some point, someone, gets angry, and gets personal. Then it goes to all hell.

Regarding these particular people, it is both true that they "don't get it" and are "being jerks"... but it has nothing to do with GNS, director stance, or whatever folks happen to be arguing about. What it is that they don't get is the rules for reasonable conversation, that you have to acknowledge and respond to points, not simply moving the target or setting up strawmen arguments.

And of course, though those statements are true, each one posted adds up to a case of "evidence" that you(now collectively the Forge) believe that they(actually these couple of persons, but perceived as all of everyone who isn't the Forge) are stupid ignorant fools.

So, the answer? Confucious said, "If I show you one corner to a square and you can't find the other three, then I can't talk to you." Say what you have to say, and do not argue. Do not bother even acknowledging anyone who isn't giving reasonable discussion. This isn't elitism, the goal isn't to win converts, but instead to provide clear information so that people can make educated decisions for themselves as to what they like, dislike, agree or disagree with.

And if anyone says the message, "Look for yourself, decide for yourself, think for yourself" is elitist, then they're telling you something about themselves.

Chris

jdrakeh wrote: Of course, I could be way off-base here. I've had a fairly emotional past several months, and the mental wear and tear could just be taking its toll. I openly concede that this could be the case, though it wouldn't explain other people noticing these same thing ;)

Mark Johnson wrote:
James, I have never, ever seen anything that you posted that seemed either arrogant or faux intellectual. I am really surprised that you would think that of yourself.

Alas, the biggest problem that these misconceptions about the Forge has is that it could be depriving designers of a great resource and tool.

jdrakeh wrote: Also, I meant to add to the thread that already existed (as it specifically addressed the issue of anger directed at The Forge by outsiders and what Forge members thought of it and could do to remedy it). Really, despite no recent posts being made to that thread, I don't think that my reply needed to be split off.

Walt Freitag wrote:
Just wanted to point out that such splits are standard Forge procedure when the rule against posting to old threads is inadvertently broken. If a thread has "no recent posts" (has fallen off the first page) and you wish to resume discussion on that topic, start a new thread and include a link to the old one. For more details see the Forge Etiquette thread. The splitting had nothing to do with the old thread's or the new thread's subject matter.

Chris a.k.a. Bankuei wrote: Confucious said, "If I show you one corner to a square and you can't find the other three, then I can't talk to you."

What concerns me isn't the reputation of The Forge itself, but the fact that despite not having done anything to overtly deserve it, people tend to identify Forge members as overly hostile elitists. Why is that?

One very likely reason why this site is perceived as elitist is that it sets itself up to be elitist. A lot of the discussions here, especially when delving into theory, sound like the sort of twaddle that you hear college professors spouting. In case anybody missed it, that was intended to be offensive, because I'm trying to get your attention.

Discussions here tend to use a lot of jargon. Jargon is useful for lending precision to discussions among people who are well versed in a field. It also creates a gigantic wall that separates those on the inside from those on the outside. Every time you use the forge specific jargon in your discussions you are sending a message to newcomers that you're in insider and they aren't. It says that they really aren't ready to participate in the discussion.

Taking that into account, it's hardly suprising that people look at this board as a hive of elitist snobs. With some of our discussions we're letting them know that we most definitely are. It isn't necessarily bad. One of the common threads around this site is that it's a good idea to read for a while before asking questions that have already been answered, and to get an idea of how to go about asking the question. But that is definitely setting this site apart from most of the rest of the net, which is pretty much the definition of elitist.

If you want to tone it down, stop using jargon. Smash your thumb with a hammer every time the phrase "Director Stance" comes out of your keyboard. Pull out a lock of hair every time the word "Gamism" comes up. If you can't do that, accept that fact that this place is elitist, and do your best to usher the newcomer into our midst as gracefully as possible.

I have to say Clay...phooey. I don't disagree that there are those who would agree with your statement...in fact, you are probably quite accurate in saying that they do. But IMO thats a bunch of nonsense.

Jargon does not elitism make.

If I make a concious effort to avoid ever saying "Director Stance"...what should I say? Should I have to write 3 paragraphs of stuff to convey the same meaning that simply saying "Director Stance" would convey?

