tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post791183872709044247..comments2024-03-19T16:24:23.777-07:00Comments on Playing D&D With Porn Stars: The Outstanding Questions/The Nazi Games AgainZak Sabbathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-71103125322099130042017-07-28T03:19:32.570-07:002017-07-28T03:19:32.570-07:00Oh, and Tom K, you never cleared up after your att...Oh, and Tom K, you never cleared up after your attack so you're banned until you do.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-69760601254890141362017-03-17T20:16:56.451-07:002017-03-17T20:16:56.451-07:00holy crap you ninja'd my post. i didn't ev...holy crap you ninja'd my post. i didn't even see the comment between the two. sorry.<br /><br />ok. i get your point now. so like, you start simple, and even then folks are like "omg are you trying to say something you're not saying" and it can get messy.<br /><br />gotcha.<br /><br />also super super sorry. did not see the ninja post so my second comment looks rambly and ignoring you. er. it still was rambly and ignoring you i guess, but not out of malice.Jojirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07964753232938742421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-56876241693223737132017-03-17T11:44:32.004-07:002017-03-17T11:44:32.004-07:00You've already said that what you care about i...You've already said that what you care about is "effect over intent" so the diagnostic tool has already gotten you to be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more specific and clear than you would (apparently) otherwise be.<br /><br />You are now prepared to go on and call out lots of people who have (by your own description) pointlessly wrangled about what is and isn't objectionable for no reason. You have also framed where your own research should be: What is the effect?<br /><br />Congratulations, the questions have revealed to anyone reading your personal thought process here.<br /><br />Now if the 4000 other folks in tabletop RPGs also were able to state their criteria for complaining about games as clearly we could move on to having useful conversations about how and to what degree we can make works less harmful.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-16255393699065314672017-03-17T11:33:41.279-07:002017-03-17T11:33:41.279-07:00...this medium doesn't have edits. Drag.
I do......this medium doesn't have edits. Drag.<br /><br />I do see the virtue of simplifying the discussion with the yes/no. However, if the goal is internally consistent answers, saying yes/no isn't the answer I think I'd work towards.<br /><br />Talking to folks, validating their frustrations, and communicating those frustrations to people who can make a difference, I guess, is a pretty consistent thing I do when I have the energy to do it. So like, just as an example for the first few:<br /><br />1. I don't care cuz no effect.<br />2. I don't care cuz no effect.<br />3. Bizarro, so possibly worth using as a fun example, except no one knows any of this, so I guess I don't either. Not knowing it, I wouldn't have reason to think it was anti-semitic.<br />4. I don't care.<br />5. I mean, audiences being skewed is again interesting but unless problematic I don't really care.<br /><br />So that's a start, right? And I'm the sort of person who I guess would call people out more for sexism/racism/whatever more than your average feminist and less than what might be termed radical or "professional". So I do care a decent amount about the topic, yet most of my answers don't fall into yes/no. They just...I dunno how to express this. They don't seem to matter to me as far as internally consistent answers go.<br /><br />And I wonder if that reflects a quirk in your phrasing, your examples, or if I'm just not the target audience.Jojirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07964753232938742421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-27897536916059191382017-03-17T11:30:17.972-07:002017-03-17T11:30:17.972-07:00"
why do we create the dichotomy of "rac..."<br />why do we create the dichotomy of "racist or not", and stop the conversation there?<br />"<br /><br />I stop this particular conversation there because "that's racist" is an accusation people make all the time and the first job is to clarify when that is or isn't warranted.<br /><br />There are other jobs after that, but most people in the conversation are SO bad at even getting to there (see Mordicai below totally fucking it up) that moving beyond that is a whole separate issue.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-51081638681138618392017-03-17T11:25:44.647-07:002017-03-17T11:25:44.647-07:00Out of curiosity, and I'm piggy-backing off of...Out of curiosity, and I'm piggy-backing off of this because I largely agree about effect-over-intent in terms of game-reviewing, why do we create the dichotomy of "racist or not", and stop the conversation there?