Quote from: Balbinus;230801It is a bit odd in that thread how if a game hasn't worked for someone, they seem to assume that the fault lies in them rather than in the game.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a sound assumption.

I think that assuming there is a fault with either is unsound. Like most binary systems, there are more than two possible results. The fault may lie with either, neither, or both.

-clash

Balbinus: If you would read closely, you could see how very few actual gaming is done.

"I played once..."
"I never played..."

are the most important recurring sentences here. And Luke Crane, of all people sees this and the underlying mechanisms and calls them on it.

Quote from: HinterWelt;230784It is quite simple. If you hold absolute morals, then some things are wrong and by extension, you (engine) are wrong. In fact, you cannot even argue that his position is wrong because them you would be making a judgment on his moral system and claiming yours to be superior thus disproving your position.

I agree with the first statement - absolutist moral systems can and find relative moral systems objectionable - but that doesn't make that absolutist system correct, only objectionable by the standards of the unproven absolutist system.

Quote from: HinterWelt;230784By definition, you must allow and admit the validity of his position...

Oh, no! Maybe some moral relativists feel that way, but that's because their reasons for lacking absolute morality are different from mine. I lack one because I see no evidence of the existence of one, not because I feel "all moral systems are equal in value," which is often, strangely, a moral relativist view.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;230788There's no need to explain that which is self-evident to all rational people.

Well, isn't that the essence of my deconstructionism? The refusal to accept as axiomatic that which has not been proven? Anyway, everyone rational once knew the sun orbited the Earth, so I think challenging axioms is a good idea; besides, what harm is there is challenging that which is self-evident? It's awful easy to prove anything rationally true which actually is, I've found.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;230788Anyway, the PCs in my games don't murder, either. So arguing, "well, you don't object to murder, why object to rape?" doesn't work with me.

Then I was very carefully not talking about you in the first place, Kyle. I made certain to include a wide variety of conditionals so that it would be clear that I wasn't saying this was universal, only that it was "often" true, which it is.

Quote from: Nicephorus;230803The burden of proof or explanation is on the one proposing something different than the default.

Well, doesn't that put me in a pickle! See I don't believe in the existence of a thing, which means in order to assert my position, I have to prove a negative, which is logically impossible! It'd be like the burden of proof being on the atheist, or on the guy who says there aren't any black swans. [Which, by the way, it turns out there are, so I have to stop using that as an example.] That's why I'd always been told that the burden of proof actually was on the person putting forth the existence of a thing, but if the burden of proof lies on me for having a viewpoint that until recently was considered false, then I fear I'll just have to remain trapped between this burden and the impossibility of proving a negative. [How convenient for me, neh? You see, I have arranged everything so I have to prove nothing, ha ha!]

Someone could rescue me, of course, by proving the positive, by providing any evidence at all whatsoever for the existence of an absolute and objective morality, but for some strange reason, nobody can. Wonder why.

Quote from: Nicephorus;230803I think Kyle has the right to call you a moral relativst wanker until you can present a strong case for the position.

Dude, Kyle has the right to call me a moral relativist wanker forever. I just think it's silly for him to use the terms "moral relativist" and "deconstructivist" like they're profanity, without ever giving any reason they might actually be untrue or invalid.

BTW:

Although my point was totally different, my stance from 2007 is now perfectly vindicated: you can´t talk about Forger games and not end up talking about rape. *sigh*

Quote from: Settembrini;230821...you can´t talk about Forger games and not end up talking about rape.

Settembrini's Law.

I wish it wasn´t true.

Quote from: Settembrini;230832I wish it wasn´t true.

I was actually going to say, "I'll bet the Forge developers wish it wasn't true, too," but I don't know them. It's entirely possible they love the constant controversy that comes about when dealing with issues like this. I think I'd personally get a little tired of my community being synonymous with "forced anal fisting for high art!" but experience has shown me not everyone gets tired of the same things I do.

Really wish the Forge weren't blacklisted for me, so I could see what the fuss was about, though.

Quote from: Engine;230817Someone could rescue me, of course, by proving the positive, by providing any evidence at all whatsoever for the existence of an absolute and objective morality, but for some strange reason, nobody can. Wonder why.
 

1. It's partly tied up in definitions.  It's very difficult to get agreement on a definition, especially of something abstract.  That doesn't mean that  the thing doesn't exist.
 
2. There has been pyschological research into ethics across cultures that shows remarkable agreement on some core morals.

2. true, but this agreement manifests in strange ways. For instance, Americans and Nepalis both have incest taboos, but what is incest in the US is an ideal marriage arrangement in Nepal.

My fleet-footed friend, I think those are excellent points, and I would be glad to discuss meaningful definitions and the existence of widespread but not universal moral commonalities across cultures, but I don't think this thread's the place to do it. I'm told this is "threadcrapping," and bad form.

I don't think you can threadcrap in a Sett thread. Or, rather, it's like pissing into the ocean

Quote from: SettembriAlthough my point was totally different, my stance from 2007 is now perfectly vindicated: you can´t talk about Forger games and not end up talking about rape. *sigh*

Although, as far as I know, Gang rape, has nothing to do with forge, and it's scenario for freeform/jeepform game, not RPG in traditional sence (people siting around table, rolling dice)...

Quote from: Engine;230858I'm told this is "threadcrapping," and bad form.

Technically, this is more of a hijacking since we have taken the topic in a direction entirely different from its starting point but haven't tried to attack or belittle the intent of the thread.

It´s okay, I just wanted to make clear tio keep my vest clean. Carry on, my point has been made. Three times and you giys made a bonus point for me.

Quote from: Settembrini;230878Three times and you giys made a bonus point for me.

There are glys here? My God, is there no safe place?