Of course there's pretentious fucktards.  

The fallacy lies in the following:

1)  That "Swine" only refers to pretentious fucktards
2)  That these "Swine" are some kind of organized movement that presents any kind of threat to anyone
3)  That Pundit himself is any better than the people he attacks

#1 is a lie, because Swine gets used to apply to basically anyone he doesn't like.  I'm a Swine apparently, even though I love D&D and tend to be really down on people who condescendingly insult other people's fun.

#2 is nothing more than paranoid delusion, and gives far more credit to the Forge than is due.  It's also false because, as already established in my response to #1, "Swine" doesn't even mean anything solid enough to be applied to any kind of movement.

#3 is a lie, because Pundit's entire rhetoric is all about dismissing other people's fun, and is nothing more than a pretender to any throne of "defender of the common man", since he himself hates D&D3, and only defends it as a rhetorical ploy to pretend that True20, his favorite set of houserules, is more popular than it really is just because it was in theory based off the SRD at some point.

That's why "Swine" is a meaningless bit of trash, and why it gets deservedly mocked as such.

• Are you saying there are no pretentious fucktards who walk around telling people they are having badwrongfun?
  
  Maybe there were, but they are either in hiding or they have changed their rhetoric significantly.  When I asked for specific examples of this behaviour, I only got my own threads quoted back to me.  So I must be one of these people.
  
  
• If no, have you read The Forge at all?
  
  Very briefly.  I have listened to a lot of interview's with well-known forge designers as well as a lot of forgey talk on other podcasts.
  
  
• If yes, do you disagree with Pundit's definition on the grounds that it's about pretention?
  
  Yes.  I am sure there are some pretentious people among them, perhaps a higher percentage than in the "trad" community (whatever the fuck that is).  But most people seem like they are really into designing, playing and selling games and that's what they spend most of their time doing.
  
  
• If no, well, then I guess these questions don't apply.
  
  
• If yes, is there any possible definition you would provide to define a group of pretentious fucktards who believe their approach is better?
  
  Isn't that circular logic?  
  

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm really curious.  I'd guess that most everyone could point to a group of fucktard thay don't like in the RPG/Theory Internet world - what makes them fucktards to you?

For me, the fucktards are the little whiny babies who disagree with me.  But they come from both fake sides of this supposed split.

Quote from: James J Skach- what makes them fucktards to you?

When they display a contempt for gamers like the Pundit has or Ron or insert name of douchebag.

Swine or wankers - the proper term -have been around for a long time. The Pundit didn't discover them, but he sure got a lot of mileage from ripping of Hunter S. Thompson.

Regards,
David R

J - I want to make sure I'm not incorrectly interpreting. So let's leave Pundit's stupidity aside for a moment, and let's avoid "Swine" as a specific terms as it's wrapped up in in that.

Quote from: J Arcane1)  That "Swine" only refers to pretentious fucktards
#1 is a lie, because Swine gets used to apply to basically anyone he doesn't like.  I'm a Swine apparently, even though I love D&D and tend to be really down on people who condescendingly insult other people's fun.

Pundit's use of the term, as I think even I've said upthread, is moronic because it applies to him.  The fact that he uses it to denigrate anyone who doesn't play his way, and that's part of his definition...well...

So it's not the existence of some subset of gamers who deride the way other play with which you disagree, but more his hypocritical use of it.

Quote from: J Arcane2)  That these "Swine" are some kind of organized movement that presents any kind of threat to anyone
#2 is nothing more than paranoid delusion, and gives far more credit to the Forge than is due.  It's also false because, as already established in my response to #1, "Swine" doesn't even mean anything solid enough to be applied to any kind of movement.

So they (being some subset of gamers who believe their own approach to be superior) exist, they just aren't organized.

Quote from: J Arcane3)  That Pundit himself is any better than the people he attacks
#3 is a lie, because Pundit's entire rhetoric is all about dismissing other people's fun, and is nothing more than a pretender to any throne of "defender of the common man", since he himself hates D&D3, and only defends it as a rhetorical ploy to pretend that True20, his favorite set of houserules, is more popular than it really is just because it was in theory based off the SRD at some point.

While we agree on this to a great extent, I'm not including this because I'm trying to drive down to the original question of whether thes folks exist.

Now I'm getting the sense that you believe they do, but, unlike Pundit, you do no extrapolate anything from the items in the set other than the fact that they are in the set - and that the set is really anyone who looks down on others for the way the go about enjoying the hobby.

Is that close?

QuoteNow I'm getting the sense that you believe they do, but, unlike Pundit, you do no extrapolate anything from the items in the set other than the fact that they are in the set - and that the set is really anyone who looks down on others for the way the go about enjoying the hobby.

Is that close?

Yes, there are pretentious fucks.  There are screechers of badwrongfun.  There are people who look down on other gamers for people's taste in games.  this site is run by one of them.

But I call them what they are:  assholes.  I need no special term, and what's more, Pundit's special term is utterly meaningless and carries with it such a fat load of horseshit as to be completely useless.

"Swine" in any sense even vaguely resembling Pundit's usage, do not exist.

Assholes do though.

Quote from: walkerpMaybe there were, but they are either in hiding or they have changed their rhetoric significantly.  When I asked for specific examples of this behaviour, I only got my own threads quoted back to me.  So I must be one of these people.

Well, sorry walker, but when you say some of the things you've said about certain groups of gamers, it's going to come back to bite you.  I know you've claimed that you don't mean "all" and so forth, but you sure seem to have a healthy prejudice/disrespect for d20 players. That could all just be miscommunication, but then I'd suggest you work on changing your approach.

If your claim is that nobody can prove it to you, I'm going to toss Elliot's chastisement at you again - that you could never be convinced, for whatever reason. And that's yor perogative.

