God knows that people love to discuss their own discussion.  Rather than let opinions on the new guidelines leak into other, substantive, threads (or clutter up the guidelines post itself) I'm opening up a thread here and giving people special dispensation ... go ahead, have a ball, talk about how we talk, get it out of your system.  Then go back to talking about roleplaying and Capes in every other thread.  'kay?  I'll even field questions to me, personally, if people have any.

Sorry, my post mildly pointless, but I read your post on <a href=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20166.0>Substance and Rhetoric, Tony, and I have to say that it was very insightful and direct.

And that's what this thread is for, right?  =)

Thank you.

I'm playing a spirited game of "spot the rhetoric" in my older posts.  The results aren't encouraging.  Writing substance is hard.

I'm in complete agreement.  Hopefully I can be forgiven a "me too" post in this thread.

Glendower wrote:
I'm playing a spirited game of "spot the rhetoric" in my older posts.  The results aren't encouraging.  Writing substance is hard.

Is "rhetoric" one of those irregular verbs? Like:

I debate intelligently.
You use rhetoric.
He's a total git.

(Stolen and adapted from Yes Minister:
"It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I have an independent mind,
you are eccentric,
he is round the twist")

It will be informative to see how the moderator uses this new tool he has granted himself - and to further see if this becomes a tactic to allow the moderator to trump any who disagree with him.  Not that the Mod needs that kind of justification, he's the Mod and can do whatever he likes, but this may camouflage well what might be more blatant without it.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised with how he applies his definition of "rhetoric" vis-a-vis debates and argument he does not agree with.

Further food for thought: (this may seem to some as overly alarmist, I certainly hope it is, but I fear there is real potential need for concern.  Hopefully the need for this concern will not materialize,but if it does...)

Rhetoric is defined as:
[code]
1a The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
1b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
3b  Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.
[/code]

One assumes that the moderator is not taking a stand against "using language effectively and persuasively." as why would he want us to use language ineffectively?  And it goes without saying (almost) that any discussion of contrary viewpoints contains either implicitly or explicitly the goal of persuading the other chap to your viewpoint - one can't imagine that he wishes to outlaw *that*. 1b does not apply, 2 is covered above, 3a is vague, 4 is out of the question, which leaves 3b:

3b: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

Again, one would not imagine that he will be hunting down those who use elaborate language ("speak simpler" is not the campaign slogan of ANY who post here, heh heh), so I think I can safely discard that qualifier.  That leaves language that is pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous.

Each one of those is a potential gold mine for those who want to impose a gag rule on dissenters (unfortunately all too common in this day and age.)

Pretentious (showy, claiming or demanding a position of unjustified distinction or merit),  Insincere (according to who?), intellectually vacuous (again, according to who?) - all these adjectives are in the eye of the beholder. 

Examples: 
If someone claims I am being pretentious, I can counter claim with equal validity that the position or merit I claim is justified.
If someone claims I am being insincere, I can counter claim with more than equal weight that I am being sincere.
If someone claims my arguments are intellectually vacuous, I can counter claim with equal validity that they have not yet grasped the truth of what I am saying (due to bad communication on my part, a closed mind on their part, or many other reasons.)

In fact, one could make a strong case that labelling something as rhetoric in order to dismiss it, is itself a tool of rhetoric.

Communication here at this Capes forum is for discussing Capes and suchlike, obviously.  Any post that claims a fact should be invited to back that supposed fact up.  The readership should then be left to decide for themselves whether or not the proof has been offered as is complete.

Censoring posts on the basis that the moderator feels them to be pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous elevates the moderator to a position of absolute rectitude in fields where no such thing is possible. 

It boils down to this.  The mod has all the power.  Period.  If the mod wishes to censor for content, he will.  To say he is censoring for "rhetoric" may simply mean that he doesn't agree with the poster and that his disagreement is the more important that any other factor.

Please understand that I am only outlining the potential dangers of any tool used to censor.  I do not however feel that all conversation should be permitted with no boundaries.  Obviously, I am against personal attacks, having been personally attacked by many here including the moderator (IMO).  Furthermore, if the moderator seems a post he feels lacking in any kind of substance, he *should* challenge the poster.  But the grey area is where the poster claims that there is substance but the mod does not see it.  Are we to assume that in every case like this the mod must be right?

To take this back to the original post, Tony seems to implicitly define rhetoric as the parts of a post that are not substantive. In one example, he demonstrates how rhetoric (as defined as non-substantive) can be used to "lubricate" the discussion, toward a goal of aiding the substantive "piece".  He also goes on to give an example where nothing that "Zeke" says is deemed substantive - that all Zeke is saying boils down to rhetoric and is worthy of censorship.

The problem with this is, although the Zeke example may be clear, he may well be a straw man, and that in that in the real world, discussions on these forums have less clear results.  Example:  I post an argument or debate point I believe is essentially substantive.  The moderator disagrees.  Who is right?

