Case and Proof

[jeregenest]

This thread is proof of the problems with certain game theory communities and certain "movements." Person makes a point, people dismiss it, someone recasts it in their own language, the guys are a little more interested. Another person changs the wording so it now doesn't mean anything near what the original poster said. Everyone gets enthused. Original poster is left sitting there scratching their head.

First wrong assumption (well other than a gender assumption) anyone can make is to assume somone hasn't played a game. Maybe, just maybe, the've played a game and still have this issue about the discourse. Playing a game like PTA is not a universal panacea (or even addressing the original point all that much).

Second wrong assumption is that anyone who challenges the party line doesn't know what they are talking about and their experiences are wrong. Nothing new there but it still annoys me.

Result, already poor opinions of a community are retrenched. Of course I'm already based in three different ways, but this sort of thread doesn't make me anymore willing to listen.

Comments

[unquietsoul5.livejournal.com]

I understand this perfectly... been there, done that, departed after banging heads with people who ignored the point that was being discussed and instead got sidetracked by a lesser point mentioned, etc.

Not good.

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

You've got my sympathy. I'm unsurprised but disappointed a bit that none of my attempts to talk about human issues went anywhere - in particular, darned few folks willing to say "I have this reaction, and I realize it's irrational" and admit to *gasp* having a flaw of some kind when it comes to responding to games or gamers. I was hoping to do a little bridge-building, and dammit, the model's got space for such stuff. Oh well.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

I saw your "here's my irrational issue" thread, Bruce, and was hoping it would go farther too. Not everybody's got that level of self-awareness to be able to say "here's my hangup" though. So instead people think the point of the thread is "let's cure Bruce of his hangup". Maybe I'll post to it (does Story Games have a "resurrecting old threads" rule?).

If only I had any irrational issues myself. [/sarcasm]

And re: Jess' thread
It did go flying off in a weird direction, didn't it? - maybe (if Jess cares) some examples of games that worked for her (our) group vs games that didn't would ground the discussion in reality again. I think talking about real people and real games is the best way to forestall the ever-present geek urge to categorize and subcategorize and build theoretical models. See how excited everyone got when they found ways to put Jess' question into tables and charts!

[zigguratbuilder.livejournal.com]

So instead people think the point of the thread is "let's cure Bruce of his hangup".

I did notice that with Brand (the post near the end with the charts and stuff), that he didn't quite "get it". But seriously, at that point the right thing to do is to be like, "Hey, I get you and all, but what I'm really saying is X. Can we get back to X?" As it's still a peer comunity (though ruled by an iron fist), I think people are cool enough with each other to deal.

Story Games have a "resurrecting old threads" rule?

FUCKING. NO. FUCKING FUCK WAY. (sorry Jere, is it ok to swear in your LJ? :-) )

Resurrection is Totally Capital-K Kosher.
So is editing your own posts, though:
* I prefer people to drop in a note on why they edited it if it was edited more than "fixing spelling/grammar", but not needed.
* And pulling a Brian Gleichman "I will erase all my posts EVAR" totally wouldn't fly well with me. :-)

The resurrection and editing things, as well as topics-per-page, are big on my radar of "Things I hate about the Forge's code setup".

I was about to resurrect it myself, actually, but I already posted. And, if I'm not mistaken, in the same spirit in which Bruce posted.

It's always hard to open yourself up like that, though. Because people will be nervous of it a little, like there's some secret agenda in there somewhere (which is what happens on many other forums). Well, Bruce actually did have a secret agenda of sorts: Bulding bridges. :-)

All in all, if you want to bring that one back and keep it going, I'll be right there watching.

-Andy

-Andy

[zigguratbuilder.livejournal.com]

Oops, when I said "Things I hate about the Forge's code setup", I meant "And outlook/methodology", cause they set the code up that way.

I'm big into posting first and then going back to fix spelling and grammar. Since I can't even do that on the new code, I noticed that I haven't been posting as much.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Bruce's thread is what got me reading storygames rather regularly (after peaseblossom made me get an account). And one of the reasons I get frustrated is because individually I think most of th actvie posters are prety reasonable guys (I think half of them are on my friends list), ts the group think that gets me.

Oh, and swearing is fine with me.

How did you do that?

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Hey, that's pretty cool. I ask a question about Story Games protocol in a comment to a friend's LJ and I get a direct answer from the forum moderator. Talk about service...

While I've got you here, let me say that (even though I don't post much on any forums really) I'm enjoying Story Games a lot. Thanks for setting it up and thanks for having me. It is a really good group you have there; I hope it stays as lively and friendly and interesting as it has been so far. jeregenest might even like it too, but if he does, he won't let on. He's real ornery like that.

(Rob MacD)

[zigguratbuilder.livejournal.com]

Hey Bruce, do you mean this one?

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=223

I thought a lot of folks had a lot of fun and bridge-building with that one. Well, at least 10 distinct posters (which is a lot for this site!) with a lot of viewers. That is, before Brand tried to go deeper into the explanations. But yeah, you're free to tell anyone at any time, "Point Taken, but I'd rather get back to the ideas behind why I opened the thread, which is simply posting our irrational beliefs instead of trying to define why we believe them", etc.

I think S-G is cranking along fine sofar. I just hope people don't, for example, see problems and make judgements without taking any steps to correct them themselves: I noted that peaceblossom jumped in on that linked thread a few hours back and basically said, "Hey guys, uh... I'd like to get back to THIS". Tres Good, in a community like this. And it looks like collaboration has been brought back to the table, and folks are looking at it again. This is the way things should work in a flowing discussion community, IMO. If everyone after that post were to ignore it and dwell in the Capitalist/Communist stuff, then yeah that'd be a problem.

Overall, I think nature, maturity, and openness are winning in the long run to make the community open to all sorts of talk. But I'm biased. :-)

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

She's the reasonable one in the marriage.

[jeffwik.livejournal.com]

Has the thread to which you link been deleted? I can't find it.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

I notice when I'm signed in as a guest I see different threads then when I sign in on my account. So you may need to register.

[head58.livejournal.com]

I was able to read the thread the other night without being logged in, but now it looks like it's not there.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

I find the software the site is running on a little odd. Yesterday peaseblossom was logged on the computer as her and was on the site as her and it posted as me.