I can't help thinking that you're slighting Kyler, who in my recollection ran your game for long enough that he left a distinctive stamp on it. But I haven't counted the days, so it may be that I've underestimated how long you were with Adam or overestimated how long you were with Kyler.
I think that's the case. I wasn't with him long enough to really get a feel for his style.
I didn't want this to take this much time, and now I'm hoping I can get everything else done, but that's what happens when one poster gets caught up in something that should have been resolved long ago.
I knew you were going to mention the time. I swear to you. I'm done arguing. I'm trying to learn from it. My most effective mantra in psychosis therapy is "It's in the past. Learn from it, and let it go." I'm trying to learn from it. Please do not forget that I am also the single least experienced gamer here. There's a lot to be learned by asking questions about things like this.
And I puzzle over just how any of those are at all related to a telekinetic pulse.
That's funny, because you suggested 3 or 4 of them in previous discussions. Actually, I think the only one that didn't come from you is "Make MP's hair grow" And how exactly is it NOT related to a TK pulse? An uncontrolled and unpredictable burst of psionic energy has just had an effect on the MP. Isn't there a "Psionically make things grow"? His hair would grow until the psionic energy was dissipated, to be decided by dice roll if need be. Maybe I'm just being liberal with "Related to a TK pulse."
That made so much more sense.
Just believe me that I really am just trying to learn, not argue. If something sounds like I'm arguing, you're probably reading it wrong. (Certain exceptions apply, of course.....) Just wanted to be clear on that.
(Doing Therapy)
Just believe me that I really am just trying to learn, not argue. If something sounds like I'm arguing, you're probably reading it wrong. (Certain exceptions apply, of course.....) Just wanted to be clear on that.
John, you say people are reading your writing wrong on such a frequent basis that it begs the questions that you may be phrasing it wrong. The world does not adjust to a person, the person adjusts to the world.
I knew you were going to mention the time. I swear to you. I'm done arguing. I'm trying to learn from it. My most effective mantra in psychosis therapy is "It's in the past. Learn from it, and let it go." I'm trying to learn from it. Please do not forget that I am also the single least experienced gamer here. There's a lot to be learned by asking questions about things like this.
How long have you been playing multiverser John? At some point you are going to have to stop claiming inexperience in roleplaying games. I started playing MUDs about 10 years ago. Only began playing D&D maybe 5 or 6 years ago, which is honestly more of a miniatures game with sprinklings of roleplay in it. Call of Cthulhu was my first role playing intensive game, which I've been playing for about 2 years now, along with assorted other games. I've only refereed a handful of systems at this point.
My point is not all of us have a huge gaming background, and at the very least you've been here for how many years? I'm almost certain that you've had more years of roleplay intensive gaming than I have.
The world does not adjust to a person, the person adjusts to the world.
Incorrect. There are two types of people. Those that change themselves to suit the world, and those that change the world to suit themselves. Progress is only made by the latter group. I'm one of the latter group.
My point is not all of us have a huge gaming background, and at the very least you've been here for how many years? I'm almost certain that you've had more years of roleplay intensive gaming than I have.
This board represents virtually the entirety of my gaming experience. If you've refereed a single game, you have more experience than I.
John I've noticed you almost never answer direct questions asked. I didn't ask how many games you've refereed. I asked how long you've been playing multiverser. I looked it up. It's 4 years and almost 3 months. I've also noticed an abundance of good gaming advice offered to you, most of which you seem to write off to the same policy that the world must change for you not the other way around. Allow me to try to summarize, as I think they are fundamentals.
1. Don't argue/question your referee so much.
2. Observe gaming etiquette. For boards this includes keeping a one post reply until a response is given. This can be broken, but should be done rarely.
3. Accept responsibility.
4. Do not irritate the game master/referee. If I was running a game and someone at the table repeatedly corrected my grammar I would ask them to stop and focus on the game and past that I would find a way for them to be removed from the game. It is not an acceptable behavior. Once is enough, twice is annoying, every time is harassing.
5. Don't repeat the same argument over and over.
Keep in mind the referee is not obliged to run your game. It is a hobby not a job.
I will also no longer be responding to second third fourth or whatever posts you make past a first. I think this might be a good policy for other people on the board to adapt, as you've made it clear you refuse to adapt to accepted code of conduct and for some reason hold yourself above it and believe the world should conform to you. I refuse to conform to an outright breach in protocol. This is my first online board role playing game and I believe I've managed to assimilate well enough you should also make such an effort.
