Quote from: CavScout;256882Of course, in the real world, you judge a murder based on those he murdered not on those he didn't. One example of pedophilia would erase a hundred examples of mundane examples of gameplay.

Wow, did you hear that "whoosh" sound?  That was the point, sailing waaay over your infinitesimally tiny head as you compare apples and iron ore.

So let me get this straight, if there's one perverted example of play and 38 examples of wholesome play, the authors must really really intend that the perverted example is the real one and the other 38 are just camouflage that have nothing to do with the authors' real intent.  Did you figure that out on your own, or did the voices tell you?  And how do you keep that big tinfoil hat from slipping off your little head, anyway?

KoOS

Quote from: RPGPundit;256885In other words, even if that one creepy example was the only one in the game (and I doubt it is), it really does overshadow everything else in the book, yes.

"Overshadow?"  Hell yes, thus the continuation of this thread to 14 pages and counting.

OTOH, maybe you could stop moving the goalposts long enough to answer the question I actually asked, instead of the question you invented.

KoOS

I would say its ONE OF the intended styles of play, and that that ONE intended style of play is enough to make the game questionable, even if it has other styles which are not particularly objectionable.

RPGPundit

King of Old School, you are doing an excellent job of maintaining the forgotten (and accurate) middle ground here.  Your opponents are only able to keep throwing distracting and sophist rhetorical techniques against you now.  As tempting as it is to keep making them look ridiculous, I recommend you give it up in that it will only lead to greater frustration.

Quote from: RPGPundit;256890I would say its ONE OF the intended styles of play, and that that ONE intended style of play is enough to make the game questionable, even if it has other styles which are not particularly objectionable.

That's a reasonable stance... and one which I share, assuming that you mean questionable as it's normally defined and not as a euphemism for "deserving of a big bonfire, and reeducation for all who have glanced upon it."

Now I'd go one further and say that people who play Maid might choose to emulate the non-objectionable styles, rather than assume that only uberperverts could ever play it.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;256887Wow, did you hear that "whoosh" sound?  That was the point, sailing waaay over your infinitesimally tiny head as you compare apples and iron ore.

So let me get this straight, if there's one perverted example of play and 38 examples of wholesome play, the authors must really really intend that the perverted example is the real one and the other 38 are just camouflage that have nothing to do with the authors' real intent.  Did you figure that out on your own, or did the voices tell you?  And how do you keep that big tinfoil hat from slipping off your little head, anyway?

So, let me get this straight, the perverted examples of play are not an indication of the author's intent but other, non-perverted examples are?

I guess it's a start that you are moving towards the idea that examples in a RPG book are infact indicators on how the game is intended to be played...

Quote from: CavScout;256901So, let me get this straight, the perverted examples of play are not an indication of the author's intent but other, non-perverted examples are?

Since inference seems to be too difficult a concept for your tiny intellect, I'll spell it out for you: the authors' intent is that players will adopt whichever style of play suits the group.  That might be creepy as fuck, or it might be Jeeves and Wooster.  The authors don't sit in the corner and whisper which one is the "real" one, and they don't express an intent regarding which choice consumers should make.  If one wanted to infer a preference on the part of the authors, the logical inference would be that the 95% of the book that is relatively harmless innuendo is more in line with the authors' intent than the 5% that is irredeemable squick; otherwise the percentages would be reversed, or at least closer together.  But then, you've demonstrated that concepts like logic are utterly foreign to your pea-sized brain.

KoOS

Does anyone have the actual text of the example in question with context?  I don't own the book and I didn't notice it in my perusal.

Quote from: King of Old School;256913If one wanted to infer a preference on the part of the authors, the logical inference would be that the 95% of the book that is relatively harmless innuendo is more in line with the authors' intent than the 5% that is irredeemable squick; otherwise the percentages would be reversed, or at least closer together.

But why even include the 5% unless the authors assumed that this was a valid way to play the game, in their opinion?


