Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2023, 02:30:56 AM
There seems to be a bit of a US English v UK English difference. I think in UK it's always been pretty normal to use they for singular person of unknown gender. I think this is very different from attempting to use they for a singular person of known gender. I remember trying to work out how to write a sentence on the OGL 1.1 leak referring to Linda Codega as 'they', as per woke demands. It came out incomprehensible gibberish.

It isn't that either. It's just elitist vs populist. If you're uneducated or illiterate, you would use they. Only the educated would use he, and then only a) if you wanted to be an asshole or b) if you were lower class and didn't want a particular stylistic convention to give you away.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 07:22:58 PM
"They" has been ruined by the freaks, marxists and those who bow to them.

Thus, just make your game read as you feel best gets across what you are trying to say using your own authorial voice. Proper grammar is less important than the text being clear and flavored by your voice.

This is absolutely true, and it makes it somewhat annoying to correctly use singular they and have people think you've gone woke. But I'm certainly not going to switch to the abomination that is gender neutral he in protest. A native English speaker who uses gender neutral he is either stupid or spineless*. A native French speaker who uses gender neutral he can be forgiven, as to them it is perfectly natural and it wouldn't occur to them to question it.

*Unless they're writing for a publication with a style guide that mandates it.

QuoteI'm guessing you're fortunate enough to be straight. I am too, but I have too many friends who aren't so "fortunate" (not denigrating them by the use of that word, but pointing out the unfairness of the position) and I take their feelings seriously. Being kind is one of the most important things a human can do for another human.

And you have just made my mind up for me. Yes, I will be revising the pronoun use when the proofed document comes back to me.

This long argument over singular "they" is a distraction from the main issue. Singular "they" for referring to an indeterminate person isn't such a horrible crime. The disappointment is in Gonnerman's attitude and what it portends for the future.

The problem is that the people claiming that you must use the singular "they" in order to be "nice" are vicious, duplicitous, and cruel, and they don't actually believe in being nice. They have simply redefined "nice" to mean submitting to their ideological demands. So to be "nice" you must submit to them rewriting how the English language works (e.g. pronouns referring to some ephemeral "gender identity" instead of simply referring to sex as they always have). And to be "nice" you have to interpret all of fantasy literature and gaming under the assumption that fantasy monsters are allegories for real-world racial groups.

But "nice" does not mean that you have to let other people exist in the RPG space who disagree with you. You can publicly smear them as bigots and try and convince stores to deplatform them, and this somehow does not count as failing to be nice. And over in the real world, "nice" does not require you to let people like Jack Phillips and Ivan Provorov peacefully live their lives. Rather, you can (indeed, you should!) work to destroy their livelihood and lives if they politely decline to celebrate your every identity claim.

Chris Gonnerman either cannot see that these people are disingenuous and will never stop making demands of him in the name of "nice," or (and I don't want to believe this) he is rapidly becoming one of these totalitarians himself. I don't think he's a true believer just yet (the statement quoted above is quite clumsy, for one thing), and I had hoped his experience of someone trying to defame him for having pregnant orcs you might have to kill in one of his adventures would make him wary of this kind of thing.

He's going to have a choice to make in the future: be genuinely kind and tolerant and appeal to normal people, or embrace the grotesque parody of kindness and tolerance peddled by progressive totalitarians. And as of this week, it's not looking good.

In 2023 are there still people so naive as to believe that the woke activists are not morally dishonest, and simply want to foster an atmosphere of inclusion for all? The supply of comfortable, accommodating rubes must surely be diminishing at this point.

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2023, 03:24:15 AM
When a character is injured, they lose hit points from their current total.

If they is really referring to a singular third person then lose should become loses.
When a character is injured, they loses hit points from their current total.

Quote from: DocJones on January 21, 2023, 09:56:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2023, 03:24:15 AM
When a character is injured, they lose hit points from their current total.

If they is really referring to a singular third person then lose should become loses.
When a character is injured, they loses hit points from their current total.