That all sounds pretty rough and a little mean, but I tend not to treat people with kid gloves, even when they are new players, which you are not.
As to the lack of refereeing, haven't multiple people offered to allow you to run a secondary game for them? I don't think I'd like you to run my current game as I've been learning a lot from MJ but I'd be willing to play a secondary game you run under a few conditions to help make sure it doesn't increase MJ's workload significantly.
1. We both post a lot, so we should either have a set up to limit the number of posts we make or reach an agreement so that MJ doesn't end up reading significantly more due to this. That's really not what I'm going for.
2. I don't question my referee, but if you wish I will critique when you ask.
3. I don't know the system entirely, but I think I've come a decent way to understanding it. I think I could limit the number of questions on my side that I'd have to ask to almost nothing. I know absolutely nothing about the magic system however, and only a little about tech.
4. I will be patient, but my patience is not boundless like MJ's. If it becomes something of a nightmare for me I will have to suspend the game. As such if it becomes such for you feel free to suspend it.
5. If for some reason it adds to MJ's workload I encourage MJ to either ask us to stop or take it someplace else.
6. It would be a secondary thread for me in all senses. My current thread is of significant importance to me as I'm loving the world and enjoying everything and in no way wish it to be suspended for this. I would post to that in preference if I was short on time.
What do you think about that? I've observed many gaming referees,of very different styles so I feel I could help you if you can deal with me.
John I've noticed you almost never answer direct questions asked. I didn't ask how many games you've refereed. I asked how long you've been playing multiverser.
What I was trying to tell you is that this board is all of my experience. A month's worth of game posts probably represents a single night at a table with a live referee. So, that 4 years and three months is not nearly as much experience as it sounds.
1. Don't argue/question your referee so much.
How am I supposed to learn if I don't ask questions? Regarding that dream skill. MJ wasn't even certain what it did. How am I supposed to know if he doesn't? How am I supposed to find out unless I ask? I'll stop questioning the referee the day you tell me a better way to find out what I need to know.
2. Observe gaming etiquette. For boards this includes keeping a one post reply until a response is given. This can be broken, but should be done rarely.
I will also no longer be responding to second third fourth or whatever posts you make past a first
When you see a post labeled (Doing Therapy) It means that I am, at the time of that writing, having a psychotic episode. Five years ago, that meant I was screaming obscenities for hours on end. Aren't you going to congratulate me that all I do now is make multiple posts? No, you don't seem to care about that. All you care about is that I'm multiple posting. Not what that multiple posting represents. What it represents is a HUGE improvement for me. Nope, you're not going to congratulate me on that, all you're going to do is tear me down some more. And you call me rude.
John, you say people are reading your writing wrong on such a frequent basis that it begs the questions that you may be phrasing it wrong.
I never said he stole money. (Well then, who did say he stole it?)
I never said he stole money. (And you're very adamant about it.)
I never said he stole money. (So you wrote it down or implied it)
I never said he stole money. (Well then who did you say stole money?)
I never said he stole money. (So you said he borrowed it and never repaid it?)
I never said he stole money. (Well then, what did you say he stole?)
The same sentence, with a single different word emphasized changes the entire meaning. So yeah, I think people are just reading me wrong. If you heard me speak, you wouldn't think so.
As far as running a game for you, I still need to get a stopwatch. Payday is in 10 days. We will see then.
Another option you could use instead of a stop watch is a virtual dice simulator. There are a bunch free online. http://rpg.norwinter.com/konkret/ That's my favorite one.
I'm glad you improved John, but I don't change my expectations. Etiquette is so vitally important in the gaming community. This was taught to me quickly when I started playing, the better your etiquette the more people like to play games with you and the more people like to run games for you.
As to emphasis there are two things. One is that context can generally tell you how to read things. I've not had an issue with being misunderstood very often through text because of this fact. Second there is the fact you can use the emphasis code like you did there to clarify if it's unclear.
Etiquette, like, oh, I don't know, using the right word in a sentence? (your/you're) No one seems to mind Adam's lack of etiquette. They only harp on me for trying to correct his.
The only world in which I could run a player is that zombie apocalypse world that I designed. I was planning to run Eric, because he was interested in publishing the world. Let me think about it for a few.
Oh, ok I didn't remember you had already set up someone to run a game for. Just trying to be helpful. The dice roller is a nice tool to bookmark for any referee or gamer though.