Or could the above scenario never happen?  Especially when it seems to already, many times!! (IMO)

Result: If the mdoerator feels a post is lacking in substance, he is telling us he will act to remove, lock, or otherwise censor that post.

There are two ends of the spectrum of possible futures:

The moderator invokes this "rhetoric" rarely, asking people to provide the substance in any post he seems rhetoric issues in, and always acting with the understanding that the fact that he does see or "get" the substance does not mean it isn't there.
-or-
He invokes this rule freely and often, removing discussions from people he disagrees with as their arguments can't be substantive since he is right and they are wrong, and they have not shown him otherwise.  He becomes a kind of gatekeeper, only allowing discussions that he has approved the content of and not allowing any to have discussions on matters he feels are invalid since he has not yet been made to see (nor, perhaps, could he ever be made to see) their potential validity .

I hope for the former.  I suppose this post itself that I am writing right now will be a test, to see if these words themselves get tagged with the "rhetoric" label, even though I believe there are valid and important issues of potential censorship that need to be addressed.

If the moderator disagrees, then I may have proven my point in practice. ;)

Sindyr wrote:
Example:  I post an argument or debate point I believe is essentially substantive.  The moderator disagrees.  Who is right?

Tony,

You can use one of my posts, if you like.  I have a feeling I know which stuff is rhetoric and which stuff is substanitive but I don't mind being called out.

Andrew wrote:

I cannot but disagree with a statement that takes the form of
"playing only (any) one kind of character doesn't allow you to reach your maximum potential as a roleplayer".

Therein lies the problem.  It has nothing to do with whether the statement is true or false.  You simply cannot bring yourself to agree with it.  No one has given a logical, reasoned response that refutes the statement but you still can't agree with it.  It has nothing to do with the statement itself.  It has to do with what you are personally capable or incapable of doing.

I would agree with most that versatility is a plus for a gamer. Still, this is not the point.

And this is the rest of the problem.  You seem to think this is not the point.  But it is the point.  It is the point that Tony made and it is the point he defended.  The whole point was that all other things being equal, the versatile player is a better player than the inflexible one.

It's amazing the amount of emotional response this gets from people.  It gets reactions to all sorts of things that people think Tony said.  All sorts of strawmen get raised up and crucified on the alter of moral outrage.  I really wish we could be past people being all indignant over stuff that was never said of implied.

Thanks, Gaerik for joining in. I guess you will be of major contribution here, as it appears you have some conceptions in common with TonyLB. Of course, it's OK for me if someone wants to take part. I'd only say : I won't appreciate if someone I was never introduced to posts a full page right in the middle of between two one-liners without making sure beforehand that his/her remarks are of any interest to the presents. Else, anything from "sound of one hand clapping" to "Bloody ruffian ! Bite his eye, go for his eye !" will go. Why, if the threads stalls to a grinding halt, I could just as well go riding my bicycle in the nice summertime we've got here and live through it... So welcome, Gaerik. Only I guesss I will have to "his/her" all my posts now... But, no, really, you couldn't come in a better moment, Gaerik. But then again, I would like to carry on.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this... but lacking any real clue as to what you're talking about, I'll take it at face value and just say, "Your welcome."

Andrew wrote: You can use one of my posts, if you like.  I have a feeling I know which stuff is rhetoric and which stuff is substanitive but I don't mind being called out.

Yup.  That's about how I was reading it.

Sindyr wrote: It will be informative to see how the moderator uses this new tool he has granted himself - and to further see if this becomes a tactic to allow the moderator to trump any who disagree with him.

greyorm wrote:
Sindyr, you're a trolling idiot.

There, that's rhetoric and will be moderated. Hopefully the difference is clear to you now!

You're right, Tony. Better example would have been, "...you're just trolling."

Crap, hit "Post" too fast. Me bad.

Despite not meaning it, as it was an example, I should have also apologized to Sindyr for the personal attack. So: my apologies!

It think this boils down to just one thing:

"If you want your arguments to be taken seriously and discussed then abandon dogma and offer proofs"

If you have a point...make it...and back it up with evidence, because if you are called on it (and face it, on this forum, you will be) and have no substantial proofs to fall back on then the rhetoric police will be round to beat down that house of cards with their dogma batons...and in my opinion rightly so.

Theories are fine and should be discussed, but with an objective point of view & as much "evidence" as can be supplied by both sides, and not solely with entrenched dogmatic principles which has happened all to often in the past.

Well, having said my piece (which was more cautionary than actually alrmist), I am going to smile and move forward believing that essentially all things will be well and rhetoric rules will not censor or get in the way of posts which the poster believes are essentially substantive.  Should things turn out differently I can always come back to this thread to post observations to that effect.

Truly, I have a 'feeling' that all will be well and that in general, contrary or minority positions would not be labbelled as rhetoric if the poster uses good faith in his efforts to lay out his case.

Carry on. :)