tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post7553163639676263517..comments2024-03-29T20:04:30.755+08:00Comments on Monsters and Manuals: The Dice of a Summer: A Conservative Defence of Older D&DUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-10458109157790970952015-06-02T04:52:30.377+08:002015-06-02T04:52:30.377+08:00I don't think you have to be in a position of ...I don't think you have to be in a position of power to be a bully. All you need is keenness for humiliation and social aggression, and a degree of persistence that helps you turn normal conversations over a long period into opportunities for your various vendettas.<br /><br />The trick of this kind of bullying, as many people learned at school, is to do it at a low enough level so that no one can really be bothered to call you out on it. It's just "being mean" magnified by obsessional efficiency.<br /><br />A version for the internet, that is not possible in a school context, is instead of being remotely subtle about it, just push for a scene enough times that people must ignore it or join you as stubborn assholes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-18937378320101663372015-05-05T05:38:19.126+08:002015-05-05T05:38:19.126+08:00Yes, strongly agree. Particularly agree about trad...Yes, strongly agree. Particularly agree about traditions being evolved, rather than designed - one reason why the traditional ways tend to be the better ways is that they already gone through natural selection. But that's a rationalist justification; I equally agree about the value of valuing old things for their own sake.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-72280806082397136392015-05-04T20:54:10.565+08:002015-05-04T20:54:10.565+08:00Granted, it was a bit of a weird direction to take...Granted, it was a bit of a weird direction to take it in, but I got caught up a bit in noism's Romanto-Conservative swan-song, and I had those two books on my mind.<br /><br />The rationalist/romantic dialectic in modern culture IS one of those topics that I love to no end. I guess that's why i love William Gibson so much. One day, when I win the lottery and retire young, maybe I'll write a "Difference Engine" fanfic where Arthur Machen challenges Arthur Conan Doyle to a good old fashoned game of fisticuffs!Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16717291964764757651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-50878835786177528362015-05-04T03:20:24.606+08:002015-05-04T03:20:24.606+08:00My first comment insults nobody, your first commen...My first comment insults nobody, your first comment insults me. It's pretty clear-cut that you're the bad guy here.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-50507527339997993362015-05-04T03:12:22.730+08:002015-05-04T03:12:22.730+08:00"uncalled-for negative statements. "
Cit..."uncalled-for negative statements. "<br />Citation needed.<br /><br />If you thought that my first statements was "uncalled for" or "negative" then you say those words, not insult me in your first comment.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-73721181858162891432015-05-03T22:16:04.092+08:002015-05-03T22:16:04.092+08:00Dodging-the-question count: 7
It is pretty clear ...Dodging-the-question count: 7<br /><br />It is pretty clear at this point what happened. No, this is not 100% certain, but all of the evidence points in this direction:<br /><br />1. Zak, as he often does, went online and made uncalled-for negative statements. Note how his initial comment begins with imperious attitude and ends with an attack that is completely irrelevant to the topic of the post he's commenting on.<br /><br />2. When called out on this, he immediately adopted an abusive, imperious tone and began trying to draw attention away from his own bad behavior by attacking his critic. <b>If Zak's initial statement had been innocent, it would have been incredibly simple to just restate it and end the matter.</b> His consistent refusal to do so, even when given clear guidelines, strongly supports the conclusion that his protests of innocence are in fact lies, and that <b>Zak's aggressive response strategy is merely a bullying tactic that he regularly adopts to silence critics</b>.<br /><br />3. Note a consistent pattern: first he <i>demands</i> that people who disagree with him "assume good faith" and respond with nothing but "questions" (while hypocritcally refusing to follow his own rule!). Then, when presented with a clear and ridiculously thorough list of questions to address, <i>he ignores them</i>. <b>This is not the behavior of someone who debates in good faith.</b><br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, this thread is finished. It is plain that Zak's only purpose, from his very first comment on this post to the most recent, was to bully people for not agreeing with him.<br /><br />Perhaps, in his own heart, he truly believes that nobody could ever possibly misunderstand him except willfully and maliciously. In this case he is naive, and his lashing out with abuse is childish.<br /><br />Perhaps, in his own heart, he simply believes that he is always right, and that anyone who dares disagree must be a heathen who does not deserve the same treatment that he demands for himself. In this case, he is a bully and a hypocrite.