As to etiquette, having good grammar isn't actually part of etiquette. It's somewhat painful to read poor grammar every so often but it isn't outright a breach of etiquette, nor something that is always easy to fix. Not harping on your game master over the same issue is something that's easy to fix.
Oh, ok I didn't remember you had already set up someone to run a game for.
(Just so you know, this is more of a joke)
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is the sort of thing up with which I shall not put."
Winston Churchill.
That should be "Someone for whom to run a game."
Like I said, it's more of a joke. (What? I used to date an English teacher. She was always harping on me for that)
If you would be interested in running through that Zombie world, I have no problem with that. Hell, maybe you and Eric could run it together. The thing though was that I wanted my player to be a referee who could kind of talk me through what to do. Do you qualify in that regard? That was why I was trying to get Eric.
My grammar isn't going to change. I have decent grammar that is well suited for the technical writing my career path needs.
I don't know what zombie world is, but I'd be happy to run through anything. I leave any decision in your hands, I'm here to help any way I can.
As to my experience level I am still new to Multiverser, although I think I'm picking up on things quickly. I could walk you through most of the aspects of refereeing however as they aren't all that different from game system to game system. Only the mechanic used is vastly different which I think I understand well enough. For what it's worth I'm at your disposal.
I'll need a character sheet from you. I think you're right. Between us, we'd keep the thread running all day. One post per day.
This is going to be interesting.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm about to go to work, I'll post it after work.
Would you prefer I post it here for you or email you an excel attachment. Need to touch him up, removing the skills I've gotten in the verse so far, but it shouldn't take me long.
I am a very good referee, but a fairly poor player. John, its possibly better for you to start with one player, and Glantri might well be better than moi.
Honestly Glantri, I don't care if you invent the character sheet entirely from whole cloth. Post it here, in this thread.
Michael Washer
AKA. Mike
Glantri
2@1 Persuasion
@ Charisma
@ Animal Magnetism
1@8 Strength
1@5 Stamina
@ Resistance
@ Density
1@8 Flexibility
@ Agility
2@3 Hand/Eye
1@9 Intellect
1@7 Intuition
2@2 Education Level
1@7 Will Power
Weaknesses: Poor eyesight
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION:
Height:5’7”
Weight:170 lbs
Current Hair Style:Wavy
Hair Color: Dark Brown
Age:21
Eye Color: Green
Facial Hair: No
Birthmarks, Tattoos, or other unusual markings:
Other Description: None
Skills
Body
1@8 Tackle- Takes down target with base annoying damage B7@2
Tech
1@5 Hard Metalurgy Package T 5@x
1@5 Polymers&Plastics T 9@3
2@8 Sound Tech &Development/Repair T 10@3
Magic
2@1 Swing Dance M 0@2
Equipment:
Other Equipment:
Pliers
Hammer
Hand Saw
Screw Driver
Screws (50 Count)
Nails (50 Count)
Laptop with charger
Ruler
Caliper
Flask of Whiskey
Pocket Knife
Backpacking Backpack
1 Person tent (7 lbs, very small)
Gaffers Tape
Electrical Tape
Duct Tape
2 sleeveless shirts. 1 grey with black trim, 1 white with brown trim.
2 t-shirts. 1 solid red 1 solid black.
4 cargo shorts. 2 khaki 2 black
1 long sleeve button up black with white stripes.
2 pair of jeans
glasses
contact case
5 pair of boxers
5 pair of black ankle socks
Phone charger (wall out to mini usb)
Hiking boots
On Person:
Contacts
light sweatshirt
key chain with keys and bottle opener
Wallet with ID/credit cards/1 20 dollar bill, 4 one dollar bills.
Cell phone (Blackberry Curve)
Black polo
Black dress pants
Black ankle socks
Edit: Just clarifying this is still me, just if I versed out today instead of when I did. Main difference is I've gotten much better at swing dance, a jump that came when I went through rapid training for aerials and performance swing.
When you see a post labeled (Doing Therapy) It means that I am, at the time of that writing, having a psychotic episode. Five years ago, that meant I was screaming obscenities for hours on end. Aren't you going to congratulate me that all I do now is make multiple posts? No, you don't seem to care about that. All you care about is that I'm multiple posting. Not what that multiple posting represents. What it represents is a HUGE improvement for me. Nope, you're not going to congratulate me on that, all you're going to do is tear me down some more. And you call me rude.
This to me sounds petulant and childish. All I can think is, "Look, I vomited all over our dinner table. You should congratulate me, because a few years ago I'd have urinated and defecated at the same time, so I'm really so much better."
