Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

Nope, not one of it's goals.

But it's sure as hell a common ideal people try to set up.  I've heard the words "rigorous debate" bandied about more times than I care to count, and they make me giggle.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikJames,

Whatever.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Did you make the 'W' with your hand after you typed that?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI didn't say anything about anyone being not "smart" enough. The conversation was about the clarity (or the lack of it) about Ron's writing. I said I was confused by the fact I didn't have problems with the GNS essay. That's all, and that was my only point.

I know you will see it however you want... Some folks are touchy and seek out offenses. I'm guessing you're one of them. But really, no offense was meant or even stated.

And this is one of the reasons I could no longer stand even lurking in the Forge.  Do you even read what you wrote and consider how it might be taken? You're guessing I'm one of them?  Did I go rushing off to another forum to defend anyone? My god, youwant to talk about irony?

Quote from: Christopher KubasikOn another thread, John Kim provided clarification for some mistatements Pundit had made about Edward's writing. I don't think I did anything different. Certainly I'm not pushing anything but a few facts. I even said, "Attack him if you want, but do it for what he said."

Go back and look at what you posted.  Not what was in your head or your heart, but what you actually posted.  And then tell me how that jibes with "I'm not pushing anything but a few facts."

Quote from: Christopher KubasikI get it. I'm not welcome.

You're more than welcome.  I'd love to have you here.  We can talk about all kinds of gaming-related things. But you can't come in here all full of indignation defending something many here disagree with and not expect to get blowback. Stay, by all means. I'm certainly nobody important enough here for you to consider leaving over.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

But if someone comes here -- not contradicting the logic of the place, but simply setting a few misstatement straight -- he's an outsider who must be insulted ("Great Creator," my ass...) and admonished with over-elaborate emticons.

I did not use one emoticon. And insults are a dime a dozen around here.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikRiiiiiight... the Forge is a closed community where they only listen to themselves and can't take dissenting views... Unlike... uh... this place.... Ah, sweet irony...

As I said in my longer insulting rant.  I had no problem with your defense of Mr. Edwards - other than some disagreement over your information. It's that you can't help but then go on to bring up brain damage and GNS and all the rest as if that's relevant ro the defense. You want to talk theory? Great, start a thread.

BTW - what would happen in the Forge if I went in and did what you just did here?  Think I wouldn't be jumped on and banned? There's you're real test of openess.

Quote from: Christopher KubasikThe site will mock the Forge for not meeting real "peer review" standards (as if that was ever one of it's goals... and how that latest straw man of insults got set up I do not know...)

I'll explain... no, too long. I sum up.

The Forge sets itself up as 'academia' in that it puts out a theory, opens up for discussion, all in the name of advancing game design out of the 'rub two sticks together, see if fire starts' methodology.  If only not in so many words.

Further, Ron is regularly held up as an academian, due to his collegiate credentials.

Peer Review exists in academia to prevent dead end schools of thought, or the adoption of an Aristolian Method. It works, though not perfectly.  Not discussing stuff, as the Forge no longer does, does not.

As a scientist, Ron should know beyond ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT that no scientific theory is ever truly complete. Ever. All of what man knows and has accomplished is dwarfed only by the infinite vastness of what he DOES NOT know.  Etc.

So, we can use Peer Review as a shorthand for laughing at the high hobby horseness of closing down theory discussion because it is now 'complete', and a stern dressing down of the supposed rigorousness of their theory.  It is not, however a strawman, because the target isn't the Forge's use of the term (they did not), but their actual behavior.

Attacking the term IS a strawman, as it ignored the thrust of the debate.

End sum up.

I would just like to personally apologize to everyone for my outburst, and specifically to Mr. Kubasik for taking him to task so inconsiderately.

Quote from: James J SkachDid anyone else notice it.  I mean, the point where someone from the Forge comes in to defend the Theory and the Great Creator?

This is what pisses quite a few people off.  Why come here to do this? I mean, if Pundit is crazy, and the people who have posted here aren't smart enought to just pick up GNS and get it, and people who post here tend not to play "Story Games," and Ron really didn't mean "brain damage," and a thousand other if's, Why?

OK, so you saw that people were harshing on Mr. Edwards. You saw the need to set the record straight. Your corrections, where applicable are duly noted.

But please, please, please don't start parading around your "I went to a Con and GNS is Truth Laid Bare," opinion.  As pundit has noted, Forge/GNS Theory is not an accepted fact in this forum.

Well put, James.  The thing is, this is standard modus operandi for the Forge.  They're not just the Creationists of the RPG world, they're the fucking Jehovah's Witnesses of the RPG world. They'll be knocking at your door to try to sell you the good news whether you're interested or not.

Here at theRPGsite, we're the guys who open that door naked from the waist down and wearing a Viking hat.

RPGPundit

I watched a fascinating movie a little while back:  Street Fight, a documentary about the 2002 ayoral campaign in Newark, NJ where newcomer Cory Booker tried to unseat long-time incumbent Sharpe James.  Now what was fascinating wasn't the inherent interest of a mayoral election (yawn!) but the fact that, to all appearances, the James campaign seems to have flouted every conceivable election law, on a regular basis.  I mean, he was having city officials tear down Booker advertising, he was getting up on television and outright lying about matters of public record not once or twice but many times daily, his employees were convicted of all manner of illegalities including repeated assaults on Booker campaign supporters.  It was simply astonishing to watch the sheer extent of the incumbent campaign's law-breaking.

And in the middle of all this, they had a fascinating little snippet of mayor James speaking to the press.  Somebody asked him about the Booker campaign's claims that he was deliberately misinforming people in districts that didn't favor him about their voting process ... making it, essentially, impossible for them to find the polls.  And he said something roughly akin to "Well, sure, Cory Booker's complaining.  I mean, really, aren't you used to that by now?  Has there been a day in this campaign where Cory Booker hasn't been complaining about something or other?"

I was just impressed as all get-out.  That's such a convincing tack to take.  If one group of people is constantly calling foul against another group it must be because calling foul is a rhetorical tactic of theirs.  I mean ... that's just as obvious as the nose on your face, right?

Yeah man - its why you gotta call swine out on their crap when the do it, else you'll always be playing catchup.

When they say game design is stuck tell them to stop reading the crap bits. When they say there has never been a good roleplaying setting laugh in their faces. When they say your games don't work call them cunts and wave the sign.

:forge:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNope, not one of it's goals.

But it's sure as hell a common ideal people try to set up.  I've heard the words "rigorous debate" bandied about more times than I care to count, and they make me giggle.

The don't call it theory and drop the pseudoacademic tone (n.b. I find your posts to be refreshingly down to earth, so this is not necessarily a dig at you, Levi).  A theory is:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about those phenomena."

If your ideas can't stand up to debate, then they do not constitute a theory.  It might be an interesting intellectual exercise (less charitable people would call it "mental masturbation") to play with those ideas, but that is not theorizing.  Theory is only made stronger by rigorous debate; if it can't stand up to such debate, then it lacks explanatory power.  In which case, why push it as if it does?