Balbinus over at story-games forum proposed the following

Quote from: BalbinusIn the British parliament we have a concept called pairing, I suspect so do other legislatures.

How it works is this, if you're an MP but you can't make a vote, you pair up with a guy on the other side who's got other stuff to do as well and you both don't turn up. That way, your non-participation doesn't affect the outcome.

So, all the pro-theory guys should pair up with an anti-theory guy. Tony with JimBob for example, and then when there's a theory thread neither Tony nor Jim-Bob posts and both save some time.

I'm not eligible I'm afraid, I no longer debate the theory itself as I had nothing particularly useful to say, but others are out there.

Now, there is one drawback, in that it would never work, but I kind of like the idea still.

Quote from: TonyLB*blink, blink*

Are you serious? Or am I supposed to laugh at this?

It appears Balbinus was serious.

Now, I have a couple of things to say about this. The first is that I'll take the challenge on. Any thread marked "[Theory]" on rpg.net, or in the Theory forum here, I will only post to it if TonyLB does. I can't be more general than that, because vaguely theoretical stuff pops up here and there from time to time, I can't stop posting to an interesting thread just because some mention "kickers" in passing. But I can promise, if TonyLB's willing to reciprocate: any thread marked "[Theory]" on rpg.net, or in the Theory forum here, I will only post to it if TonyLB does.

The second thing is, why me? I don't usually post much in response to TonyLB's threads or comments. I didn't hassle his "One Simple Thing" series at rpg.net. If anyone's the right "pairing" for TonyLB, it's Marco, not JimBobOz. I (usually) read in interest and comment in passing on his threads, I don't come in babbling that he's a date-rapist.

Third, I do think it'd be a pity for people to lose TonyLB's comments on these sorts of topics. I think he has valuable things to say, and makes a reasonable attempt at saying them clearly and simply.  Uncle Ronny he ain't.

But still, if TonyLB thinks it would make for more interesting and better conversations for people about theory if we were to both stop talking about it  on these two forums - well I'll give it a go. I'll do what I can to foster intelligent and entertaining conversation, even if that means I should shut the fuck up

There it is - offering a public pledge. If TonyLB agrees to it, I'm in. If he'd rather Marco, or someone else - fair enough. If he thinks it's a stupid idea, fair enough

P.S. Andy? I only do "weenie-rubbing" over h4wt chixxorz. Mocking rpg theory isn't that exciting.

The main thing I can see here is that this kind of "pairing"; if done all the way, would quickly get rid of theory threads.

The problem is that you don't have "Theory fanatics", a "theory mainstream", a "trad gaming mainstream" and "trad gaming fanatics". One of those four, the "theory mainstream" does not exist.
So if you pair off all the theory fanatics with all the Traditional gaming fanatics/critics of theory, then you will only be left with the traditional gaming mainstream who have no interest in either starting or commenting on theory.

I mean hell, its laughable. The concept is based on the premise that there's a vast secret majority of people who are just DYING to post about theory but haven't yet because they're scared of the big bad Jimbobs and Pundits of the world.

RPGPundit

I'm not "anti-theory." I have some strong disagreements about some of Tony's philosophical stances about what it's cool to do in a game, whether or not someone's lying under a given set of circumstances, etc.

But that's not the same as being "anti-theory."

Edited to add: And I think the paring idea is an incredibly bad one. For one thing, posting isn't voting. For another thing, I'm not seeing [anti-theory] threads anywhere. I mean, there are posts deriding "theory" in general in many threads (and, even more often, posts that disagree with some specific aspect of theory that are, I bet, labeled anti-theory just because of that).

What this would mean more appropriately translated, I think is that you stop talking about Cheetoism and, by doing so, hope to bring something good to the Internet dialog. I don't think silencing Cheetoism (which, yes, I'm aware you'll probably say is craft) would be beneficial. I certainly don't think Tony stoping talking about 'theory' (or craft or whatever) would be beneficial.

I don't think trying to make an agreement to shut the Pundit or John Kim or whoever up would be beneficial either.

-Marco

I wasn't remotely serious.  It was a joke, to be honest I thought the concept so ludicrous nobody would imagine I was serious, but sadly it turned out everybody thought I was.

TonyLB and Jim-Bob were just the names that popped into my head at the time of writing, nothing more than that.