We will congratulate you when you can get to the bathroom, or at least out of the dining room, before you have your problem. If you want our pity because you are sub-normal, that is possible. If you want us to praise you for being less rude than you would have been before, well, that's like complimenting the psychopathic killer because this time he left half the people alive.
The same sentence, with a single different word emphasized changes the entire meaning. So yeah, I think people are just reading me wrong. If you heard me speak, you wouldn't think so.
Mike didn't say so, but it seems to me that in the main you are misunderstood more than anyone else, and that in turn suggests that the failure is at your end: you are failing to communicate as effectively as everyone else on this board.
I met a sociologist once who said to a group of us that anything that happens to you might simply be your bad luck, but if it happens to you twice it's almost certainly your fault. For example, if you are in a bar and someone picks a fight with you, well, maybe it was just the luck of the draw, that the guy was looking for a fight and you happened to step into his path; but if it frequently happens that someone picks a fight with you when you're in bars, you're doing something to encourage it, to make yourself the target.
Now, I think twice is wrong. Depending on what it is, many things will happen to you twice in your life without being your fault. But when things happen to you more frequently than they happen to others in the same circumstances, it's probably you and not the circumstances.
And that means that since you are the one person most often misunderstood in communications on this board, it must be that you are communicating poorly. Heck, not even Maxx (whose native language is probably Malaysian or Chinese) has as much trouble communicating without offending people as you do. I don't know whether it's because you think it's funny when it's not, or because you think everyone here is your buddy for sharing humorous insults and most people here aren't, or because you don't realize that what you're saying is likely to be taken badly, or because you think that we should all pretend you didn't mean what you meant, but whatever it is that causes these misunderstandings, it's not our fault but yours.
Etiquette, like, oh, I don't know, using the right word in a sentence? (your/you're) No one seems to mind Adam's lack of etiquette. They only harp on me for trying to correct his.
As Mike indicated, it is not rude to be genuinely ignorant and it is rude to presume to correct those who are. I could wish the world were otherwise, because I could correct you on occasion, and could correct most people on this board most weeks. Sometimes I do, but I attempt to do so 1) with all deference and courtesy as a friend helping a friend and 2) only for those whom I have reason to believe do or wish to write professionally who would benefit from my correction. If someone does not wish for the board to be a private tutorial in English grammar, it would be offensive even for me to make it so, and the more so for you.
I think a century ago it was different. A century ago, to be educated included knowing the "right" way to speak. If you were from the upper classes, you attended proper schools and learned correct use of the language, and you had a presumed social right to consider yourself superior to anyone below you on the social ladder, and to comment on their terrible misuse of English. One of the developments of the twentieth century is that linguists decided that there were no correct and incorrect usages, only usages that were correct for different dialects. Thus in 1920 you could say that "ain't" was improper and not a legitimate word, but by 1980 you could only say that the word "ain't" appeared in some proper English dialects but not in others, and it was not wrong, simply correct for some versions of the language. I object to this; my article A Crisis in Linguistics: Why Johnny Can't Spell goes into some detail concerning the problem, but ultimately the root of the problem is very simply that linguists in the twentieth century decided that however native speakers of a language speak or write is correct, and any notion of correcting their usage is arrogant aristocratic superiority.
Or for short, no one is ever "wrong" if he wrote what he intended to write, and you are rude to suggest otherwise. Those are the rules of etiquette from the twentieth century.
If you want to change them, you'll need to start with a Ph.D. in Linguistics and a professorship at a major university, and then you'll have to make a breakthrough more startling than Noam Chomsky's, and then maybe you'll have the credibility to say that the attitude is wrong that native speakers are never "wrong" because however they use their language is the definition of their language.
I wish you luck.
--M. J. Young
This to me sounds petulant and childish. All I can think is, "Look, I vomited all over our dinner table. You should congratulate me, because a few years ago I'd have urinated and defecated at the same time, so I'm really so much better."
And if the person had a legitimate medical reason why they couldn't control that, I probably would congratulate them. Personally, I find your refusal to accept my problems as legitimate to be petulant and childish. I also get the distinct impression that you would almost prefer it if I was still screaming obscenities for hours on end. At least then I wouldn't be able to use a computer and you wouldn't have to deal with me.
The world does not revolve around you, John. We do not have the obligation to congratulate you for exhibiting a behavior that is offensive, even if it is less offensive than it was before we met you. We, too, are individuals with our own opinions that matter.