<br /><br />I recognize in the memespace of "let's talk about racism" it is very often a yes or no question, but on a more analytical/academic/nuanced/whatever level I think you can break things down a bit more. That is to say, do we care to take actions or not, which is very much based on impact and not intent, unless the person posts their intent all over the internet, which makes an impact, a splash, in its own way.<br /><br />Specifically, if we're talking about beer, I think the conversation extends from 15, right? If the impact is that folks are going to engage in more antisemitic activities (the definition of which is in question here, which makes it even harder to answer without circling back) then a person who is now aware of this should not give the game to folks who it would thus incentivize.<br /><br />Sorry, that was a trainwreck of a sentence.<br /><br />I guess my point is, while the internal consistency is important, that internally consistent answer sometimes isn't a yes/no for all the complex adult questions you're asking. <br /><br />For example, in the case of 19, let us say the thought experiment holds and indeed all orthodox Jews are offended, or near all. I don't know that offense is something that informs my moral code, so I might say "your offense is totes legit" and respect that, but also not change my decisions as a moneylender or investor in that game designer.Jojirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07964753232938742421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-84279121310356479482017-03-13T17:32:48.727-07:002017-03-13T17:32:48.727-07:00But how emphatically must a setting element be sta...But how emphatically must a setting element be stated in a work for you to use the verb "taken" as int he sentence ?<br /><br />How clear must the assertion be?<br /><br />What are some examples outside Tarzan of phrasing that you've decided isn't ironic, or illustrating a character pov but that's actually making a nonfiction claim?<br /><br />Without drawing this line, you're not engaging the question in the way that it's usually asked--especially about most modern fiction, which rarely outrigth states a povZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-52511172035081406922017-03-13T17:27:50.082-07:002017-03-13T17:27:50.082-07:00Pointing out that parts of Garfield are fictional ...Pointing out that parts of Garfield are fictional doesn't demonstrate much of anything. I already agreed that fiction contains non-factual elements.<br /><br />But even Garfield contains quite a bit of non-fiction. Humans and cats are real. Cats and dogs are kept as pets. Cats enjoy sleeping a lot, and seldom get along with dogs. People live in houses and have jobs, and so on. The comic writer didn't make those things up. They are facts.<br /><br />In the original Tarzan novels it is taken as given that, in real life, white men are the moral and intellectual superiors of black men. This is included in the books not as a fictional element of a made-up setting, but as a fact of life present in the stories for realism. That is racist literature -- it presents racist views as being true not just in an imaginary world, but in the real one.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-18684497513903937612017-03-13T16:05:54.316-07:002017-03-13T16:05:54.316-07:00"Most" is a weasel-word.
You need to d..."Most" is a weasel-word.<br /><br />You need to do a lot better than that and be more specific about the lines you draw.<br /><br />For example, in a Garfield cartoon "most" men are depicted as having cats. Because Jon is the only man in most of those cartoons. It, however doesn't _claim this is a fact about men_ it presents a scenario.<br /><br />All plumbers in Mario Bros re presented as italians who kill turtles. It does not make fact claims about them.<br /><br />Please try to think harderZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-52880200010523617612017-03-13T15:59:39.076-07:002017-03-13T15:59:39.076-07:00Most fiction is majority-fact. A spy thriller has ...Most fiction is majority-fact. A spy thriller has made-up characters and motivations, but still accepts human biology, that Germany and Italy are countries in Europe, etc. Even Game of Thrones is mostly composed of things people accept as true in real life. Thats why Martin doesn't need to spend paragraphs explaining that getting stabbed hurts just like it does IRL. The assumption in most fiction is that real life rules apply unless otherwise noted.<br />Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-31324491215117428462017-03-13T13:44:34.609-07:002017-03-13T13:44:34.609-07:00Part 2:
