I think Tony just tried to pull a switcheroo here.

Did I?  Can you be more specific?

Quote from: TonyLBRight.  And as I point out, I've answered that question.  That wasn't the end of it though, was it?  No ... then you kept asking "Well, do you repudiate statements X, Y and Z that you disagree with?  Do you feel that they are fundamentally irresponsible?  What do you feel about what other people have said, and how do you justify feeling that way?"

As I said, I am perfectly willing to talk about whether I, personally, believe that roleplaying causes brain damage.  I don't believe that, for all the reasons I've outlined.

We do not have to have any second-hand conversation about Ron Edwards, or what either of us think of him or his works, in order to have that first-hand conversation about what we, ourselves, believe.

Do you disagree with that assertion?  Do you think that it is impossible to have that first-hand conversation without the second-hand questions you've pulled in?

I'm totally cool with not talking about Edwards; I never meant to bring him into the discussion at all -- I never asked you to repudiate him, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this isn't about personalities. It's about theories, not theorists. It looks to me like you felt that disagreeing with the Brain Damage was somehow taking a shot at Edwards. I disagree with that and I'd hope that he wouldn't feel personally attacked because you disagree with his theory.

In the unlikely event that he did, that would be *his* problem -- not yours.

As far as I'm concerned, saying, "RPGs don't/can't cause brain damage" is where I expected this to stop ages ago -- an example of a theorist who doesn't agree with the "Crazy Stuff."

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.As far as I'm concerned, saying, "RPGs don't/can't cause brain damage" is where I expected this to stop ages ago -- an example of a theorist who doesn't agree with the "Crazy Stuff."

Well, I said that more than fifty posts ago.

I think the problem with the 'crazy stuff' is that, if "Brain Damage" is an example, all I have to do is go to that thread on the Forge and find a lot of people in firm agreement. Like many, many people (not just a vanishing few).

Even here it seems you more or less agree with Ron's sound-bite version (RPG-play can give you bad storymaking habbits in general) but don't agree with terming it brain damage or maybe that indie games are "the cure" (although I would think that with the PTA discussion, it does seem likely that continued analysis would find that some indie games would be seen as "the cure" and maybe even more than just PTA).

What this means is that Brain Damage is not actually "crazy stuff." In this discussion it is only "somewhat overstated stuff."

So that poses the question: What are these theorists saying that actually *is* crazy stuff?

I'm asking Tony--because if it's not Brain Damage, I don't know what theorists out there are saying crazier things. Can you find a post that says something about theory you actually think is crazy (Discounting Hybrid which isn't exactly theory)?

-Marco
[ Note: there may be a lot of theorists saying *offensive* stuff--without a lot of facts to back it up. I suspect that while this does more damage to the dialog than any for-real crazy things do, the general consensus would be that anyone gets to be as offensive as they want so long as they are sure they are correct. ]

[Also note: I do not believe Ron is crazy. I think that the discussion is framed in terms of "crazy stuff" because of someone's post early on--and it might be better framed in terms of 'wildly offensive stuff' but we're stuck with crazy for now. ]

Quote from: MarcoI think the problem with the 'crazy stuff' is that, if "Brain Damage" is an example, all I have to do is go to that thread on the Forge and find a lot of people in firm agreement. Like many, many people (not just a vanishing few).

Then instead of just reporting that second-hand you should link to the thread, so other people can view the same first-hand evidence and make up their own minds.

Quote from: MarcoEven here it seems you more or less agree with Ron's sound-bite version (RPG-play can give you bad storymaking habbits in general) but don't agree with terming it brain damage or maybe that indie games are "the cure"

Well, yeah.  I do.  I've said that rather explicitly, haven't I?

Am I supposed to think that those ideas are "infected by crazy" or something?

Quote from: MarcoI'm asking Tony--because if it's not Brain Damage, I don't know what theorists out there are saying crazier things. Can you find a post that says something about theory you actually think is crazy (Discounting Hybrid which isn't exactly theory)?

See, I'm just going to chalk this up to "No theory questions, just another request that I indulge in hearsay and speculation," and move on.

Is the difference between "My opinions on theory" and "My opinions on other people's opinions on theory" genuinely difficult for you to grasp?  Should I give examples?

EDIT:  Added second quote-response pair when I noticed I'd left one of Marco's points wholly unaddressed.  Mea culpa!

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I said that more than fifty posts ago.

Nuance may be your enemy here. The post you linked to isn't nearly as concise or straight forward as your summary above.

In the linked post you agree with many of Ron's theses, and disagree with what I (and others) see as a key point: the need for evidence that RPG's create bad habits or any other kind of lasting effect.

You (and others) don't see any need for evidence before making claims that RPG's cause lasting bad habits in story-telling ability. I think that's one of the key bad-things about the whole Brain Damage argument.

I'm happy to let it drop; in fact, I mostly did let it drop -- a huge portion of the remaing conversation *isn't* me hammering out the Brain Damage. Once you declined to agree with the need for evidence, I moved on and we discussed various other topics.

A little later I got accused of threadjacking... we can keep coming back to this, but I think I'm not sure it's productive.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBSee, I'm just going to chalk this up to "No theory questions, just another request that I indulge in hearsay and speculation," and move on.

Is the difference between "My opinions on theory" and "My opinions on other people's opinions on theory" genuinely difficult for you to grasp?  Should I give examples?

EDIT:  Added second quote-response pair when I noticed I'd left one of Marco's points wholly unaddressed.  Mea culpa!

Um, wait a second. In another post you say this:

QuoteNow, y'see, this is strange, since I've never seen that as an overwhelming trend ... while there are folks who say crazy stuff, it's always struck me as a few voices in the midst of a community that generally just thinks that lots of gamers like non-indie games, and that's fine.

Empahsis added.

I'm not asking you to speculate or use hearsay. I'm asking--without snark--what things do you find 'pro-theory' people saying that you think are crazy?

If Brain Damage isn't an example then what is?

I'm asking for a link or something that shows a pro-theory viewpoint you think is someone saying "crazy stuff."

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoUm, wait a second. In another post you say this

Yes, Marco ... and then immediately following that I say this:

Quote from: TonyLBOf course, there's no reason for anyone to figure that either of us are objective observers.  I cetainly find it easier to ride over the things you notice, because of my faith in the community as a whole.  It's possible that you find it easier to pay attention to those same things, because of your suspicion of the community as a whole.  Awful hard for anyone to say from the outside.

I guess I just hope folks will take both of our opinions with a grain of salt.  I'd be sad to see bunches of people drawing their conclusions about how Indie theorists think from such second-hand evidence.

Do you see where, if you look at the quote in its actual context, rather than cherry-picking the words you want to reply to, I'm actually saying that my opinion on the matter is not a big deal, and that people should take any second-hand opinion with a grain of salt?

Quote from: TonyLBYes, Marco ... and then immediately following that I say this:Do you see where, if you look at the quote in its actual context, rather than cherry-picking the words you want to reply to, I'm actually saying that my opinion on the matter is not a big deal, and that people should take any second-hand opinion with a grain of salt?

That's okay--I get that. I'm asking, with honest curiosity, "What theorist-stuff do you find to be crazy?"

I get that you have faith in the community as a whole--so you may find less stuff 'crazy' than someone else--that's fine. I'm perfectly alright with that. But I'd like to know where you draw the line since you are posting about it here and other places.

-Marco