Someday, you have to learn to grow up and accept the world as it REALLY is. You have a problem; we accept that, you accept that. That does NOT mean you have to be rude to us. That does NOT mean you have the right to make fun of us, or shout all the time, or make rude and insensitive comments couched in the claim that you are intoxicating yourself to reduce your mental problems, so that means it is OK. You. Do. Not. Have. To. Click. Send!
We will not bow to you because you demand it; we will have our freedom to live our own way, and if that should include ignoring or even blacklisting a particularly annoying individual, then so be it. Learn to live with it, or go away.
The thing that no one understands is that, to NOT make multiple posts is oftentimes a difficult willpower check. It's almost compulsory to me. "Oh, but you can control that." You can tell me you think I can control it the day you have a doctor's degree in psychiatry. Besides, if you knew how much I haven't been posting lately, you'd be truly amazed.
Screaming obscenities for hours on end.
Making multiple postings.
That sounds like quite an improvement. You don't see an improvement, all you see is rude behavior.
The frequency of posts is mildly annoying, but it's been accepted with resignation. The content of your posts is what the issue is.
And what content would that be, Brock? I still say you're just misunderstanding me.
Two
Since we're on the topic, MJ wrote:
Mike didn't say so, but it seems to me that in the main you are misunderstood more than anyone else, and that in turn suggests that the failure is at your end: you are failing to communicate as effectively as everyone else on this board.
As I have explained, part of the thing with me is that I cannot type and speak at the same time, I type what I'm saying. This means that I am often talking whilst typing. I'm doing it right now, actually. It sounds fine to me when I say it out loud. That's all I can give you.
And then:
And that means that since you are the one person most often misunderstood in communications on this board, it must be that you are communicating poorly. Heck, not even Maxx (whose native language is probably Malaysian or Chinese) has as much trouble communicating without offending people as you do.
Didn't you say in connection with the your/you're that it is not uncommon for people who learn English as a second language to be more versed in it than native speakers? Maxx learned differently than I did. I believe you said it made my argument moot. On that grounds, I am determining this argument of yours to be moot.
I met a sociologist once who said to a group of us that anything that happens to you might simply be your bad luck, but if it happens to you twice it's almost certainly your fault. For example, if you are in a bar and someone picks a fight with you, well, maybe it was just the luck of the draw, that the guy was looking for a fight and you happened to step into his path; but if it frequently happens that someone picks a fight with you when you're in bars, you're doing something to encourage it, to make yourself the target.
Now, I think twice is wrong. Depending on what it is, many things will happen to you twice in your life without being your fault. But when things happen to you more frequently than they happen to others in the same circumstances, it's probably you and not the circumstances.
So it was my fault that, for 2 years when I was a kid, about a half-dozen guys followed me to and from school every day making my already miserable existence even more so? Thanks. I know you didn't mean it like that, but still. I could argue that you failed to communicate. It happens. Live with it.
I don't know whether it's because you think it's funny when it's not, or because you think everyone here is your buddy for sharing humorous insults and most people here aren't, or because you don't realize that what you're saying is likely to be taken badly, or because you think that we should all pretend you didn't mean what you meant, but whatever it is that causes these misunderstandings, it's not our fault but yours.
I think it's a little bit of all of that, actually.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
As far as failing to communicate, we've established several times in this very thread that MJ has a tendency to read things in where nothing was intended. (Knowledge of Pearl Harbor, a desire to stop the attack) What I'm saying is, are you 100% certain the failure to communicate is at my end? Seems to me that you're pretty good at seeing things that aren't there.
More than one
Ya know what? After rereading this very set of posts, they do sound a trifle rude. However, I am merely stating facts and observations. It's kind of difficult to state facts and observations without sounding a trifle rude. Just another set of facts and observations.
(Doing Therapy)
Ya know what? I think I figured out why I'm misunderstood.
The thing that no one understands is that, to NOT make multiple posts is oftentimes a difficult willpower check. It's almost compulsory to me. "Oh, but you can control that." You can tell me you think I can control it the day you have a doctor's degree in psychiatry.
Show of hands, how many of you read that to mean that I was saying I couldn't control my posting habits? All of you read it completely wrong, and read something in that wasn't there. Shame on you. I never once said that I couldn't control my posting habits, I said that no one has the right to tell me I can control my posting habits until they have a doctor's degree in psychiatry. If you're not a doctor, you don't know what you're talking about, therefore, you have no right or authority to tell me what I can and cannot control. Whether I actually can control them is not even an issue in the above statement.