And if someone wanted to discuss the point with me would they have to keep saying "that thing you were talking about up above" because there wouldn't be a word to refer to it by?

Ridiculous, IMO.


Jargon only appears elitist to those individuals who are bound and determined to believe that roleplaying is just a form of pure entertainment for which there is no need and no advantage to analysing it. The "its just a silly game we're playing. Quit trying to intellectualize it" crowd.

How would people discuss literature without words like Theme, Plot, Protagonist, Antagonist, Foil, Stream of Conciousness, Sub Text, Dialog, Moral, etc etc? Are these not all "jargon". Sure they are. They just happen to be jargon most of us were familiarized with in various Lit classes.

Does not the world of painting have its jargon? Do not folks converse about Opera and Chamber Music using loads of esoteric jargon...most of it in a wierd combination of French and Italian with some Latin thrown in for good measure?

If painting, and music, and literature all have their jargons used to discuss, dissect, critique, and appreciate them...why not RPGs? Because RPG's are just a silly game and not art? Hogwash says I.

Is our Jargon on the Forge as nice, neat, structured, and understood as the Jargon of painting, music, and literature? Of course not. Why? Because we've been working on it for all of 3 years here and a few years more from other sources and the other arts have had centuries to develop standard terminology.

Given that, I personally find it ridiculous for people to complain about the uncertain and shifting nature of the jargon. From a certain perspective its flattering that they assume that we few folks here should be able to invent a perfect lexicon to explore an understudied art form nearly instantaneously...we'd have to all be geniuses to pull that off. But mostly its just flat out annoying. It demonstrates how little thought most folks put into their roleplaying if they can think for a minute that creating a language to discuss it is a quick and easy task.

So no, using Jargon is not a mark of elitism. Unless elitism is somehow misconstrued to include any effort to understand any subject at a level deeper than the superficial.

Valamir wrote: Unless elitism is somehow misconstrued to include any effort to understand any subject at a level deeper than the superficial.

Actually, the cry of elitism in regards to the jargon comes from a misunderstanding that some discussion here is still about RPGs.

RPGs have their own jargon, too. Character sheet, d10, module, system, etc. Some people come here well versed in the jargon of this subculture/activity and expect to fit in immediate. But We don't discuss RPGs here. Not always. We discuss RPG theory, which is a related but not congruant subculture/activity. It is a different thing with a different set of jargon which must be learned. Some people just don't get it.

Clay wrote:
If you want to tone it down, stop using jargon.

I think I found a raw spot for a few people. Good, it worked.

Sean, "sticking to ten cent words" is exactly the approach that I would recommend for avoiding the elitist label, if its one you don't like. You'll note though that I didn't say it was necessarily bad. It does set this site apart from other gaming sites. That's good, it needs to be a place that's different. If it wasn't, RPG.net would be sufficient for everybody's needs.

Your statement about people being able to see through posters who throw a lot of excess jargon into their writing is dead on. It's what I called twaddle. Those of you who are college professors can probably recognize that look of confusion that your students get when you let slip a piece of jargon in the classroom that might be more appropriate to a scholarly journal. "Virtual Table" was the word that did it for me; I had a class full of glazed faces, and I'll bet most of you here who don't write in C++ were a little lost too. You certainly don't know revision control or build systems from Adam.

If you're having this discussion at all, it's a sign that you're a little insecure about the language we use. I personally don't care about the jargon, I just tend to step around the conversation since the jargon usually indicates a subject I'm not interested in discussing. But if I managed to hit a sore point, maybe you should ask yourself why you were bothered. I can't answer it for you; the answer is very personal and all about you.

I understand you guys are jointly creating a GNS glossary. That would actually help immensely. As someone who posts primarily on rpg.net I can say that personally I find it immensely frustrating to have those advocating GNS using frequently wholly inconsistent definitions of the most basic terms.

That sounds aggressive, but is genuinely not meant that way. The typical GNS thread on rpg.net in my experience goes as follows:

Someone raises a GNS related query
A GNS interested (advocate is too strong here) person replies
A anti-GNS person replies, often aggressively and in a trollish fashion
More pro and anti-GNS people join the thread.