11. No. The impact on the gaming audience...Part 2:<br /><br />11. No. The impact on the gaming audience as a whole is unaffected, the number of people who love or hate it doesn't directly impact that. That said, if only 2 loved it out of 10, it's worth digging into the Why...<br /><br />12. Unknown. I'd need to read it myself. While I may trust my "smart" friends, I need to form my own opinion, possibly with input and questions.<br /><br />13. No. The fact it DOES have a measurable impact on children is worrisome, but the game was NOT intended for children. That said, the authors should be cautious with their marketing to make the audience clear.<br /><br />14. No. It has an impact, but only on those individuals who were already inclined towards antisemitism. You don't blame the brewer because while drunk you did something stupid... well, most people don't.<br /><br />15. No. Same as #14, although I would wonder what the metrics were for determining stupidity. ("Voted for Trump" for example.)<br /><br />16. No. Same as #14, mental illness is somewhat more complicated than stupidity, but unlike stupidity, you can't choose to NOT be mentally ill.<br /><br />17. No. See #15. At this point, the game's disclaimer reads "Warning: Not for children, stupid people, or the mentally ill."<br /><br />18. No. It has no impact on the attitude of anyone now or measurable effect.<br /><br />19. No. In order to be anti-Semitic, it has to offend the entire Jewish community, not just a subset.<br /><br />20. No. The language used has no direct impact on the content. (Incidentally, per Wikipedia, the connection of "hip hip hooray" to the Hep Hep Riots has been disputed.)<br /><br />21. Yes. It's my decision, although I would certainly consult to get opinions from people I know and trust to make it. If there was a very real concern of antisemitism, I would conduct blind playtesting to help influence the decision as well.Adamantyrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962009901412877763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-45369804533311758062017-03-13T13:43:51.847-07:002017-03-13T13:43:51.847-07:00I replied on the original thread two years ago but...I replied on the original thread two years ago but it got lost in some post shuffling... I wonder how close my present-day answers will be to the originals?<br /><br />Part 1:<br /><br />1. No. I WANT to say yes because of the intent, but the fact it had no impact just means it's a badly written game.<br /><br />2. No. Intent is unknown, the evidence is against it. The fact nobody can understand it to even BE offended makes it impossible. How they'd even be aware of the content's existence is also puzzling.<br /><br />3. No. This would be a case where the intent is far outweighed by the effect. No doubt the author is seething with frustration at his failed attempt to incite racial warfare, although he may be trying to figure out how to leverage his game's popularity to further his nefarious goals...<br /><br />4. No. Regardless of the author or authors, the effect is marginal to none.<br /><br />5. Yes. The balance is on the effect that it has, which is overall negative. It increases the RPG audience but makes them more inclined towards antisemitism.<br /><br />6. No. Obviously there is some serious contention among the Jewish community about it, but it has no impact on the audience or individual attitudes (which includes non-Jewish of course).<br /><br />7. No. Same answer as #6, the author's background does not change the impact.<br /><br />8. No. A positive impact matters more. Obviously there is a fine line to skirt here on content, what is broad and stereotypical but not offensive today could be offensive in the future. (Ever watch TV shows from the 70's and 80's with horrible Asian and Indian stereotypes that make you wince?)<br /><br />9. No. It's a terrible game but the impact is on the type of game it is, rather than on people.<br /><br />10. No. Same as #6, changing the percentage of people who say this or that doesn't change the impact.Adamantyrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962009901412877763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-86318013552208812032017-03-13T12:17:50.671-07:002017-03-13T12:17:50.671-07:00That's not a meaningful analysis here because ...That's not a meaningful analysis here because we are discussing fiction, where no claims are presented as true.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-19963645930850548892017-03-13T12:15:46.827-07:002017-03-13T12:15:46.827-07:00I consider a work racist/sexist/antisemitic/etc if...I consider a work racist/sexist/antisemitic/etc if it presents, as true, *false* claims portraying the group negatively, or disproportionately accentuates information that makes the group look bad without providing context. I care about who is offended only inasmuch as "a lot of [group] find it offensive is a good indicator that I might have overlooked something. A work can be horribly offensive to the majority of a group without being racist/etc.<br /><br />So: 1, 2, 3, and 18 are antisemitic. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 might be, but I couldn't say based on the given information.The rest are not.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-46452493159394851332017-03-12T23:16:17.680-07:002017-03-12T23:16:17.680-07:00chea, i'm curious how these answers could/woul...chea, i'm curious how these answers could/would ultimately affect how people address/feel about jessica price goin ham on twitter.