If I was to say that I thought the opening theme song and credits was the best part to the show Star Trek Enterprise, show of hands, how many of you would read that to mean that I didn't like the show Star Trek Enterprise? Again, you are reading something that isn't there. Shame on you. I think Enterprise is by far the best of the Star Trek shows, and what you would read as an insult to the show is actually a huge compliment to the opening credits.
I think you're just reading things in that aren't there. You need to take most of what I say at face-value, literal meaning. Don't read anything in. MJ has repeatedly admitted he's guilty of that. So, I ask again, are you 100% certain the fault is at my end?
Show of hands, how many of you read that to mean that I was saying I couldn't control my posting habits? All of you read it completely wrong, and read something in that wasn't there. Shame on you. I never once said that I couldn't control my posting habits, I said that no one has the right to tell me I can control my posting habits until they have a doctor's degree in psychiatry. If you're not a doctor, you don't know what you're talking about, therefore, you have no right or authority to tell me what I can and cannot control. Whether I actually can control them is not even an issue in the above statement.
Boy, is this ever belligerent. Talk about wading out with a chip on your shoulder ready to pick a fight.
What I understood you to say by
The thing that no one understands is that, to NOT make multiple posts is oftentimes a difficult willpower check. It's almost compulsory to me. "Oh, but you can control that." You can tell me you think I can control it the day you have a doctor's degree in psychiatry.is that
- You have a great deal of difficulty resisting the urge to post again, and
- Only someone with a doctorate in psychiatry is qualified to argue that point.
I did not argue the first point; but I certainly will argue the second.
I'll start by suggesting that someone with a doctorate in psychology might be just as capable of assessing that matter. After all, a doctorate in psychology is a Ph.D. studying mental function and aberration, and a doctorate in psychiatry is an M.D. with studies in psychology appended. Psychiatrists have been found to be prejudiced against psychologists, on no sound basis. (In one fascinating study, researchers invented case studies, invented diagnoses, randomly attributed the diagnoses to either psychologists or psychiatrists, and passed these entirely faked histories to psychiatrists and psychologists for their assessments of whether the stated diagnoses were correct. Psychologists rather generally indicated that some were probably correct and others probably incorrect; psychiatrists fairly consistently indicated that diagnoses attributed to psychiatrists were probably correct and those attributed to psychologists were probably incorrect.) So I would argue that someone with a doctorate in psychology is also qualified to argue the point.
I would also argue that someone who did extensive graduate work in the field but did not obtain a doctorate would also have a solid qualification to argue the point. So would someone who had a masters in the field, and so would someone who had an undergraduate degree with clinical certification and experience.
And, I would contend, so would anyone with a strong knowledge base in the field.
That does not mean that any such person would argue that you did not find such self-control difficult. Everyone does find self-control difficult in some are or another of his life. That's why there are fat people, and alcoholics, and uncontrolled diabetics, and careless drivers, an a thousand other things that represent a failure of individuals to make good choices when they prefer to make bad ones.
But I am one hundred percent certain that if one person is consistently misunderstood by everyone else and everyone else is rarely misunderstood, then the fault is with the one. Everyone else can do this without sounding belligerent, without being misunderstood, and without offending everyone else present.
I'm good for identifying possibilities. The ones I see here include:
- It is not possible for you to learn how to interact appropriately with others, and it is on us to decide whether to take your offense as of a handicapped child who cannot possibly do better or to exclude you from our social interactions.
- You have decided that it is not possible for you to learn, and thus even though you could it would never occur to you to try, and we thus have the right to be offended by your refusal at our expense to accept the reality of your own ability to be better.
- You know you could learn, but you consider it too difficult and are not up to the task, but have decided to impose on us by demanding that we put up with your lack of social ability because changing is too difficult.
- I'm not sure how different that is from the last one: you could change, but you simply don't care enough about anyone else's feelings to try.
You want it not to be your fault, because then you don't have to make any effort to do better. You don't have to make any effort to do better, because you don't really have to do anything you don't want to do; but the price of refusing to conform to societal norms is that society ultimately excludes you. You will wear out your welcome if you can't play nice.