And here's where it breaks down. The pro-GNS people aren't remotely consistent in how they apply the terminology. I recently asked on rpg.net if it was still true that GNS was considered only to be useful to a group if they were having problems in actual play, which I remember was a thought once voiced. I got several conflicting answers each from self-described Forge posters who were into GNS. I have no idea what the actual current view is, my strong impression was that there is in fact no agreement on something that basic.

Someone else queried the effect of Force on Narrativist play. In the space of the same thread we got multiple different explanations from self-described Forge posters who apparently found GNS a useful communicative tool, but who profoundly disagreed with each other. In some cases the most ardent seemed to be disagreeing with the actual text of Ron's essays. Is Force relevant to or conflicting with narrativist play? Again, I have no idea after that thread.

And that is a key problem you guys have. You use these words, but when you collectively try to explain them to outsiders you contradict each other. Hardly surprising given that almost anyone can describe themselves as a Forge poster and GNS advocate of course, regardless of how current they are with the debate.

A glossary would really help. My honest impression from those recent rpg.net threads was, to put it bluntly, that as a forum you have no consistent definitions and simply don't know what it is that you're actually talking about. I doubt that's fair or entirely true, but if simple queries like those can't be answered by experienced Forge posters then it's hardly surprising people dismiss you.

So, back to my notional thread. We now have three or four conflicting definitions of every term under debate. Quotes are dragged up by both sides, pro and anti, that seem to support every position taken and all seem to be equally valid. The poster who isn't already interested not unreasonably looks at the resulting mess and writes of GNS as pseudo-intellectualist jargon for its own sake, devoid of meaning.

Again, this is not a slam. I'm not saying (not even by inference) that it is jargon for its own sake. But I'm actually interested and reading only the Forge names I recognised in the thread it was still evident to me that you were not consistent with each other. A glossary would address that and help show that there is actually a real discussion ocurring, not simply jargon which shifts meaning whenever you need it to in order to rebut an opponent's post.

As for elitism, some of you IMO are, some aren't. I don't think this is an elitist forum in the derogatory sense. Posts like MJ's though (sorry MJ) I think could easily be viewed that way, a law degree hardly requires vast brilliance I assure you and the fact one is a qualified lawyer in no way implies anything much other than some ability with language and an aptitude for not falling asleep when reading very dull texts.

Valamir wrote: Given that, I personally find it ridiculous for people to complain about the uncertain and shifting nature of the jargon. From a certain perspective its flattering that they assume that we few folks here should be able to invent a perfect lexicon to explore an understudied art form nearly instantaneously...we'd have to all be geniuses to pull that off. But mostly its just flat out annoying. It demonstrates how little thought most folks put into their roleplaying if they can think for a minute that creating a language to discuss it is a quick and easy task.

jdrakeh wrote: Of course, I could be way off-base here. I've had a fairly emotional past several months, and the mental wear and tear could just be taking its toll. I openly concede that this could be the case, though it wouldn't explain other people noticing these same thing ;)

Valamir, if it shifts so much that multiple posters give flatly contradictory definitions you have a problem.

Ralph,

My problem with changing terminologies is that they are used all too often to argue that the user doesn't understand the issue. If you don't believe me, I can point to a case of this like last week (RPG.net) wherein the person who told me I was misuisng a word had used the word the same way I did (and in a perfectly understandable way too, I think) a few weeks earlier. That's a problem.

Now, it may be that the person using the term doesn't understand it--but when I can use 'deprotagonized' for a month with Mike Holems and can be told by the guy who coined the term that I'm using it wrong that's a problem.

The Force issue came up on RPG.net by someone who's very well versed in GNS and posts here a lot.

Look--I don't think there's any kind of *conspiracy* to dodge around terms. But I think it happens all too often and because there is no self policing when someone who is a long-time poster bends a term or makes what might be a shaky argument, one can read these threads and come away with the idea that terms mean things substantially different than what they "do."

I think this happened in the Virtual Reality Ouja Boards thread with John Kim's post about the Revised Beeg Horseshoe--I hadn't studied the revised version, but the glossary says it's contraversial--the responses he got (which I read) didn't enlighten me as to what the contraversy was.