<br /><br />Perhaps in his own heart he knows that he is wrong, that his writing is unclear, that he consistently says nasty things about others without any reason but to express his personal dislikes and try and make people feel bad, that <b>he never intended to sincerely debate a point or clarify issues</b>. In this case he's not only a bully and hypocrite, but a troll as well.<br /><br />In any case, this entire thread was me attempting to give him the chance to explain himself and earn back a little of the benefit-of-the-doubt that he has repeatedly squandered with this behavior. And my attempt at charity failed as he showed his ugly true colors yet again. C'est la vie.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-30625772504864562842015-05-03T17:59:56.511+08:002015-05-03T17:59:56.511+08:00"Could you please re-write your original stat..."Could you please re-write your original statement so that it communicates what you actually intended to say?"<br />I could for an intelligent, sane party acting in good faith if they asked. I am not convinced I need to just to talk to you, because you are evil or stupid or insane so you aren't "an intelligent, sane party acting in good faith".<br /><br />Here is evidence of that, it is a direct quote form you:<br /><br />"you consistently act like a bully "<br /><br />I do not, you are lying or mistaken. A bully exerts coercive force over victims, a bully has more power over the victim than vice versa. I have zero coercive power over you. All I do to you is what you do here: type. I have not compelled any action from you, nor harmed you in any way which you cannot harm me.<br /><br />The history of this thread is: I wrote a wholly accurate comment. You assumed bad faith and insulted me. You are the aggressor.<br /><br />So, because you lied and said I was acting like a bully or are so stupid or insane that you made the mistake of saying I was, you do not have the right to demand answers to questions.<br /><br />You may re-assume that right if you apologize and rescind all of your insulting statements.<br /><br />Until then you're just a random comment douche.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-77839718326766894292015-05-02T10:26:52.944+08:002015-05-02T10:26:52.944+08:00Anyway, you're not addressing the problem you ...Anyway, you're not addressing the problem you created.<br /><br />* Why do you refuse to take responsibility for making an unclear statement? The world is full of people making statements, and it is normally expected that others will grapple with those statements <i>as they are presented</i>, at which point <i>the original party</i> is responsible for catching and correcting any misunderstandings that they caused. <b>Why do you act like you deserve a special exception to the rules that everyone else has to follow?</b><br /><br />* Why, when your words were unclear enough that a reader did not interpret them in the way you intended, do you automatically <i>assume</i> that they are attacking you? If you feel that they are attacking you, then <i>by your own logic</i>, is it not your responsibility to <i>ask whether they intended an attack</i> before you start calling them "bad"? <b>If assumptions are bad, then aren't you bad for assuming the other person is making an attack?</b><br /><br />* Why, when your mistake was pointed out, did you then resort to repeated personal abuse instead of apologizing for unclear writing and attempting to restate your point? <b>If an innocent comment on your part was simply misunderstood, why do you feel the need to become so angrily aggressive about it?</b><br /><br />* In short, <b>why do you act like a bully</b> who believes that he alone is uniquely exempted from the normal rules of discussion and debate?<br /><br />* Why do you believe it's okay for you to give imperious commands? <i>What results are you expecting when you adopt that tone?</i> Is it really your goal to clear up a misunderstanding? Or are you simply lashing out at anybody who doesn't do things the way you want them to from the start?<br /><br />* When <b>you consistently act like a bully who lashes out at people for responding in normal ways to his own mistakes</b>, why would you be surprised that some people would stop giving you the benefit of the doubt about your motives?Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-55244633492942665462015-05-02T10:17:48.957+08:002015-05-02T10:17:48.957+08:00Dodging-the-question count: 6
For the record, jus...Dodging-the-question count: 6<br /><br />For the record, just in case anyone needs help, the question was "Could you please re-write your original statement so that it communicates what you actually intended to say?"<br /><br />Yes, it helps <i>a bit</i> to clarify that "old media" refers only to movies. No, that doesn't fully explain the original comment.<br /><br />"I like old D&D... because the community makes totally fucking new things compatible with it like Yoon-Suin rather than totally old totally [movie]-imitating things like _____ World games." To put it bluntly: <b>what is the actual assertion being made here</b>? If you don't want us to guess that you're just throwing out a negative-sounding comment about a game you don't like - <i>a practice we have been led to expect due to your past behavior</i> - then you have to make your actual purpose clear. In case you're having trouble expressing it, here are some key points to address:<br /><br />1. You seem to assert that Yoon-Suin and other products of “the community” are compatible with old D&D but not compatible with, say, Dungeon World.