TGA

Quote from: King of Old School;256913Since inference seems to be too difficult a concept for your tiny intellect, I'll spell it out for you: the authors' intent is that players will adopt whichever style of play suits the group.  That might be creepy as fuck, or it might be Jeeves and Wooster.  The authors don't sit in the corner and whisper which one is the "real" one, and they don't express an intent regarding which choice consumers should make.  If one wanted to infer a preference on the part of the authors, the logical inference would be that the 95% of the book that is relatively harmless innuendo is more in line with the authors' intent than the 5% that is irredeemable squick; otherwise the percentages would be reversed, or at least closer together.  But then, you've demonstrated that concepts like logic are utterly foreign to your pea-sized brain.

You are being intellectually dishonest if you think that authors don't have intent on how their games are to be played.

It is interesting in that you don't want examples of play to be a glimpse at author's intent when it is creepy game play but don't mind it being a glimpse when it is described as "harmless".

Let me just say, a RPG with just one example of an example of pedophilia in a game play example, amongst hundreds of other mundane examples, would be rightfully scorned by that single example.

Told you, King of Old School.

Quote from: King of Old School;256830"Gamer who plays Maid" doesn't automatically make you a creep

KoOS

Wait that's what I've been trying to say, why are we seemingly on opposing sides here?  Probably my fault.  
:S

That's been my point the whole time, that a gamer who plays Maid is not automatically a creep, and that keeping them out of the hobby is wrong.

Quote from: jeff37923;256842Since I'm the someone, I'll just chime in here and ask you if it was wrong for your team to throw out the creepy guy who was jerking off to Mulan in your theater? He was creepy and you are being a bigot for saying he didn't have a right to exercise his creepiness in your theater.

Except you missed the point entirely.  So let me say it plainly.  The pervert in Mulan had every right to be there.  It wasn't until he imposed his perversion on other customers that we were forced to remove him.  If we would have known about his masturbation sooner than would have called the cops.  

We did however have no right to refuse him tickets to the movie just because he'd already seen it so many times, and we had suspicions that he was a creepy pervert.

Quote from: jeff37923;256842EDIT:

See what I did there? Using your arguement against you?

If by missing the point entirely you did in fact use my argument against me then I concede to your rediculous logic and salute your inability to get the point.

Quote from: jeff37923;256842Besides, you yourself have admitted that you would not welcome a Maid player into your game group upthread, so you might as well stop pointing out other peoples discrimination since you discriminate yourself.

I said not in my group.  You said gaming as a whole.  What part makes me like you?

Seriously I didn't think this was going to be such a tough idea to understand, perhaps I'm not explaining it in a clear fashion.  Oh well.  

Quote from: walkerp;256921Told you, King of Old School.

Told him what, exactly?  That those who object to the sexual objectification of children as an explicit mode of play are somehow wrong to voice their complaints?  That such objections are crass attempts to censor art?

Look at the shit you are shoveling, man...



TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;256917But why even include the 5% unless the authors assumed that this was a valid way to play the game, in their opinion?

So what part of the umpteen posts I've typed in this thread confused you?  Was it the numerous times I've used the phrase "creepy as fuck" to describe that 5% and the people who dig it?  Was it when I asserted people's rights to judge childsex fantasists as douchebags?  Was it when I scorned the people who bend over backwards to defend this kind of material?

Look, obviously the authors assume that this is a (singular, as in one) valid way to play the game, and that would be enough to keep me from expressing an interest in Maid even if I had an interest in the genre the game emulates (which I don't, not even close).  BUT, It doesn't follow that this is the only valid way to play the game, or even that it's the authors' intended way to play the game, which is what CavScout is rather stupidly arguing.

KoOS

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;256932Told him what, exactly?  That those who object to the sexual objectification of children as an explicit mode of play are somehow wrong to voice their complaints?  That such objections are crass attempts to censor art?

Motherfucker, do us all a favour and read the whole thread.  Then come back and tell us who is arguing what.

EDIT: Okay, that was intemperate of me.  I apologize.

KoOS