But I think John was posting in good faith--if he did make a huge glaring error the problem doesn't likely lie with his intelligence (which, I think, is not open to question) or his reading comprehension (which, I should think, is pretty well established by now).

I'd consider that the problem is in the way that concepts are argued and defended here.

-Marco

Ralph,

If anyone had said that the concept was still in development that would have helped. But think about it from the perspective of an outsider for a moment.

A simple question was asked. No consistent answer was received. If that was your first exposure to GNS would your first thought be:

A. Wow, there is plainly a lot to think about here, I should explore it further; or

B. Wow, these guys can't even agree with each other. I'll come back once they make up their minds what they're talking about.

B is not being unintellectual, it is a rational response. If one starts from the assumption that GNS is valid, as you do, then lack of agreement shows that a dynamic discussion is ongoing. If one does not start from that assumption then a less kind interpretation suggests itself. If on that thread you had posted what you have here the whole thing would have been a lot clearer.

The internet is full of all kinds of errant nonsense, a rational viewer screens out stuff that appears to be nonsense unless given reason to the contrary. If you want to communicate the theory on rpg.net to rational viewers* it would help not to make it appear to be nonsense by posting stuff as absolute fact when it is just opinion.

I would note in passing by the way, that I have never asked for proof of an absence of groupthink or cult of Ron. Anyone who asks for stuff in those kind of terms will likely not be satisfied with any answer you respond with.

*Viewer actually, I think he still posts there.

Just to add, you may not care that outsiders think that parts of the theory which are works in progress are nonsense, I honestly think that is fine but if that approach is taken you also shouldn't blame people when they do think that. The answer is not to talk about those bits externally until they are in better shape or to provide big stonking health warnings with any discussion you do enter into.

wrote: uote>Marco"I'd consider that the problem is in the way that concepts are argued and defended here.

I'm well aware that you consider it a problem, Marco. But unless you are prepared to also develop the solution to that problem and outline in some detail the magic formula that will make that problem go away...one that doesn't involve volunteering others to do even more volumes of unpaid work...then your repeating this point ad naseum is decidedly unhelpful.

Pointing out solutions is welcome.

Harping on problems is just irritating.

Despite our commitment to the Forge and what we're trying to do here we all have lives, jobs, families, and other assorted miscellainy that for many of us includes actually running a game business. If my full time, fully compensated career, was developing the GNS theory...I'd be alot more sympathetic to complaints about its inadequacies.

If you see something that you think should be a priority for us...like say beating the theory into shape so that the casual reader immediately "gets it" with little effort or frustration...hey great. Welcome aboard and I look forward to reading the first draft of your attempt.

<

quot;Balbinus wrote: A. Wow, there is plainly a lot to think about here, I should explore it further; or

B. Wow, these guys can't even agree with each other. I'll come back once they make up their minds what they're talking about.

B is not being unintellectual, it is a rational response.

Ralph,

I did my best--it wasn't successful (Ron had my essay. Contra thought it looked promising, IIRC--but it ultimately didn't make it).

However: I do have a suggestion.

Don't argue that people who've studied the theory "don't understand it"--instead approach those arguments from the perspective that either the material may engender misunderstandings or even legitimate disagreements since, despite a lot of analogies, it isn't Information Technology and it isn't physics.

I would also say that some things that are taken as faith here are more like matters of opinion (or at least presently unprovable due to lack of either a methodology for testing or a sample-size large enough). Taking that approach would help too IMO.

-Marco

The Force issue came up on RPG.net by someone who's very well versed in GNS and posts here a lot.

Hi Raven,

Well, for what it's worth: I'm glad you don't ascribe cult-speak to me.

On the other hand, I think that "Nar is defined by Force" as a practical matter has a lot of value. In other words, while it may not be the way to conventionally define Narrativist play, I don't necessiarily think it's a red herring at all. For someone trying to get to Nar play or by trying to differentiate between what they're doing now and what might be Nar play it's a very key question.

-Marco

Marco, response to the Nar/Force issue in the appropriately named Narrativism & Force thread over in GNS Model Discussion.

Valamir wrote: I don't have a problem with choice B. Actually I think there are a heck of alot of people over at RPG.net that simply need to select choice B and leave it alone.