--M. J. Young
Now I gotta ask. It's driving me nuts. Did it ever occur to you that my interest in Final Countdown had nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in Pearl Harbor? Did that ever enter your thought processes even for a moment? It was motivated strictly by an interest in time travel. From what I know of your movie watching habits, I'd wager that I probably watch more DVDs in a week than you do in six months. I watch movies so I don't get bored. Most of the time, my selections at the video store are picked because I liked the cover art on the box. "When in doubt, get the one with a good looking girl on the cover." is my rule of thumb at the video store. My point is, I don't watch movies I'm interested in most of the time. I probably would have sent me there too, but that's because I take inspiration from things like that, not because I would assume that the person was interested in it. I wish I had done a time travel film about the American Revolutionary War. At least that's a historical subject in which I have a modicum of interest. I will give you this. If all of your assumptions had been correct, it would have been a perfect world to send me to. Unfortunately, it seems you read me completely wrong.
Two
Ya know what? After rereading it, that does sound a touch rude and petulant, doesn't it? I'm not sure how to avoid that. Well, I guess just try to understand that it isn't intentional.
Ya know what? I think I see why I seem rude. I state things "Matter of fact." It isn't supposed to be rude sounding, it's supposed to sound (Official Tone) "These are the facts, sir." Or something similar. Anyway, just thought you'd want the explanation.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
Mistake.
(Doing Therapy)
Did it ever occur to you that my interest in Final Countdown had nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in Pearl Harbor?
I can't say I really thought about it, but I did assume that you particularly chose that specific time travel movie because of the Pearl Harbor connection.
After all, I'm told that there are something like 300 time travel movies, and that was the first one you'd ever mentioned; also, in my experience, people who are really into firearms are usually also really into military history. Thus it made sense for someone who was into firearms and specifically chose to analyze the time travel in a World War II movie to be a military history buff as well.
Sure, you defy stereotype, and sure, stereotypes are always suspect and potentially misleading. But we come to understand people by the processes of generalization and discrimination--mentally putting people into categories of people who are like that and then identifying the individual characteristics that distinguish them from the category. That is how humans think, and you can't escape that. So I put you into the category of people who like guns, and modified it by your interest in a World War II movie, and concluded quite reasonably that you were in the category of military history buffs. It was in incorrect conclusion. It was not an unreasonable one.
--M. J. Young
I can't say I really thought about it, but I did assume that you particularly chose that specific time travel movie because of the Pearl Harbor connection.
Actually, if you must know, I picked that particular movie as a favor to you. You had mentioned getting a lot of requests for Final Countdown, so I acquired a copy of the movie to attempt it. It seemed simple enough, so I went for it.
After all, I'm told that there are something like 300 time travel movies, and that was the first one you'd ever mentioned
No, I mentioned doing Somewhere in Time prior to that. I deemed it too complicated because I couldn't figure out what would happen to the watch.
in my experience, people who are really into firearms are usually also really into military history.
And in my experience, mid-50s men with long hair and heavy beards who are into rock music are aging, burned out ex-hippies who want nothing more than to get back to the 60s so they can once again melt their brains with mind-altering drugs. Looks like we both defy the stereotype. You're probably just as offended by that stereotype as I was by the one you pinned on me. Hey, it happens.
And in my experience, mid-50s men with long hair and heavy beards who are into rock music are aging, burned out ex-hippies who want nothing more than to get back to the 60s so they can once again melt their brains with mind-altering drugs. Looks like we both defy the stereotype. You're probably just as offended by that stereotype as I was by the one you pinned on me. Hey, it happens.
John, you were complaining about Brock being offended too easily, actually stating most of us were offended too easily, and here you are being offended by a benign comment.
Your comment on the other hand is phrased to be purposefully abrasive.
If he had said based on your interest in guns he thought you to be a military wacko with no social skills who wished he could instead of living life be living military history, it would have been phrased similar to how you phrased your comment. MJ did not say that however, he simply said he assumed you had an interest in military history.
I'm not calling you that by the way, just saying that is what would be on par with your comment.
Your comment on the other hand is phrased to be purposefully abrasive.
No, I figured it out. I phrase my comments to be matter-of-fact. Not abrasive.
What I was saying though is that the stereotype would be just as inaccurate.
John, when you think you're being "matter-of-fact" you're being abrasive.
Compare yours:
And in my experience, mid-50s men with long hair and heavy beards who are into rock music are aging, burned out ex-hippies who want nothing more than to get back to the 60s so they can once again melt their brains with mind-altering drugs.
to:
And in my experience, mid-50s men with long hair and heavy beards who are into rock music were hippies in the sixties impacted by the drugs they used then and would like to return to those experiences.
