Quote from: droogI don't know about JB, but for me it's a little bit personal. John argued at me on another thread for page after page that I didn't really know what I was doing. He impugned my competence and truthfulness. He refused to accept my account of events.

So, really, this is all about carrying a chip on your shoulder from thread to thread.  Dude, you've got a major ego problem.  Do I need to remember to talk to you like a 12 year-old so you don't get your feeling hurt?  

Quote from: droogOkay, have it back – in spades. At least I was talking about events that could, in principle, be verified. John is talking about voices in his head.

Who are you trying to impress, exactly?

See what I mean - Fucking Australians.

JimBob, that is the biggest fuckwad argument I think I've ever seen you make.  you think it's OK for someone to just waltz in to a fine conversation and call someone delusional? It would be polite in society to just poke into a conversation and call someone a nutcase?

So if three people were standing on the street corner talking about whether the flat earth was round or square, you'd feel it was alright to just poke your nose into their business and call them idiots?  And you think Americans are obnoxious?

So, we have relative agreement on the filters and the two stances, how does Director fit in.  Is it even necessary?  Is it the process of only applying Player filters?

Quote from: John MorrowSo, really, this is all about carrying a chip on your shoulder from thread to thread.  

Gone now. I remain sceptical, however: that's very real.

Quote from: James J SkachSo if three people were standing on the street corner talking about whether the flat earth was round or square, you'd feel it was alright to just poke your nose into their business and call them idiots?  And you think Americans are obnoxious?

This is not a street corner.

Quote from: droogGone now. I remain sceptical, however: that's very real.

And you'll notice that when you made a serious argument, I gave you a serious reply.  Your skepticism is legitimate.

Quote from: droogThis is not a street corner.

OK, it's a party - and they are people you barely know, if at all.  Isn't that really the case here?  I mean, do you know John - enough to call him delusional?

You came in because you had a hardon from another thread.  I've done the same.  But I can honestly say I never called into question the object of my ire's mental health.

Quote from: James J SkachSee what I mean - Fucking Australians.

Is there a reason why you are pouring gasoline on the fire?

In both JimBobOz's and droog's defense, this is a public forum and I consider it a feature that this site doesn't have the heavy-handed moderation that many other role-playing discussion groups have.  Sometimes, that means there will be flame wars, nasty comments, and so on.  I'd rather that than a band of moderators dishing out warnings and suspensions, deleting messages, moving threads into other topic areas, and banning people.  This isn't a "safe place" where offensive comments get people banned.  I consider that a feature, not a bug.

The core of droog's complaints were legitimate and there is nothing wrong with being skeptical.  The Scientology comment was unwarranted and the tone was less than friendly, but in the big scheme of things, it was pretty mild.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, we have relative agreement on the filters and the two stances, how does Director fit in.  Is it even necessary?  Is it the process of only applying Player filters?

Suppose you have a GM who does his level best to portray how the environment and characters (as they pre-exist) would react to the actions of the PCs.  Is that analogous to Character mode?

Quote from: James J SkachOK, it's a party - and they are people you barely know, if at all.  Isn't that really the case here?  I mean, do you know John - enough to call him delusional?

He thinks I unfairly judged his relationship with some friends in another thread.  It wasn't my intent, I think he's reading things into what I said that aren't there, and I think he's making a mountain out of a mole hill but that's life.  If you put information about your gaming group into an online discussion as a piece of anecdotal evidence, I think examining that evidence, asking questions about it, and offering suggestions is fair game.  And it's also fair game for him to be skeptical about my claims.

Quote from: James J SkachYou came in because you had a hardon from another thread.  I've done the same.  But I can honestly say I never called into question the object of my ire's mental health.

For whatever it's worth, James McMurray started a thread called "Deep IC" i n the main forum and said, "A thread over in Game Theory talks about Deep Immersion In Character as a state wherein you think as the character. Isn't that one of the many flavors of insanity?"

Yes, it sounds a bit unbelievable and even a bit crazy.  I'm not really surprised when people react that way, nor am I offended.

Quote from: TonyLBSuppose you have a GM who does his level best to portray how the environment and characters (as they pre-exist) would react to the actions of the PCs.  Is that analogous to Character mode?

This is where it goes back to the fundamental world-based vs. meta-game divide.  If the GM is playing NPCs from their perspective (either thinking about what they'd do or thinking as the NPC), that's the GM equivalent of character mode.  Having the environment react as if it's a real place is a sibling to Character mode.  I'd probably call it World mode.  And World mode can be made accessible to the players.  For example, if I forgot to list a toolkit on my character sheet for a mechanic, I might declare that my character has a toolkit during play because, as a mechanic, he'd logically have a toolkit.  Another example is the character that tells the GM, "I go to the inn and get a room," in a traditional fantasy city.  The player simply assumes that there will be an inn where his character can get a room.

Quote from: James J SkachSo if three people were standing on the street corner talking about whether the flat earth was round or square, you'd feel it was alright to just poke your nose into their business and call them idiots?  And you think Americans are obnoxious?

This place isn't three people standing on a corner; those three people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, since people have private discussions in the street all the time. It's a public forum.

"forum" gets definitions like,

"a public meeting or assembly for open discussion",
"Meeting or part of meeting set aside for an open discussion by recognized participants on subjects of public interests",
"A general discussion area for a free exchange of ideas, thoughts, and comments",

and so on. Comes from pretty early historically,

"Main square or marketplace of a Roman town. In Roman towns in Greek lands, the Greek term agora is often used instead. The forum was often surrounded by the most important governmental institutions such as a curia building, temple to Jupiter Capitolium, basilica or other such structures." The Romans used to just stand up there and make speeches, and they expected to get responses from the general public.

If you want a private discussion without interruptions, use email, IM and so on. This is a public forum. If you want a forum where dissent with the main topic causes the perpertrator to be chased out or the thread locked, try The Forge.

I don't really understand the indignation and confusion here. What part of "forum" don't you understand?

I understand it is a forum.  Perhaps I'm having a problem communicating the the idea that threadcrapping ain't right.  Because that's what happened. I appreciate the John's live and let live about it, so I'll follow his lead....

Quote from: John MorrowThis is where it goes back to the fundamental world-based vs. meta-game divide.  If the GM is playing NPCs from their perspective (either thinking about what they'd do or thinking as the NPC), that's the GM equivalent of character mode.  Having the environment react as if it's a real place is a sibling to Character mode.  I'd probably call it World mode.  And World mode can be made accessible to the players.  For example, if I forgot to list a toolkit on my character sheet for a mechanic, I might declare that my character has a toolkit during play because, as a mechanic, he'd logically have a toolkit.  Another example is the character that tells the GM, "I go to the inn and get a room," in a traditional fantasy city.  The player simply assumes that there will be an inn where his character can get a room.

I'm not sure there should be a sibling.  I mean, for the person playing the world, in traditional games the GM, it's in character, no?

Now I think when you start distributing world-definition authority, well, I'm not sure where that goes...

The example of the toolkit is interesting because it doesn't take the player out of character, it's merely a question of authority to enter the fact into the world, no?

QuotePerhaps I'm having a problem communicating the the idea that threadcrapping ain't right.

I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: it wasn't a threadcrap until you and Tony made it one.

I took up a point with John, and he's taken it with pretty good grace, considering what I'm suggesting. It calls into question the usefulness of your entire discussion, sure, but that's not my problem.