That's not typical usage, which you can probably hear if you're a native speaker. Singular "they" is like singular "you". The pronoun "you" takes the plural form of the verb, regardless of whether it is referring to a group or a single person. i.e. The following would be incorrect,

When you are injured, you loses hit points from your current total.

The same is true of "they".

EDITED TO ADD: Like anything in English, there are variations and different answers. I'm just saying most modern and historic usage of singular "they" follows the same rule as "you".

Quote from: Plotinus on January 21, 2023, 01:01:06 PM
This long argument over singular "they" is a distraction from the main issue. Singular "they" for referring to an indeterminate person isn't such a horrible crime. The disappointment is in Gonnerman's attitude and what it portends for the future.

The problem is that the people claiming that you must use the singular "they" in order to be "nice" are vicious, duplicitous, and cruel, and they don't actually believe in being nice.

There are vicious and cruel people out in the world, including plenty of liberals. However, I don't see that manifested specifically in the BFRPG discussion of the topic. In the thread linked on the original post, singular they was suggested by MarkS_78, who said

Quote from: MarkS_78I was wondering, while all of these revisions for a new edition are being done, wouldn't it be a good idea to replace all of the many instances where the book refers to to the player or the GM using the phrase "his or her" with their?
I find that wording quite clunky, and I think that changing it would make the game feel much more welcoming and inclusive.

This is phrased as a polite request for consideration. He followed up with:

Quote from: MarkS_78Thank you for sharing your reasoning, it makes much more sens now.

As for convincing, I don't think I have more arguments so I will just expand on my previous ones:
As you know the term is clunky, It makes the book harder to read and quote at the table with this phrase.
And if it was just an artistic expression, an anachronism if you will, that would be perfectly fine, but...
It's just needlessly binary in it's meaning. I agree it was very inclusive for the time, but I don't think there is any need to specifically call out these two separate pronouns in such a clunky phrase where using one would be both more elegant and more inclusive.
As for the game being written to mimic games from the 80's, I think it already makes some changes, like removing THAC0, so a change of pronouns would not be a big one, while making the wording of the book easier to read, more elegant and more inclusive.

I think it was a fine way to phrase it at the time, but I think we now have language that's both more inclusive and at the same time more intuitive and handy. I personally know many people who use they/them pronouns, I also do if that matters, and think this would be a very good change and a great way to include more people.

Thank you for your consideration!

It seems to me that Gonnerman was amenable to the suggestion, and was not deceived or intimidated. I don't know MarkS_78. He might secretly be a vicious, duplicitous, and/or cruel person - but I don't see any sign of it here.

Quote from: DocJones on January 21, 2023, 09:56:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2023, 03:24:15 AM
When a character is injured, they lose hit points from their current total.

If they is really referring to a singular third person then lose should become loses.
When a character is injured, they loses hit points from their current total.

This was the kind of thing that came up when I experimented with trying to write a sentence referring to Linda Codega as 'they'. Does she contain multitudes? If so, 'they lose' works. Or are 'they' pronoun people still singular individuals? In the latter case you swiftly get unreadable gibberish like 'they loses'.

Welcoming and inclusive? That's the bit people are taking issue with. It wasn't enough to cut wordcount, he had to specify say that too

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2023, 02:50:53 AM

It seems to me that Gonnerman was amenable to the suggestion, and was not deceived or intimidated. I don't know MarkS_78. He might secretly be a vicious, duplicitous, and/or cruel person - but I don't see any sign of it here.

In fairness to me, I said that I didn't think Chris was a true believer (at least not yet), and I didn't mean to call him vicious, duplicitous, and cruel. I always thought well of him before this incident. It's just that progressive totalitarians as a group are typically vicious, duplicitous, and cruel, and he's listening to them with little skepticism.

My problem with Chris's response, what makes it disturbing, is the snark and one-sidedness with which he responded to the guy who didn't want to make ideological changes to the text.