<br /><br />i think it would still boil down to intent. while ignorance to peoples' issues/ones own actions shouldn't be a veritable excuse to let toxic shit slide, if they aren't trying to be a dick about it, it could be alright. especially if, moving forward, they made a conscious effort not to be dickish.erwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349701293338860405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-73139293549423511712017-03-12T22:24:00.739-07:002017-03-12T22:24:00.739-07:00Thanks for putting so much thought into the questi...Thanks for putting so much thought into the questions, ErwinZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-49387212786952833612017-03-12T22:14:19.782-07:002017-03-12T22:14:19.782-07:00(2/2)
13) maybe no, due to identifying progressiv...(2/2)<br /><br />13) maybe no, due to identifying progressive author, but lack of intent (on what theyre trying to reflect in their writing)<br /><br />i suppose the fact its intended for adults, and its chance for children adopting anti-semitic attitudes would kinda be like how GTA has a(n alleged) chance to cause children into shooting up schools and shit.<br /><br />i guess it'd be more of a reflection on the parenting/allowing the kid to play it/discussing and understanding intent/implied intent<br /><br />i dunno, leaning towards maybe no though.<br /><br />14) maybe no, due to identifying progressive author, but lack of intent<br /><br />its crucial theres only one effect and its negative, but that shouldnt have an affect on the author/game<br /><br />i feel like im rationalizing/answering this to defend beer.<br /><br />15) maybe no, due to identifying progressive (and so far "progressive" has been held in positive light), but lack of intent<br /><br />same deal with 14, what can the author/game really do, unless they were intending to incite stupid into being anti-semitic then i can't really say.<br /><br />16) maybe no, same deal with 14-15, the effects get worse and worse, and unless it was the authors intention to incite the mentally ill into being anti-semitic, then I can't really say otherwise<br /><br />17) maybe no, progressive author with no stated intent, making a game where people roleplay real-life jewish banking-related criminals (whats the intent behind this?) (something like this meant to inherently stir the pot, so to speak? then maybe yes)<br /><br />18) maybe no, progressive author with no stated intent,<br /><br />the "measurable effect on the audience at the time was to diversify the audience and make it more progressive" could fall under similar circumstances with question 3, if the intentions were like number 3 i mean.<br /><br />19) leaning towards no, only because im holding "progressive" authors in a positive light<br /><br />offending "pretty much all" of a whole group of marginalized people could be the line if i were to factor quantifying effects, but, nah, i gotta hold out haha.<br /><br />20) leaning towards no, same deal as 19<br /><br />"pretty much all" of them can claim to be offended, and rightfully be offended, but was the progressive author intending to discriminate?<br /><br />21) given the question, its maybe no, I don't know his intentions<br /><br />regardless of the numbers, this dude would become representative of my company, no matter what little bullshit "the authors views dont reflect ours" kinda shit my company might try to pull, end of the day my money is going to marginalizing some people, which isnt MY intention (the 50/50 split isn't relevant, but rather the fact that its happening)<br /><br />as his money guy, id like to think/hope there would be some professional honesty/integrity in this business exchange and dude would let me know what hes trying to do, and if it lines up with what im trying to do, so i could confidently back him financially.<br /><br />---<br /><br />I feel a lot of these could flip with very minor variation. End of the day, I feel a lot of folks do things with their heart in the right place but the results just get all fucked up. And I don't feel I could hold it against them. Cause that shit happens to me a lot too.<br /><br />erwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349701293338860405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-27054916750972153282017-03-12T22:13:49.234-07:002017-03-12T22:13:49.234-07:00i remember this fucking me up when it was initiall...i remember this fucking me up when it was initially posted, but i'd like to give it a go this time around.<br /><br />this ended up becoming a two parter (1/2)<br /><br />1) yes, due to hitler having an anti-semitic worldview and his intentions to reflect it, though there are no effects, his intent remains<br /><br />2) no, no clear intentions or motive, though the content is itself is prejudice, it having no effect or intent lets this one slide<br /><br />***3) yes, just because dude failed to get his racist point across (and it backfired in a hilariously positive way) his intentions remain the same. just because no one knows (but I guess we, the readers, would know for the sake of the question) wouldnt change the fact that it was originally intended to be racist<br /><br /> did it fail to deliver its intent due to the the writers poor diction, or like, just a result of progressive times or something?