What I do have a problem with is choice C.


C. Wow, here's something I don't understand at all, aren't willing to put in the effort required to figure it out, and they haven't gone out of their way to make it any easier...so I think I'll just crap all over it for kicks.


To "A" types I say, "Fantastic, welcome, I look forward to sharing ideas and learning from your contributions"

To "B" types I say, "Fantastic, I have no idea when our work will progress to a point where its ready-for-prime-time, but when it does I hope you'll check it out and find it was worth the wait".

To "C" types I say "go fuck yourself, asshole"...or more accurately, I try very hard not to say that...

greyorm wrote: Marco, response to the Nar/Force issue in the appropriately named Narrativism & Force thread over in GNS Model Discussion.

greyorm wrote:

[Snippage]

E used "Force" in it's broad and unofficial context to inform his argument. Yet, people from the Forge end up stuck with blame for the arguments made on his part and (mis?)use of a term that helped confused the issue?
In fact, examining the thread right now, Ralph is the only Forger to deal with the Force issue, all other points about it are brought up by CPXB and E -- non-Forgers -- and I pled ignorance as to the claimed dependence of Narrativism upon Force.

Yet you both are saying, "multiple Forgers made different arguments about what Force is to Nar." What I'm seeing is an argument against "what GNS advocates do" based on events skewed from their actuality to back up the criticism. Statements made about that situation in particular seem to stem from a case of selective memory regarding the contents of and participants in the thread in question. Honestly, I tend to believe that this happens quite a bit regarding criticisms of particular events, practices, and behaviors on the Forge.

[Snippage]

Oh, and hey, we now have two critical arguments: either we're a mindless bunch of group-thinking cultists, or a completely fractious group of independent thinkers with no core agreement. Look! It's impossible to win! (Ok, seperate issue, and I'm not accusing you two of the cult-think bit. Just venting.)

I miss a day, and things explode.

Clay wrote: Every time you use the forge specific jargon in your discussions you are sending a message to newcomers that you're in insider and they aren't. It says that they really aren't ready to participate in the discussion.

Max wrote: Posts like MJ's though (sorry MJ) I think could easily be viewed that way, a law degree hardly requires vast brilliance I assure you and the fact one is a qualified lawyer in no way implies anything much other than some ability with language and an aptitude for not falling asleep when reading very dull texts.

Max,

E's quoting the essay has nothing to do with my criticism in this thread -- it was directed specifically at the situation of "this is what happened" when such didn't happen quite that way. However, my intent isn't to is/isn't this specific example, nor is it about your point regarding the inconsistency of usage that does happen. My intent was simply to point out a common flaw I see in much of the criticism directed towards the Forge.

You want us to "deal" -- yeah, we can -- I would expect nothing less than the same from the critics, then, as well. As I said, there are valid points raised, but there are also blind spots in those points, much as you point out there are in our own arguments.

As to the cult/agreement accusation, as I said, I was venting, not accusing you specifically of labeling the Forge either way.

M. J. Young wrote: ...exclusionary and elitist aren't exactly synonymous...If I don't want to take the time to understand their terminology...then it is not terribly reasonable for me to expect them to take the time to explain it to me.

If you have a WRT54G, here's what you can use it for after less than an hour's work. You get all the original Linksys functions plus SSH, Wonder Shaper, L7 regexp iptables filtering, frottle, parprouted, the latest Busybox utilities, several custom modifications to DHCP and dnsmasq, a PPTP server, static DHCP address mapping, OSPF routing, external logging, as well as support for client, ad hoc, AP, and WDS wireless modes.

As it stands, if you don't understand a term here at The Forge, people are willing to attempt to explain it to you, to clarify it, and to point you to places where it has been discussed, defined, and/or explained before. That's hardly elitist; it's barely even exclusionary.

greyorm wrote: I think the real criticism is perhaps that people believe* they know what the theory is saying, and feel that any "help" they are given upon disagreement is an insult, a way of saying, "You don't understand the theory" and they feel written off. So the blame for this event is placed on the use of a theory-specific vocabulary, because it is perceived that everything would be clearer without all those terms clouding the issue, that it would be immediately accessible to everyone (perhaps based on the belief that it should be).