QuoteI'm guessing you're fortunate enough to be straight. I am too, but I have too many friends who aren't so "fortunate" (not denigrating them by the use of that word, but pointing out the unfairness of the position) and I take their feelings seriously. Being kind is one of the most important things a human can do for another human.

And you have just made my mind up for me. Yes, I will be revising the pronoun use when the proofed document comes back to me.

Chris says being "kind" is important, but he can't see that it is not kind to his loyal volunteer collaborators to introduce ideological changes that not everyone agrees with 163 pages into the project! These people signed up to de-OGLify their favorite game, not to promote controversial sexual ideology (which, whether Chris would admit it or not, is what's imbedded in the idea that "they" is more inclusive than "he or she"). And yes, the person who asked for "they" was polite about it, but so was the person who opposed the change. But only the latter got sarcastically dismissed by Gonnerman.

Quote from: Plotinus on January 22, 2023, 09:01:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2023, 02:50:53 AM

It seems to me that Gonnerman was amenable to the suggestion, and was not deceived or intimidated. I don't know MarkS_78. He might secretly be a vicious, duplicitous, and/or cruel person - but I don't see any sign of it here.

In fairness to me, I said that I didn't think Chris was a true believer (at least not yet), and I didn't mean to call him vicious, duplicitous, and cruel. I always thought well of him before this incident. It's just that progressive totalitarians as a group are typically vicious, duplicitous, and cruel, and he's listening to them with little skepticism.

My problem with Chris's response, what makes it disturbing, is the snark and one-sidedness with which he responded to the guy who didn't want to make ideological changes to the text.

QuoteI'm guessing you're fortunate enough to be straight. I am too, but I have too many friends who aren't so "fortunate" (not denigrating them by the use of that word, but pointing out the unfairness of the position) and I take their feelings seriously. Being kind is one of the most important things a human can do for another human.

And you have just made my mind up for me. Yes, I will be revising the pronoun use when the proofed document comes back to me.

Chris says being "kind" is important, but he can't see that it is not kind to his loyal volunteer collaborators to introduce ideological changes that not everyone agrees with 163 pages into the project! These people signed up to de-OGLify their favorite game, not to promote controversial sexual ideology (which, whether Chris would admit it or not, is what's imbedded in the idea that "they" is more inclusive than "he or she"). And yes, the person who asked for "they" was polite about it, but so was the person who opposed the change. But only the latter got sarcastically dismissed by Gonnerman.

Off course Jhkim is gonna obfusctae and deviate the conversation.

Now, lets make some points:

No, the Sparkle Troll wasn't vicious, he was polite, because it was the FIRST time he asked for it and he got a very promissing answer.

We all have seen what happens when you tell them no. The Sparkle Trolls swarm in a frenzy of "niceness" to derstroy you, your life, reputation, family, friendships and livelihood.

Furthermore, a few comments after Gonnerman decalres he'll do it BECAUSE someone pointed (correctly) it was activism creeping in in a snarky response to a polite comment.

Why would the Sparkle Trolls become vicious, and cruel.?

The duplicity is assumed because the true aim is NEVER to be inclusive (since once they get control their first acctions are ALWAYS to exclude the untermench) as history has proven time and again.

TL;DR Your comment was perfect as it was Plotinus. Remember "Never apologize to the woke".

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 22, 2023, 11:31:54 AM
No, the Sparkle Troll wasn't vicious, he was polite, because it was the FIRST time he asked for it and he got a very promissing answer.

We all have seen what happens when you tell them no. The Sparkle Trolls swarm in a frenzy of "niceness" to derstroy you, your life, reputation, family, friendships and livelihood.

I agree that there are brigades of online trolls. They have no interest in being nice, no belief in any ideology, and are simply looking to bully whomever appears weak to them. There was a group of trolls starting from Something Awful who targeted me and my family in 2008, because of my going to a feminist sci-fi convention. They posted personal information of various connections, harassing messages on social media, calling my workplace, and such. It sucked. I sympathize with anyone targeted by such groups. They are miserable people.

