Quote from: TonyLBWell, c'mon ... that's not all you assume.     You also assume that if I did something to change it, that thing that I did would be one of the things you've listed, or a close cousin.

Phrasing it in that way, "If you really cared you'd do what I want you to, so since you're not doing what I want you to you must not really care," is a trifle leading.  I don't really expect that you're doing that consciously, so I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing it out for you to think about.

It is, after all, possible that I am trying to change the dialogue on these topics in ways that aren't immediately apparent to you.

Well, it sounds like you agree with the theory behind the Brain Damage in its mildest form -- but I'd still think you'd expect evidence before accepting the claim that people have been *damaged* in some way.

I can't think of any reason not to speak out against it on those grounds ("It's completely irresponsible to claim games cause damage without some kind of evidence").

Even if you're not convinced it would help, why not give it a shot based on my recommendation?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Well, it sounds like you agree with the theory behind the Brain Damage in its mildest form -- but I'd still think you'd expect evidence before accepting the claim that people have been *damaged* in some way.

As I tried to explain here, my disagreement isn't one of evidence (I personally think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that playing these games can train people into habits that are bad for other types of story-telling) but of definition.  I don't contest what the games do to people's habits.  I do contest whether that constitutes damage.

It is not irresponsible for Ron to feel more strongly than I do about how closely linked story-telling is to the fundamentals of human character (EDIT:  If, indeed, that's even what he thinks ... only my theory, remember).  To say that it is would be dishonest of me.

Quote from: -E.Even if you're not convinced it would help, why not give it a shot based on my recommendation?

On the contrary, I am completely convinced that making such a statement would do wonders for building bridges with folks who have been offended by the whole kerfuffle.  But I think it would be an unfair slam against Ron, and a lie on my part.  As eager as I am to foster happier relations, I don't want to violate my own standards in order to do so.

Quote from: TonyLBAs I tried to explain here, my disagreement isn't one of evidence (I personally think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that playing these games can train people into habits that are bad for other types of story-telling) but of definition.  I don't contest what the games do to people's habits.  I do contest whether that constitutes damage.

It is not irresponsible for Ron to feel more strongly than I do about how closely linked story-telling is to the fundamentals of human character (EDIT:  If, indeed, that's even what he thinks ... only my theory, remember).  To say that it is would be dishonest of me.

On the contrary, I am completely convinced that making such a statement would do wonders for building bridges with folks who have been offended by the whole kerfuffle.  But I think it would be an unfair slam against Ron, and a lie on my part.  As eager as I am to foster happier relations, I don't want to violate my own standards in order to do so.

At least that makes everything more clear -- I'd ask you to link to evidence beyond highly biased annecdotal data (i.e. evidence that would convincing to someone who didn't accept the theory on face value), but I assume no such evidence exists.

I'll also state that, absence such evidence, it *is* irresponsible to go around claiming games cause damage -- just as I find it irresponsible when people blame Colombine on Doom or whatever (clearly Goth Metal is a different animal... )

And finally: I don't see how this would be a slam against *anybody* -- are you making the theoretical personal?

Isn't it possible to disagree with a theory without that being a personal attack on the theorist?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Isn't it possible to disagree with a theory without that being a personal attack on the theorist?

Well, if you ask him to say that this or that is irresponsible to say, then you're asking TonyLB to make a judgement on the person who says that. That could be (or not) a personal attack.

Quote from: BalbinusActually, that I'm happy to chat about though I think it's a new thread, I'm not sure that's quite what Ron was saying but I think it has interest and as such it really is neither here nor there who argued it first or how.

Right here.  I suspect we'll end up having a lot less to disagree about than you might think.  Sorry

Quote from: -E.You could go on-record as saying that making diagnosis of harm, absent evidence, is irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt.

One of my fomer grandmothers-in-law believes that eating too much cheese can give you worms, that much stomach trouble comes from worms, and that the proper way to get rid of them is, once a week, to down a big old glass of apple vinegar.

This particular weirdness of hers is not true.

I wouldn't decide to stand up and call her irresponsible and intellectually bankupt, though.  She's a neat old lady, with lots of cool stories and stuff; I can just set her oddities aside when we interact.

Because, see, that's something people do when they want to get along.  They tolerate what they consider each other's weirdnesses, at least a little.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOne of my fomer grandmothers-in-law believes that eating too much cheese can give you worms, that much stomach trouble comes from worms, and that the proper way to get rid of them is, once a week, to down a big old glass of apple vinegar.

This particular weirdness of hers is not true.

I wouldn't decide to stand up and call her irresponsible and intellectually bankupt, though.  She's a neat old lady, with lots of cool stories and stuff; I can just set her oddities aside when we interact.

Because, see, that's something people do when they want to get along.  They tolerate what they consider each other's weirdnesses, at least a little.

I assume that little oddity of her's isn't expressed in a highly offensive way. I also assume that it's not upsetting any dialog you regularly participate in.

In other words -- it doesn't bother you, so there's no need to address it or distance yourself from it.

If you're perfectly happy with the RPG Theory dialog and see no negative influence from the Brain Damage discussion then there's no reason to further bring it up.