<br /><br /> I'm not too familiar with the example "inept kind of gamma world or mutant future." i think the answer to this could affect later questions<br /><br />4) maybe yes, even though the authors were racists their intent wasn't explicitly provided with the question feels like this was sort of a twist on question 3.<br /><br />lets just leave it at a tentative yes, cause all 4 author examples low-key hammer the point home<br /><br />5) no, progressive author wasn't intending to make an anti-semitic game. not sure how/why popularity among WASPy dudes actually lessens jewish (or marginalized) audience<br /><br />***6) maybe no, despite jewish bro having no self-hatred, his intent in producing the game wasn't explicitly stated<br /><br />not sure how i feel about quantifying the split, and how that ultimately affects the outlook on a game<br /><br />i think this will prolly be further explored in later questions<br />***7) maybe no, despite protestant bro harboring no anti-semitic feelings, his intent wasnt explicitly stated<br /><br />these last two are fucking me up<br /><br />***8) maybe no, despite person bearing no prejudices, his intent in producing the game wasn't explicitly stated<br /><br />as an aside, his use of stereotypes isn't explicitly confirmed as discriminatory<br /><br />*I suppose viewpoints on stereotypes=racism/discrimination could play a major factor in this one<br /><br />9) learning towards no, due to lack of intent, im starting to fall on looking at, i guess, implied intent(?)<br /><br />10) leaning towards no, same gimmick, lack of information<br /><br />i still don't know how i feel about quantifying the split<br /><br />11) maybe no, due to identifying non-prejudice author, and my weenie'ness to factoring numbers of people affected<br /><br />***12) this feels pretty loaded. leaning towards no. if it was flipped, and people i got along with/thought were smart considered it anti-semitic this could flip to leaning towards yes. I dunno, lack of intent doesn't really give me solid ground to answer this one.erwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349701293338860405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-11225736739771472452017-03-12T11:36:00.645-07:002017-03-12T11:36:00.645-07:00You made false statements, so I said you were lyin...You made false statements, so I said you were lying. That is what a person is supposed to do when someone makes a false statement.<br /><br />It's possible you were merely mistaken I suppose. Either way you should apologize for the incredibly aggressive and awful and rude and repulsive thing you did to your fellow human being:<br /><br />You accused me of posting in bad faith. You didn't even ask questions first to try to establish it.<br /><br />Now, before we continue this conversation (and I am delighted to see you are addressing points)<br /><br />I need you to apologize for that disgusting accusation you made in your first comment without even bothering to investigate whether it was warranted.<br /><br />Please do that now. Then we can talk about the other points.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-32126044377092237412017-03-12T11:30:17.641-07:002017-03-12T11:30:17.641-07:00I provided quotes from your post. You accuse me o...I provided quotes from your post. You accuse me of lying. I'm not sure how those things fit together. You claim you've not avoided a conversation in your life: here you are being rude, refusing to use my name, & calling me a liar. You are avoiding having a conversation with me by introducing roadblocks & friction to what could have been a nice discussion.<br /><br />2. How is it invalid? It was a paragraph of your bemoaning a lack of internally consistent arguments. I find your claim that any conversation is 100% inbounds at odds with you beginning a conversation with the threat of banning.<br /><br />3. This is actually still point #2.<br /><br /><br />You flip from:<br /><br />"Accusing me or anyone of bad faith or avoiding discussion is always an attack."<br /><br />to:<br /><br />"You should not interpret being reminded of the rules as a hostile act."<br /><br />This is not internally consistent.<br /><br />4. Fair enough.<br /><br />I'm not worried about the tone; you are the one who keeps bringing up tone policing, being sickened & calling me a liar. What I'm bothered by is the unfriendliness, because there's not much motivation for me to continue a discussion that I'm not enjoying.mordicaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05713766652793265867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-14887040805228913722017-03-12T11:16:12.894-07:002017-03-12T11:16:12.894-07:00Some of the games described above I would say are ...Some of the games described above I would say are anti-semitic and some not.