I understand that since 2008, such trolls have shifted more to targeting conservatives. I presume this is because they now perceive conservatives as easier targets. The trolls have no sincere belief in any progressive values, though.

It sucks that online trolls exist and attack people who vary from the norms. However, they aren't representative of wider populations. When I was harassed by trolls in 2008, I didn't think that they were representative of conservatives. They were just opportunistic assholes who wanted to bully.

--

In the case of the BFRPG discussion, I don't see any sign that MarkS_78 is such a troll or connected to them. He politely talked to Gonnerman, and Gonnerman made his decision. I don't see any sign that Gonnerman was intimidated by the possibility of trolls.

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2023, 06:40:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 22, 2023, 11:31:54 AM
No, the Sparkle Troll wasn't vicious, he was polite, because it was the FIRST time he asked for it and he got a very promissing answer.

We all have seen what happens when you tell them no. The Sparkle Trolls swarm in a frenzy of "niceness" to derstroy you, your life, reputation, family, friendships and livelihood.

I agree that there are brigades of online trolls. They have no interest in being nice, no belief in any ideology, and are simply looking to bully whomever appears weak to them. There was a group of trolls starting from Something Awful who targeted me and my family in 2008, because of my going to a feminist sci-fi convention. They posted personal information of various connections, harassing messages on social media, calling my workplace, and such. It sucked. I sympathize with anyone targeted by such groups. They are miserable people.

I understand that since 2008, such trolls have shifted more to targeting conservatives. I presume this is because they now perceive conservatives as easier targets. The trolls have no sincere belief in any progressive values, though.

It sucks that online trolls exist and attack people who vary from the norms. However, they aren't representative of wider populations. When I was harassed by trolls in 2008, I didn't think that they were representative of conservatives. They were just opportunistic assholes who wanted to bully.

--

In the case of the BFRPG discussion, I don't see any sign that MarkS_78 is such a troll or connected to them. He politely talked to Gonnerman, and Gonnerman made his decision. I don't see any sign that Gonnerman was intimidated by the possibility of trolls.

I'm sorry you got bullied and people did those horrible things, that kind of people should be sent to jail. But that won't get you a pass from comflating two very different things:

Online Troll: Someone who says things he doesn't neccesarily believe to get a rise from someone else.

Sparkle Troll: Someone who asks for changes that are not needed, spouts falsehoods (like waahmen and minorities were being shunned from playing TTRPS) with a cover of being nice and inclusive to infiltrate and gain controll of a company, hobby, etc in order to push progressive ideology. There's two results that can make happy the Sparkle Trolls, either total control or the destruction of that which resists their control.

Not because both share the Troll thing in their name they are the same, just like Catholics aren't the same as Protestants but both are Christians.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 22, 2023, 06:50:22 PM
I'm sorry you got bullied and people did those horrible things, that kind of people should be sent to jail. But that won't get you a pass from comflating two very different things:

Online Troll: Someone who says things he doesn't neccesarily believe to get a rise from someone else.

Sparkle Troll: Someone who asks for changes that are not needed, spouts falsehoods (like waahmen and minorities were being shunned from playing TTRPS) with a cover of being nice and inclusive to infiltrate and gain controll of a company, hobby, etc in order to push progressive ideology. There's two results that can make happy the Sparkle Trolls, either total control or the destruction of that which resists their control.

I don't feel that your description of online troll correctly describes the sort of people who were, say, calling my workplace to try to get me fired. (It didn't work, and I wasn't afraid of it - but that was what they were attempting.)

There is a spectrum of trolls from those who just sometimes post edgy things in forums -- to those who will harass, dox, and intimidate people to get their kicks. All of them are motivated by a feeling of power. They want control, and if someone refuses to be controlled, then they get angry and lash out at them. From my experience with the trolls I dealt with in 2008, they completely blew up when I didn't back down at their attempts at intimidation. They also feel more powerful in a gang or mob.