I, myself, was rather pleased to see the Brain Damage -- I thought it was bracingly honest compared to earlier discussions about "projecting" and "not understanding" what the theory said.

I wouldn't have it any other way... but there are a lot of people who feel it needlessly poisons and upsets things. There are people who feel like theorists get persecuted and shut down -- I think stuff like the Brain Damage is part of that, and I think a solution to that problem is to reject it.

If that's not your problem, then no solution is indicated.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorWell, if you ask him to say that this or that is irresponsible to say, then you're asking TonyLB to make a judgement on the person who says that. That could be (or not) a personal attack.

An irresponsible theory doesn't necessarily make for an irresponsible person -- a person can disown, reject, or ammend their theories.

I'm not asking him to name names. I'm not asking him to point fingers (at people). I'm just asking him (and I'll ask you, since you're here) to say that making claims that games cause actual, medical harm without real evidence to back that up is irresponsible.

Do... do you disagree with that?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.An irresponsible theory doesn't necessarily make for an irresponsible person -- a person can disown, reject, or ammend their theories.

I'm not asking him to name names. I'm not asking him to point fingers (at people). I'm just asking him (and I'll ask you, since you're here) to say that making claims that games cause actual, medical harm without real evidence to back that up is irresponsible.

Do... do you disagree with that?

Cheers,
-E.

To be honest, I disagree with that, I think it's fuckwitted but I don't really see how it's irresponsible.

See, now I would agree with "fuckwitted", but I might save "irresponsible" if someone like the Surgeon General said it.  What's like one step short of "irresponsible" on the accountability scale?  "Reckless"?  (And yeah, I'm just playing with semantics for fun).

Quote from: -E.I'm just asking him (and I'll ask you, since you're here) to say that making claims that games cause actual, medical harm without real evidence to back that up is irresponsible.

Do... do you disagree with that?

Cheers,
-E.

Dude. You don't need to ask me for that. I've said before that the Brain Damage thing was a stupid thing to say, and a stupid thing that doesn't help anyone to get a better understanding of whatever point Ron Edwards was trying to say. So yes, saying that games cause you brain damage, or equating some bad gaming experiences due to dysfunctional dynamics to being molested in your childhood, is stupid. Irresponsible? I feel that to claim irresponsibility the person must be responsible for something, due to his position as... I don't know... medical eminence, or Surgeon General, or whatnot. Ron Edwards is just some random guy that said some fuckwitted thing, is not the fucking Pope or the President of the U.S.

Quote from: BalbinusTo be honest, I disagree with that, I think it's fuckwitted but I don't really see how it's irresponsible.

I think fuckwitted is probably a better phrase than irresponsible -- but I wouldn't ask someone to swear.

Fuckwitted, it is then.
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorDude. You don't need to ask me for that. I've said before that the Brain Damage thing was a stupid thing to say, and a stupid thing that doesn't help anyone to get a better understanding of whatever point Ron Edwards was trying to say. So yes, saying that games cause you brain damage, or equating some bad gaming experiences due to dysfunctional dynamics to being molested in your childhood, is stupid. Irresponsible? I feel that to claim irresponsibility the person must be responsible for something, due to his position as... I don't know... medical eminence, or Surgeon General, or whatnot. Ron Edwards is just some random guy that said some fuckwitted thing, is not the fucking Pope or the President of the U.S.

I think we all bear responsibility for what we say -- and we bear responsibility to present our qualifications correctly.

I'm not a doctor. It's irresponsible for me to be handing out medical diagnosis.

I lack evidence -- it's irresponsible for me to claim something cause harm.

But you raise a good point about the source: a lot of people in the gaming world probably *don't* care what Edwards does to his own reputation or the reputation of his theory or his board.

Certainly some do.

If I *wanted* a productive dialog around GNS or RPG theory in general, and I felt he had materially damaged that -- because of who he is in that community (the author of GNS) -- I'd be pretty upset and I'd consider his statements (although possibly not the person) irresponsible.

Since you see him as some random internet guy and (maybe?) don't care so much how Internet RPG Theory discussion goes, maybe it makes sense not see it as irresponsible.

I read Tony as someone who does care, is interested in this stuff, and is probably having less fun in these discussions because of stuff like the Brain Damage.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I read Tony as someone who does care, is interested in this stuff, and is probably having less fun in these discussions because of stuff like the Brain Damage.

Cheers,
-E.

Possibly, but I doubt somehow it would improve his fun to get into it further in this way.

Emphasis mine:

Quote from: -E.If I *wanted* a productive dialog around GNS or RPG theory in general, and I felt he had materially damaged that -- because of who he is in that community (the author of GNS) -- I'd be pretty upset and I'd consider his statements (although possibly not the person) irresponsible.

I don't think that Ron has materially damaged my ability to have a productive discussion about RPG theory.  So far as I can see, what's damaged that is people that feel the need to wander into threads that aren't about him or his views, and threadjack them into being about that.  They did it before they had "brain damage" as a convenient byline.  They'll always be doing it.