I suppose sometimes you take a long hard look at your participation in a topic of discussion and you wince. You wince hard because although what you said was true or at least an honest opinion, you realise that you have missed the point.

The whole thread offends me. That is not to say that ANY individual who has participated in the thread offends me or the person who started it offends me. Yet the thread itself does. Now I could and perhaps should just walk away since its still a free Cyber-Space afterall. Unfortunately I never walk away. I don't want the last word, hell I never had the last word in my life. What I do want is this thread to end and I am going to try and end it. Notice I said the thread, not the argument. You see the argument never really ends. When people feel that sacred cows have been butchered and eaten they feel threatened and when they feel threatened they lash out. Its a never ending cycle especially because our Hobby, Industry, Interest is chock full of sacred cows. The Forge as a whole and individual posters have threatened to butcher and devour those cows. So people feel threatened.

The Forge is a well moderated gaming Forum, the best moderated forum I have ever personally come across. Thats strictly one opinion. It does not imply perfection. Yet its not free. You do have to pay dues to be here, believe it or not. Two dues in fact:

1. You have to think
2. You have to be polite

People have a very hard time paying those dues sometimes. Nowhere does it say you have to Grok... (thats Jargon for Understand) everything or anything anyone a the Forge says, let alone Agree. You just have to think and be polite. Lets face it, we are a My Team society. Humans are in general. They affiliate themselves with a team or a party or an actor or a music group and they stick hard to it. Sacred Cows. Perfectly intelligent and kind individuals (of all faiths, genders, races, and sexual persuasions) become psychotic lunatics or patronizing (matronizing?) and condescending elitists when some one gets too close to their Sacred Cow. Thus we have this thread.

The people at the Forge are jerks and won't let me play. No one likes you guys so tell me, why. Why does no one like you?

Why do I have to defend my participation in this forum? Why do I have to defend occasionally agreeing with a man, Ron Edwards, on matters of Role Playing Games and the people who play them? Do you pay my bills? When it comes to some people who bill themselves as Industry insiders, workers, and whatnot, I may have payed your bills by buying your games. Some of them good and some of them not so good. Yet still I have to defend my position of participating in intellectal discourse simply because I am here. Needless to say I resent that, quite a bit.

No one has to defend why he or she participates in the Forge. On the other hand, no one has to defend, to me, why he or she doesn't. Evolution takes different paths and it may be that the Forge and G/N/S go the way of the Neanderthal and die out. It may be that Role Playing, as a hobby or industry or interest, evolves along even more paths that none of us can possibly see.

All this of course ignores that fact that in the case of most people, those who participate in the Forge and those who do not. really only want to see the hobby/industry evolve and do better. Almost all of us want that. If the hobby grows, we all benefit. Still even that is not enough for us to look beyond our own Sacred Cows.

So I Ask: What is the point of this thread? How many more times do we have to hear the same argument, which boils down to nothing more then opinion and innuendo of the worst sort. No one is going to love the Forge less or more. No one is going to make a better RPG and no one is going to back off from their point of view. So pointless that it seems to me to be counter-intellectual and counter-productive.

But if you must have an answer I will give you a frank one: There are asswholes here at the Forge just like there are assholes everywhere. If you feel unwelcome here, then if I were you I would take a long hard look
at myself before casting aspersions at the Forge or anyone in it.

If you don't, eh it's all good. Sacred Cows come first sometimes...


Sean

M. J. Young wrote:
Interestingly, when I was in law school, in the context of electing members to the student bar association I commented that I thought law school students were of above average intelligence in the main, and one of my fellow students objected and by her example persuaded me otherwise. The fact that to be there she had to complete college and take a post-graduate exam, and so persuade someone that she was smart enough to succeed in law school did not seem in her mind to overcome the fact that there are some very smart people in the world who don't get to go to college.

I agree with Max here entirely. I don't think you can infer supperior intelligence from someone being a law student. From the lawyers I've spoken to it seems like work-rate and willingness to rote learn have more to do with being a lawyer than analytical abbility. Indeed, being a university graduate's not that much of an indicator anymore seeing as an MA is worth what a BA was 15 years ago and expert-level is now PhD rather than MA.