I'm fine with the descriptor of "sparkle troll" for the power-hungry, vicious people who just want to revel in ganging up on people to force submission - and use excuses like LGBT advocacy or other progressive values to do so.

I don't think that such people are anything more than a tiny segment of the population, though - less than 1%. The vast majority of people are biased towards their own politics and likely have some false beliefs, but mostly want to live their own lives.

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2023, 08:09:06 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 22, 2023, 06:50:22 PM
I'm sorry you got bullied and people did those horrible things, that kind of people should be sent to jail. But that won't get you a pass from comflating two very different things:

Online Troll: Someone who says things he doesn't neccesarily believe to get a rise from someone else.

Sparkle Troll: Someone who asks for changes that are not needed, spouts falsehoods (like waahmen and minorities were being shunned from playing TTRPS) with a cover of being nice and inclusive to infiltrate and gain controll of a company, hobby, etc in order to push progressive ideology. There's two results that can make happy the Sparkle Trolls, either total control or the destruction of that which resists their control.

I don't feel that your description of online troll correctly describes the sort of people who were, say, calling my workplace to try to get me fired. (It didn't work, and I wasn't afraid of it - but that was what they were attempting.)

There is a spectrum of trolls from those who just sometimes post edgy things in forums -- to those who will harass, dox, and intimidate people to get their kicks. All of them are motivated by a feeling of power. They want control, and if someone refuses to be controlled, then they get angry and lash out at them. From my experience with the trolls I dealt with in 2008, they completely blew up when I didn't back down at their attempts at intimidation. They also feel more powerful in a gang or mob.

I'm fine with the descriptor of "sparkle troll" for the power-hungry, vicious people who just want to revel in ganging up on people to force submission - and use excuses like LGBT advocacy or other progressive values to do so.

I don't think that such people are anything more than a tiny segment of the population, though - less than 1%. The vast majority of people are biased towards their own politics and likely have some false beliefs, but mostly want to live their own lives.

That's because Internet Troll =/= the motherfuckers that were doing that to you, if anything they resemble more the Sparkle Troll in that they will escalate things to the real world over a silly online argument.

From the date floating around 8% od the USA population identify as progressives, that's a tiny minority, from that minority I have encountered a totall of 3 individuals (you {and maybe Trechiron?} included) who call themselves progressives AND aren't also Sparkle Trolls.

Anecdotal and all but that paints a very bleak picture of those who share your ideology.

You claim it's a tiny minority and that they are "No True Progressives"...

I'll tell you what I told the feminists who loved to claim the ones clamoring for the death/internment/castration/etc of all men weren't really feminists:

Then start fighthing them, on the twatter there's two accounts I follow, Gays against groomers and trans against groomers, they ARE fighthing those who ARE doing damage to the image of their community by claiming to belong to it.

Sadly, progressives are a lot more timid, coward or are really in favor of the totalitarians on their side so I don't see ANYONE fighthing them from your side.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 22, 2023, 08:21:17 PM
I'll tell you what I told the feminists who loved to claim the ones clamoring for the death/internment/castration/etc of all men weren't really feminists:

Then start fighthing them, on the twatter there's two accounts I follow, Gays against groomers and trans against groomers, they ARE fighthing those who ARE doing damage to the image of their community by claiming to belong to it.

I'll go over the sort of things I do to stop harassment and other action by sparkle trolls. But first, I'd ask. Have you been fighting anti-feminist trolls like the ones who harassed my family? What have you done to stop them? It seems only fair that if you ask me to fight the trolls who pose on my political side, that I should ask about how you've fought the trolls who pose on your side.

I don't expect that either of us can stop them. But we can take incremental action to lessen partisan extremism and tactics like doxxing, harassment, and libel. One is promoting Internet privacy and integrity, by support the EFF and similar organizations. Another is speaking up within our own communities for truth and accountability of claims rather than focusing outrage at the other side. Further would be promoting greater dialog with other viewpoints, like through the Braver Angels organization, or in interfaith action, like having shared activities with the Mormon church for me as a UU.