<br /><br />However as I said above:<br /><br />"<br />I can tell you how I'd do it but responding to a post that explicitly asks YOU THE READERS to think about your _own internal_ criteria for labeling works with "Well what do you do, Zak?" isn't necessarily the most helpful way to address the issue.<br /><br />I recommend you ask me later, after the discussion in the comments has played itself out.<br />"Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-39396041881916032222017-03-12T11:14:30.942-07:002017-03-12T11:14:30.942-07:001. None of those are about avoiding a real convers...1. None of those are about avoiding a real conversation.<br /><br />I have (longtime reader) never avoided a conversation about anything ever. If you want to have a conversation about something: start that conversation rather than lying in my comments.<br /><br />2. Invalid:<br /><br />2A.They are not narrow to the point of shutting out discussion because literally ANY discussion that you want to have here in the comments is within bounds. You are 100% wrong<br /><br />2b. They are escalated in order to force people to address an important point: is labeling a work about intent or effect or about something else for them. The word "all" is used to isolate those variables from others.<br /><br />You don't change all variables at once when deciding which things matter.<br /><br />3. Accusing me or anyone of bad faith or avoiding discussion is always an attack. YOu must address the consequences of that.<br /><br />Pay no attention to the tone and "style" you imagine and instead address the substance of the issues and we can have a productive discussion, Allow yourself to be distracted by a tone you have guessed at accomplishes nothing in the way of helping anyone learn anything about the actual issues involved.<br /><br />4. That quote explicitly takes censorship OFF the table as the topic of discussion I chose.<br /><br />We are talking about an interesting topic, not a dull one. We are talking about when it is fair to label a product.<br /><br />As for "threats"--again, stop worrying about tone. The rules here are the rules:<br /><br />You need to address points made by people who disagree with you to make a coherent discussion. <br /><br />You should not interpret being reminded of the rules as a hostile act.<br /><br />Please address the points made.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-78916753466696766842017-03-12T11:08:25.519-07:002017-03-12T11:08:25.519-07:00That's a fair point. But I'm curious how ...That's a fair point. But I'm curious how it fares if you run that point through your own Nazi Games questions; as that system is what we're currently discussing.mordicaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05713766652793265867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-79924993789359130682017-03-12T11:05:39.496-07:002017-03-12T11:05:39.496-07:00Longtime reader & happy customer, thanks for t...Longtime reader & happy customer, thanks for the warm welcome.<br /><br />1. Certainly. Here are a few phrases you've used in the intro that I read as dismissive internet drama.<br /><br />"...some Internet debate about Internet debate."<br /><br />"All I'm going to say about that here..."<br /><br />"...folks in the mainstream RPG scene...have consistently avoided..."<br /><br />2. You are sickened? That's a rather dramatic response, against considering that in your intro you condemn "weighing how angry they are that the question got asked in a given venue by a given person."<br /><br />I go on to elaborate on what I mean: the questions are narrow to the point of shutting out discussion, they are escalated to the point of ad absurdum discussion, they use poor criteria like "all" & so forth.<br /><br />3. I left a follow-up comment below, to begin that discussion. I thought, given your usually brash style of conversation, that disagreement would not be met with such vehemence. I didn't come here for a flame war.<br /><br />4. "'Should we censor things' (No)"<br /><br />It is your playground & thus your call to ban as you see fit. But again, that disagreement is met with threats of banning would go to point #2 regarding good faith discourse.mordicaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05713766652793265867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-72503640841359768962017-03-12T10:57:19.940-07:002017-03-12T10:57:19.940-07:00I can tell you how I'd do it but responding to...I can tell you how I'd do it but responding to a post that explicitly asks YOU THE READERS to think about your own criteria for labeling works with "Well what do you do, Zak?" isn't necessarily the most helpful way to address the issue.<br /><br />I recommend you ask me later, after the discussion in the comments has played itself out.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.com