<br />1a. Do you mean to say that the Yoon-Suin <i>setting</i> is somehow incompatible with certain game systems? (In that case, you'll need to back up the assertion.)<br />1b. Do you mean to say that <i>mechanical elements</i> in Yoon-Suin demand a certain amount of GM work before they can be adapted to the _World system? (In that case, explain why this is different from the shift in rules between OD&D and those specific to Yoon-Suin.)<br />1c. Or are you referring to some other factor that makes Yooin-Suin, or a Dyson Logos map, or an <i>I'll see it when I believe it</i> (blog) module, or <i>any other</i> representative community product uniquely compatible with OD&D but incompatible with _World? (If so, please explain what it is and what makes it that way.)<br /><br />1.5. It is <i>possible</i>, given your unclear grammar, that instead of compatibility of products with OD&D vs. with _W, you instead are talking about the compatibility of _W with OD&D. IF this is the case, explain why the “compatibility” of a game system with another game system would be relevant at all.<br /><br />2. Are there <i>any other</i> aspects of _W, besides an intended two-hour session length, that are relevant to noisms' discussion of OD&D versus newer game systems? If so, can you explain what they are? In either case, can you explain how <i>any</i> of these aspects relate to the “compatibility” with community products you mentioned?<br /><br />3. Given that the implicit contrast in the original blog post was between OD&D and newer forms of D&D, why did you feel it necessary to single out _W as a contrasting system?<br /><br />4. What is the purpose of the confusing and repetitious phrasing “totally old totally old-media”? Are you trying to imply that _W is “totally old”? (If that's the case, you're contradicting yourself, since it's younger than OD&D.) Are you trying to imply that movies are “totally old totally”? (In that case, your grammar is bad and needs to be fixed. Also explain how the totally-old-ness of movies is being contrasted with the age of <i>books</i> as a medium.) If neither of these, then what <i>do</i> you mean?<br /><br />5. If by “old media” you only meant movies and not books (which would be logical, since you yourself cribbed ideas out of <i>Alice in Wonderland</i>, which is a book), then why use the vaguely pejorative term “old media” instead of a more neutral term like “cinematic” or “movies”?<br /><br />If you can keep those in mind and rephrase your original comment, then you may have finally stopped dodging the question and answered it properly.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-31959810225180320512015-05-02T01:37:45.017+08:002015-05-02T01:37:45.017+08:00Question's been answered:
"You are incorr...Question's been answered:<br />"You are incorrect, Confanity, and you didn't fact check.<br />____ World games explicitly imitate older media.<br />For example, if you ask one of the authors, Adam Koebel, he'll tell you Dungeon World was designed to imitate "pop fantasy" and other authors (including Vincent Baker, who did, Apocalpse World) will say that movies ( and their 2 hour story structure were often an explicit model for their games."<br /><br />Yoon Suin and the DIY D&D community that created doesn't exclusively do that.<br /><br />Anyway:<br /><br />You're not addressing the problem you created.<br /><br />Why did you attack instead of asking a question?<br /><br />Why, when your mistake was pointed out, did you then make another attack?Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-5141592662218693092015-05-01T22:12:58.370+08:002015-05-01T22:12:58.370+08:00Dodging-the-question count: 5.Dodging-the-question count: 5.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-77774409972138011512015-05-01T11:42:49.734+08:002015-05-01T11:42:49.734+08:00You're not addressing the problem you created....You're not addressing the problem you created.<br /><br />Why did you attack instead of asking a question?<br /><br />Why, when your mistake was pointed out, did you then make another attack?Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-61427822191607598722015-04-30T09:44:55.986+08:002015-04-30T09:44:55.986+08:00You're not the only one who thinks this is rid...You're not the only one who thinks this is ridiculous, Ivan. Thanks for your feedback. [wry]<br /><br />Dodging-the-question count: 4.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-46720216888696249262015-04-29T22:47:17.979+08:002015-04-29T22:47:17.979+08:00Good god you two are ridiculous. Good god you two are ridiculous. Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923725063649465366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-80955061314053213362015-04-29T13:41:10.451+08:002015-04-29T13:41:10.451+08:00You're not addressing the problem you created....You're not addressing the problem you created.<br /><br />Why did you attack instead of asking a question?<br /><br />Why, when your mistake was pointed out, did you then make another attack?<br /><br />Also, of course, I have nothing to apologize for: you did bad things and I did the only responsible thing: I called you out so that other people can be made aware that you are a bad person who does bad things. Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-61057802932682316052015-04-29T11:20:28.352+08:002015-04-29T11:20:28.352+08:00Dodge count: 3