Didn't I go on in the same thread to point out that the result would be threads with nobody but pro-theory guys as there are more pro-theorists active online IMO than people who regularly post against theory?

It's laughable because it was supposed to be funny, clearly it wasn't but I never dreamt anyone would think that was a remotely sensible suggestion.

Jesus, even in the bit quoted I mention as a drawback that it would never work, was that not a clue to people that I wasn't seriously proposing it?

Edit:  Jim Bob, check your PMs, I think I PMed you to say I hadn't been serious when you queried me.  I've deleted my sent folder so I can't check anymore.

I was aware you weren't serious, Balbinus. The "it appears he was", was a joke also.

However, I saw my name come up a couple of times on story-games, and there were a few people who seemed to think that if only people like me would shut the fuck up, then, as RPGPundit said, all the would-be theorists would come surging forth to offer their ideas.

You joked, but many a true word hath been said in jest, and all that - sometimes, not even the joker realised the truth of it. It is possible that a couple of people deciding to shut up about some topic will open up discussion on it. For example, if you get a couple of posters who are frequently arguing with one another on some topic, then threads about that topic just become their duelling ground. Jumping into those threads seems like standing up in the middle of the ground between two guys just firing their six-guns at each-other. Who'd do that?

So it could be that having a couple of guys just leave a topic alone, other people could feel more comfortable discussing it. If only because others have a chance at some air time.

I remember back at uni, I had a history tutorial. There was only one other male in it besides me, and eight women. But we two men, 20% of the group, did 75% of the talking. So I said to the guy, "hey mate, why don't we just shut the fuck up for a couple of sessions. Maybe in the silence women will speak up."
"Bullshit! If they want to speak up, they can at any time!"
"How can they get a word in edgewise? Let's shut up for a bit. Just two sessions."
"No! You can't silence me! I'll continue to speak when I want to."
"Okay, then, put it this way: be quiet, or I will put your head into that wall there."

So he quieted down. We sat silent for two sessions. The first session, there were many awkward silences as the tutor looked around the room waiting for comments. But slowly, slowly, the women came forward and spoke up. The 80% of the class had 100% of the discussion, instead of 25% of it. In the third session, me and the whiny boy spoke up again, and claimed our fair 20%.

So even without the "pairing", the opposition of this guy vs that, it can sometimes be worthwhile just to shut the fuck up and let the rest have a chance to speak.

I will if some theory guy will.

I don't care if theory or anti-theory "wins" in dominating some forum. What I care about is that ideas should freely rise up and be tossed around for discussion. It's good when the most people can contribute. This shouldn't be a forum for just four or five loud and talkative guys, but for lots of people.

The challenge has been refused by TonyLB, by PM.

I guess theory guys really like talking theory.

*shrug*

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't care if theory or anti-theory "wins" in dominating some forum. What I care about is that ideas should freely rise up and be tossed around for discussion.

Quite frankly, IMO?

This is where Tony ex-fucking-cels. I've never seen a pro-theory poster be quite so awesome, as Tony manages to be. A couple of times I've seen him post and thought him well, One Of Them. But a slightly less critical eye on his posts, really reading them like a conversation between people, and it dawned on me that he may have the best aims in all theory discussion, the goal of understanding the fun of others, rather than squeezing it into a pre-determined style or telling them they shouldn't be playing RPGs like that.

You may have seen that quote about the universally interesting man being universally interested? Yeah. Tony's that guy for RPG forums. I'm glad he's not part of it, because that just frees up more discussion space for the clusters of asshats and fucktards that occupy Forgist thought.

I'm glad Tony turned JimBob down.  I'd much rather both posted more rather than less.

Quote from: jrientsI'm glad Tony turned JimBob down.  I'd much rather both posted more rather than less.

Then you've had your wish fulfilled

Without false humility or flattering TonyLB, I can think of far better pairings of people who could remain silent, and by their silence actually enhance discussion. But as with game groups, so with forums - I'm willing to try all sorts of approaches and defer to whatever is majority opinion if people believe it'll lead to better gaming, discussion, etc.

I want to be a productive member of each little community I'm in; sometimes, the most productive thing a person can do is... nothing. I was willing to believe that was so here, or at least willing to try it and see. But...

*shrug*