It probably isn't worth mentioning that anyone in their mid-fifties was in grade school in the sixties; your stereotypes need a bit of upgrading, perhaps. But the point is, your "matter of fact" phrasing incorporates several judgmental buzz words and phrases ("burned out ex-hippies", "aging", "melt their brains").
As Mike says, my description was not abrasive at all; if you took offense it was because you don't like being perceived as someone interested in military history, not because I painted that as a bad thing. One of my good friends in my gaming life is very much into military history, as well as guns, model sailing ships, World War II paraphernalia, and war games. He's also the only guy I know who has his own pinball machine, and when Atari was still new he got pre-release chips of the new games.
Your description of the stereotype you gave was inherently judgmental: it indicated your strong dislike for people of that type. My description of a stereotype was judgmentally neutral: you couldn't tell from it whether I thought this was good or bad.
That suggests to me that you have a very difficult time distinguishing "facts" from your opinions about those facts. It may also be that you have difficulty recognizing neutrally stated facts that you dislike from adverse opinions. That is, I said that I had thought you were a "military history buff", and you apparently read that as if I said you were a "fascist skinhead" (and I can also describe "fascist skinheads" without using such emotionally charged language).
So it seems to disadvantage you both ways: when you're writing, you use emotionally charged judgmental language and think you're simply stating facts, and when you're reading you read non-judgmental emotionally-neutral facts as if they were condemnatory.
That means you will always read us as writing the way you write, and read yourself as writing the way we write. So you will always have this problem until you can distinguish the difference between your judgmental descriptions and our neutral factual statements.
I mean, John, if a cop said you were a worthless drug-addled imbecilic (insert expletive), and then insisted he was just stating the facts, by the standards by which you judge your own writing he would be; but if he said you were a psychiatric patient on disability experimenting with marijuana, by the standards by which you judge our writing, that would be highly offensive.
Just the facts, John, not the highly-charged opinionated full-color descriptions of the facts.
--M. J. Young
wow... this thread has been inactive after being active for a very long time, huh? anyway, I really just wanted to say two things on this point. one, I recently started a game being run by Adam, am LOVING it, I've been a player in games for nearly twenty years (those with dice and paper, anyway; those without dice and paper at least a year or two longer) and a Multiverser referee for over ten, so my opinion should provide some testament to his worth as a Multiverser referee. second... who's ready to verse John 2 into the revolutionary war??? lol! could have him get picked up by minutemen, tied up, and thrown over the back of a horse which trips due to a botched tk pulse, breaks a leg and accidently rolls over him, not fatally, but close! =)
I see MJ. You were thinking "John knows about the attack. John knows how many people were killed, John knows how terrible it was, John will certainly want to stop that because he knows so much about it."
What you didn't anticipate was that the only thing I knew about Pearl Harbor was that it was an important historical event which had to take place in order to make The United States what it eventually became. I didn't see people who were going to die, all I saw was what I viewed as the single most important event of the 20th century. Me willingly stopping the Pearl Harbor attack would be like you willingly preventing the birth of Christ because of all of the people who would eventually be killed in the Crusades.
I think we all understand, John, you didn't want to go to Pearl Harbor, give it a rest. You went there, you did what you did, it's over, just a memory. I live a life without regret, you should try it some time. It's quite liberating. Not to say that I don't try to make amends when I'm in the wrong, just to say that regret is usually a waste of time and energy that could be better spent doing something else. Here's an idea; you've spent so much time thinking about this world, why don't you run someone in it and make it a better experience than yours was?
You went there, you did what you did, it's over, just a memory
That's the problem. It's a memory. A psychotic episode is a memory. Imagine a home movie of all of your life's most embarrassing, humiliating moments flashing before your eyes and you can't shut it off, coupled with the blades of a blender spinning inside your head. I have some of these that go back more than 25 years. Who would have thought I could get them from the memories of a game character?
I have thought that. See, John, I can relate to a lot of the things that you say, because I don't know if you know this, but I suffer from a form of Bipolar disorder (well, sometimes it makes me suffer, but usually it's people around me doing the suffering). The doctor who diagnosed me basically said "You are probably also psychotic, but if I write that in your diagnosis, you will never get a real job and your life will basically be over." I'm highly functioning, but I don't take medicine. There are times, stressful situations esspecially, when my feelings become all-encompassing, and my actions and words can be best described a impulsive; which is why I say live life regret free. It happened and it's done. Sure, we've done terrible things; everyone has. In the words of the Beatles, let it be.