Clarifications: 0
Apologies: 0Dodge count: 3<br /><br />Clarifications: 0<br /><br />Apologies: 0Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-57290393662703965082015-04-29T10:59:11.089+08:002015-04-29T10:59:11.089+08:00No, you don't ask AFTER attacking someone, you...No, you don't ask AFTER attacking someone, you ask BEFORE attacking them.<br /><br />Then when your mistake is pointed out, you simply apologize, and do not pile on more attacks.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-83342468355989450472015-04-29T10:34:12.247+08:002015-04-29T10:34:12.247+08:00The sharp-eyed reader may have noticed that I alre...The sharp-eyed reader may have noticed that I already asked, but I guess nobody ever really expected you to do anything but dodge the question and get all imperious anyway. Thanks for confirming our assumptions. :pConfanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-46616701617858435512015-04-28T06:41:42.102+08:002015-04-28T06:41:42.102+08:00"when your writing is so unclear that a reade..."when your writing is so unclear that a reader is forced to guess at your intent"<br />We've already been over this:<br />You are _not_ forced to guess, there is no torture comitee demanding you get it right the first time or lose an eye. Simply ask.<br />It costs you nothing to do so.<br />Please do not write insane things on the internet.Zak Shttp://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-62960643954327653402015-04-23T07:50:35.647+08:002015-04-23T07:50:35.647+08:00Having already apologized for my part in this thre...Having already apologized for my part in this thread (that's what the words "my apologies" mean above, in case you didn't catch it the first two times), I eagerly await your own apology for having written hurriedly (or whatever the cause was; I don't want to assume) and <i>causing</i> the whole misunderstanding in the first place.<br /><br />It would certainly be a major step toward making you seem like less of a hypocrite, and would be much appreciated. ^_^Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-53242394785881318922015-04-23T07:44:12.779+08:002015-04-23T07:44:12.779+08:00[Edit]
Funny that, you lecturing people about ass...[Edit]<br /><br />Funny that, you lecturing people about assuming good faith. Case in point: when your writing is so unclear that a reader is forced to guess at your intent, then jumping immediately to accusing them of "assumptions" is exactly the opposite of what you should do. You could (or should I say "should"?) try assuming a good faith attempt at interpretation on their part, apologize for your mistake that you made by writing poorly, and rephrase your own poor statement to dispel any misunderstandings that you caused.<br /><br />As for question: could you please re-write your original statement so that it communicates what you actually intended to say? That would be very helpful, thank you. It would help you with this problem where, instead of clarifying your meaning, you simply dodge the question entirely while making hypocritical accusations.<br /><br />But seriously, please drop the attitude. This demanding attitude, whereby when you misunderstand someone they are wrong and must apologize, but if they misunderstand you then they are still wrong and must apologize, is a huge part of why you lost the privilege of the benefit of the doubt in the first place.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-91369743354412181682015-04-23T07:23:56.299+08:002015-04-23T07:23:56.299+08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-28573670136795781612015-04-23T07:18:58.853+08:002015-04-23T07:18:58.853+08:00I still disagree with the language used due to the...I still disagree with the language used due to the associations it elicits, but fair enough; I'm not in a position to make broad statements about Zeitgeist.Confanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361443460498670841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-12387646035338081202015-04-22T05:01:26.864+08:002015-04-22T05:01:26.864+08:00In any internet conversation you must always assum...In any internet conversation you must always assume good faith (unless you can prove otherwise).<br /><br />Also: you are not allowed to choose the most insulting interpretation of some words that could mean more than one thing and then assume that is the correct interpretation and attack someone.<br /><br />What you do if the meaning is unclear is _ask questions_ . Not accuse the person of writing poorly.<br /><br />So you should apologize now.<br /><br />Once you demonstrate that good faith, then I will address the other sources of your confusion and answer your questions.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-86800584320687809522015-04-21T22:16:30.346+08:002015-04-21T22:16:30.346+08:00I don't think he's saying that about the p...I don't think he's saying that about the position you set out. He was only referring to the "modern zeitgeist", and I agree with him on that, broadly.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.com