anyway.



thread: 2006-01-26 : A Public Service Announcement

On 2006-01-28, John Kim wrote:

Wait.  Isn’t calling him elitist also judging?  I mean, I happen to think he’s full of shit on that one.  What am I allowed to say to that effect?



 

This makes BL go "Judgement of play is not judgement of a person"
And visa-versa.

This makes CS go "Which is to say..."
I think you can argue the point (Vincent did!), but you can't dismiss the concept out of hand as no go territory (which trying to argue against it by calling him elitist would be). Also, since this blog is concerned purely with effective thematic play, you can only question Ron's claim on the grounds of whether gamer damage (What an amazingly self-hating group RPGers are!) interferes with creating theme, not on the grounds that most gamers aren't looking for theme. Or anyway, that would be my guess.

This makes JHK go "Why dismissive?"
Why would calling Ron "elitist" be dismissive, but his calling traditional role-players (i.e. actual people) "brain-damaged" acceptable. I probably wouldn't use the word "elitist", but I might use equally harsh ones. It seems to me totally fucked up that others should have to tiptoe around my word choice so as to avoid sounding dismissive, given that Ron's statement is fine.

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":