Quote from: Kaelik;578550Except that's not what happened. What happened was that people had different opinions than this board, so this board blazed guns about how crazy wrong people are and shat on us.

I mean, Benoist literally spent an entire thread explaining in great detail how we are all terrible people, he would kick us out of the game, autistic this and that, how dare we play the way we play, anyone who builds a Cleric that fights in melee and doesn't serve their proper roll deserves to be punched in the face, ect.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578520If One Horse Town is going to close all the thread that "denners" frequent he might as well go whole hog and start banning them.

Just in case I get banned I think I'll thow out a big post on gaming therpgsite and everything.

DeadDMwalking and I are not denners we have accounts on TGD but I have literaly 1000% more posts here than on TGD. We are here because the debate is here, and it's not about Fighters vs Wizards or Bone Devils it's about how the game is played and where if should be going in the future.

DeadDMwalking, MGuy, Kaelik and myself have an ideal we want for RPG in general and D&D in particular. That a new DM and a new group of players can run a fun game right out of the books without having to houserule everything or break out the magical tea. This is not something any game can do right now but that's no reason not try for it.

I don't personally see that as a laudable goal, or a feasible one given the infrastructure of how RPGs actually work, but that's no big deal to me if you want to head off on the "la marche futil".

QuoteIf I started a thread labeled 2e is the game of choice for assholes I would be banned on the spot and rightly so.

No, you wouldn't.  Not on this forum, anyways. Around here we ban people for site disruption (massive trolling, "stalking", intentional thread derailment, posting illegal material, sockpuppetry); not for disagreeing with us.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;578521Don't be like that.

Be like the guys who want to integrate into a new site they've recently discovered.  

Engage in actual discussions, rather than dick-waving contests. Talk about your gaming experiences that don't crap on the user-base here. Regale us with your house-rules (you use them, right?). Talk about your campaigns and the cool characters you played. Post new monsters and spells.

In fact, do pretty much anything but continually antagonise a largely old-school board.

How hard can it be?

Dude, hate to quibble with you, and I agree with everything you wrote above in the first couple of paragraphs, but I do feel I must point out that this is not a "largely old-school board".  This is a board for talking about ALL kinds of Regular RPGs, that just happens to have an inordinate amount of old-school gamers.  We also have a few prominent members that are very productive that I think definitely wouldn't define themselves as old-school gamers, and a few who wouldn't describe themselves as D&D gamers at all.

I'm going to be perfectly clear here: I have ZERO problem with posters, old or recent, coming here and starting threads about 3.x or pathfinder (or 4e for that mattter), or any other non-oldschool Regular RPG.  We are not the Knights and Knaves alehouse or the ODD board.  We're a site for discussion about any and all RPGs that are actual regular RPGs.

I think that as long as there isn't massive Derailing of threads (in EITHER direction, be it 3e fans who come in to derail threads about old-school that weren't intended to be about how 3e is superior to old school, or old-schoolers coming in to derail threads about how Old D&D is superior to 3e... exceptions of course made for shoot-out threads that ARE explicitly for talking about that), then there's no reason why you can't have people here who don't actually play Rules Cyclopedia or OSR games (crazy deluded fools who don't know what they're missing), and who want to talk more about D20 or Pathfinder or whatever.

IF there's a problem, its with the WAY people are talking about things, and that's probably a case of there being some bad behaviour on both sides.

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichman;578551I thought that it would be rather short, in fact it was longer than I expected and I got some surprising answers in it.

But despite being short, it still drew undeserved fire.

Of all the recent threads in question, yours was the only one I found to be over-the-top idiotic from the get-go.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578523Stop straw-manning I'm on record as not advocating all RAW all the time

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(see my sig.)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578582You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(see my sig.)

What exactly DO you think a "Strawman" is?

Strawman used improperly, seems to mean "You disagree with me"


The correct definition I would be eager to have explained to me.
I assume its something like "Going off on a Tangent" But I really do not know.

Quote from: Bill;578601Strawman used improperly, seems to mean "You disagree with me"


The correct definition I would be eager to have explained to me.
I assume its something like "Going off on a Tangent" But I really do not know.

Straw man just means building up a caricature or distorted version of a person's argument and attacking that rather than their actual points, or building up a fictional or distorted position, attributing it to the other side and demolishing it. Pretty much standard operating procedure in any internet debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote from: Bill;578601Strawman used improperly, seems to mean "You disagree with me"


The correct definition I would be eager to have explained to me.
I assume its something like "Going off on a Tangent" But I really do not know.

Straw Man

ninja'd

Thanks for the links, I have actually heard of wikpedia. (Humor intended!)

I asked because I wanted to hear a definition filtered through you guys on this board.

Quote from: Bill;578613Thanks for the links, I have actually heard of wikpedia. (Humor intended!)

I asked because I wanted to hear a definition filtered through you guys on this board.

Well on forums it usually takes the form of taking what another poster or group of posters said, shaping it into a weaker agument, then attacking that argument. So it is like swinging a sword at a straw man.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578619Well on forums it usually takes the form of taking what another poster or group of posters said, shaping it into a weaker agument, then attacking that argument. So it is like swinging a sword at a straw man.

A Strawman should have resistance to piercing damage. Not sure about Slashing.



Is that a Strawman argument?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578619Well on forums it usually takes the form of taking what another poster or group of posters said, shaping it into a weaker agument, then attacking that argument. So it is like swinging a sword at a straw man.

Or making the claim that they said/intended something that was never said in the first place and treating that as if it were the opponent's actual argument. It could also occur when people take a part of what someone said (avoiding their actual point) and argue at that,

Quote from: RPGPundit;578563No, you wouldn't.  Not on this forum, anyways. Around here we ban people for site disruption (massive trolling, "stalking", intentional thread derailment, posting illegal material, sockpuppetry); not for disagreeing with us.

RPGPundit

This.  And this leads to one of the problems I have with people like Mistborn (and Gleichman to an extent).

Declan and BT, before they were banned, got into arguments with everyone.  But Mistborn et al either choose to ignore all those situations, and seem to have taken a position of, "If Declan is arguing against me, and Sacrosanct is arguing with me, then they're good buddies and are dogpiling me."

I think I've shown enough examples where that's not the case.

I do apologize to Gleichman because he did not say I sucked Benoit's cock (that was Mistborn, quoting Gleichman).  Gleichman only said I never stray from his side and was why he hated me.  Either way, it illustrates this victim complex these guys have.  It's like the goons who keep saying BT was a "favored son" of this site, despite nearly everyone always calling him on his shit all the time.

And now with Declan, who most of us always did the same thing to.  You don't get banned for being a dick or disagreeing or posting unpopular opinion.  You've got to really do a lot to get banned.  And this assumption that "if they aren't banned, then they are agreed with" is bullshit.

I have said this before but will do again and again:

The crowd from the Gaming Den has a curious drive towards finding and exploiting infinities and absolutes. This makes arguments indeed onerous.

The intellectual level of the other side of the argument is even below that, though, denial & anti-intellectual romanticism.

It has been a big fight of reason vs emotion, waged by carricaturedly twisted versions of each. Twisted reasoning at least has the facts on its side...