I think that inferring that the people at the Forge are smarter than other people is most likely WHY threads such as this exist.

Being a member of the Forge requires a certain level of intellectual commitment to the goals of the forge and that's about it. I have 2 post-graduate degrees and am working on a doctorate and while I'm sure I'm intelligent enough to understand the GNS writings but as to whether or not I'm willing to sit here and read through all of the threads and articles... well that's another matter entirely.

I'm intelligent enough to read the philosophy of Lacan but that doesn't mean I want to :-)

So in my opinion, all you can infer from someone being a forgite is that they were motivated enough to become one.

MR. Analytical wrote: So in my opinion, all you can infer from someone being a forgite is that they were motivated enough to become one.

Now we have come to point where we are discussing how being educated does not make you smart. Ok what does this have to do with hubris and elitism.

Hubris
Jargon
Elitism
Jargon

and all the rest exist on every single board that I am personally aware of. The Forge is not different in that vein. I don't speak in Jargon and I contribute just fine. As Ron is fond of saying (well everyone is fond of saying now) its a Red Herring.

Again, take a look at yourself and your agenda. Why are you here? If this forum makes you uncomfortable then why are you here? Why is it necassary to disparage the entire community here because you are making your rightful choice not to participate. Don't like G-N-S? Ignore it. Its easily done.

Again I will say that no one here should have to defend their intelligence or their right to be here and participate to anyone. Its an open and well moderated Forum and the door swings both ways.



Sean

ADGBoss,

I'm really not trying to attack people's intelligence, in fact I expressly recognise that I think MJ Young is a smart guy in my post, but I think it was relevant.

I was talking about why the Forge might be perceived as elitist, which is the subject in part of this thread. MJ's post provided a useful example of one way in which I think that perception may arise, which is why the education/intelligence thing was I think relevant. Any assertion that this is an elite place because people here is smarter is I think an error which will get in the way of dissemination of your ideas, that is why it matters and is worth discussing. If you read through the relevant posts I think each is tied to the topic of perceptions of Forge elitism fairly clearly.

I'm not sure if the why are you here is directed generally or to me and Mr Analytical. If to me, I honestly don't think I have disparaged the community, I said you had much to be proud of and I have recommended more than one person on rpg.net to come here.

As for elitism and jargon being everywhere, obviously true. But despite that truth not everywhere is accused of elitism or using unnecessary jargon. The Forge sometimes is and why that is so is the subject of this thread. If you should care is I think another question, my answer would probably be no but if any of you do exploring how those perceptions may arise does seem to me of some value.

ADGBoss wrote: Why do I have to defend my participation in this forum? Why do I have to defend occasionally agreeing with a man, Ron Edwards, on matters of Role Playing Games and the people who play them? Do you pay my bills? When it comes to some people who bill themselves as Industry insiders, workers, and whatnot, I may have payed your bills by buying your games. Some of them good and some of them not so good. Yet still I have to defend my position of participating in intellectal discourse simply because I am here. Needless to say I resent that, quite a bit.

Man, it's amazing. One little wiz in the pool, and look at the trouble I stirred up.

The ferocity of this argument suggests to me that sitting back, drinking a beer, and thinking more about planning your next session or your next product release might be a good idea. I'm nobody. I'm an insignificant drop in the pool. I shouldn't be able to do this to you.

Beer is good. Beer is your friend. Drink one and play with the cat/dog, and remember that there are more important things in life than whether or not you're a pretentious git. Like beer and the dog and your next product release.

Sigh ... everyone has made extra-wonderful points, and it's time, folks, to call it quits.

Yeah, this is a heavy-handed moderator post, a really nasty one in fact. I know that. But c'mon - it really is time. You'll thank me for this later.

Best,
Ron

Apologies, all. Not having posted here in quite a while, I didn't realize how touchy this subject was. My intent wasn't to ruffle feathers, and again, I apologize if that's how I came across. At any rate, despite some heated responses, I don't see a single viewpoint that isn't valid and in someway productive (god, I need to start posting here more often). At any rate, thanks (and again, sorry).

Oh, and Ron, please don't revoke my membership card and make me burn my robes ;)