Quote from: walkerpYes.  I am sure there are some pretentious people among them, perhaps a higher percentage than in the "trad" community (whatever the fuck that is).  But most people seem like they are really into designing, playing and selling games and that's what they spend most of their time doing.

First, those two things are not mutually exclusive.  Second, I'm not claiming everyone at the Forge acts this way.  I'm asking because it didn't take me long at all (lurking) to see it, so I'm surprised if people haven't.

Quote from: walkerpIsn't that circular logic?

No.  I'm asking if people think these folks exist, but they have a problem with Pundit's pretension aspect, is there a set of characteristcs that they would settle on and say "Yeah, that's Swine."

Perhaps it wasn't the clearest, so I apologize if the delivery stunk.

Quote from: walkerpFor me, the fucktards are the little whiny babies who disagree with me.  But they come from both fake sides of this supposed split.

Wow, do they have to whine, or just disagree?

Quote from: James J SkachWell, sorry walker, but when you say some of the things you've said about certain groups of gamers, it's going to come back to bite you.  I know you've claimed that you don't mean "all" and so forth, but you sure seem to have a healthy prejudice/disrespect for d20 players. That could all just be miscommunication, but then I'd suggest you work on changing your approach.

If your claim is that nobody can prove it to you, I'm going to toss Elliot's chastisement at you again - that you could never be convinced, for whatever reason. And that's yor perogative.

No, no, I stand by what I said.  I have a healthy prejudice/disrespect for D20 players who refuse to try anything else.  I have no problem with the rest of the D20 world.  As a system, particularly the WotC variations, I find it painfully restrictive.  But that's my own concern and I fault no one else if it works for them (though I really have a tough time understanding how it could).  But I digress.  I just wanted to get it out of the way.

Quote from: James J SkachFirst, those two things are not mutually exclusive.  Second, I'm not claiming everyone at the Forge acts this way.  I'm asking because it didn't take me long at all (lurking) to see it, so I'm surprised if people haven't.

Yes, true.  You can be designing playable games and still be a pretentious jerk.  I just have never really spent any time at the Forge because the overall language seems so keen and forced.  I have a hard time reading on the web as it is unless it is in nice digestible bites.  I do listen to a lot of forge-related people on podcasts though.  Paul Tevis discusses it, Judd on Sons of Kryos is definitely an initiate. There are plenty of interviews with indie designers.  Maybe on the podcasts there is less putting down of other styles, I don't know, but they come off as pretty reasonable and interesting for the most part.  The point where I am no longer interested is when they get into probing complex social or personal issues in games.  But I don't find any of it that pretentious or enraging.

Let me rephrase that.  Yes, they sometimes do sound awfully pretentious.  But, for me at least, it's bearable and the other positive things I get from it are worth it.

Interesting.

In post #2 Pundit says that there is no huge Swine consipiracy. In post 36 he says that Tony is at the head of the entire swine community, preparing their latest "we're not Swine" defense.

Can he not even keep his tinfoil hat on straight for 18 posts in a row?

As for Pundit's "Exhibit H", I'm fairly certain that folks have occasionally suggested adapting the mechanics of Nobilis for Amber simply because those people would prefer something with a bit more "game" to it, not because of any claim to inherent superiority. How exactly can a system be "full of flower claptrap and pretentiousness", anyway?

It's like the sun rising.

*sigh*

Tony: "Me and my friends regularly quote 300 just as much as we would quote Hamlet or whatever"

Pundit: "You ACTUALLY DON'T quote 300, and look down upon anyone who does!!!"

Does the dude have shit in his ears? For real?  Or is this babyish "not even reading/listening to other arguer" method what passes for "debate" in the Masons? (Junior High School, maybe)

Because the way I look at the last few posts:
1) Pundy is getting his ass kicked.
2) At the same time, Pundy is not getting his ass kicked because he has simply refused to acknowledge any claims by Tony. Not even in the "turn his own posts against him" method, or "hype up his claims" method, and even the Strawmen have stopped. He's Simply. Not. Paying. Attention. Putting his fingers in his ears.

At least earlier he was listening, turning the Tony's words against him, etc.

He might as well just conclude the mess on his blog right now: "It's Over! I Won!" :haw:

-Andy

Probably the main problem with the whole thing is that Pundy has this opinion of Tony as a fuckhead, and just can not get over that to hold even anything remotely resembling a debate.

The Levi debate was long, strained, but stayed on the rails. Good blows struck on both sides.

The Sett debate had far more spunk, passion, strawmen, and swearing, but still some ground was given. They could see each other as "human", so could keep up.

In this one, Pundy just treats Tony as a turd, so he sticks his fingers in his ears rather than even bothering to listen or reply to his posts. It's "You motherfucker" this and "You motherfucker" that, without even making ground anymore.

In the future, I suggest that if Pundy take a Pistols challenge, he limits the opposition to Friends or Aquaintences. Because as soon as he takes on an "Enemy", he seems to just stuff shit in his ears until it's over.

I can't wait to see the inevitable "I Won!" post. :hehe:

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KHe might as well just conclude the mess on his blog right now: "It's Over! I Won!" :haw:

It's already there...you just can't see it, because you don't have a political mind.

Regards,
David R

I beg to differ. Tony comes off way more obnoxious then ever before. before that thread, I´d point to Tony and say: "See, there´s a cool guy even though he´s sort of a Forger."

But now?
He is as convincing and disgusting as those puny pathetic wisecracks that attack Anne Coulter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH4SzjwO9UU

Sett's right. I wept (metaphorically speaking) when Tony let Pundit drag him down to the level of middle schoolers at recess. He's doing better lately, but should step back for a day and calm down a bit. The constant "motherfucker"s are doing their job.