Discussion of Social Contract theories at the Forge
lumpley:
Piers: like MJ says, if you want to talk about your theories here at the Forge you'll just need to use examples from your own play experiences. It shouldn't be too difficult to do. After all, your experiences are where your theories came from.
Sindyr: noted, thank you. Don't keep on about it, please.
-Vincent
not the content moderator (that's Ron), just the tech admin and an old-timer
The Magus:
Quote from: lumpley on April 07, 2009, 09:17:28 AM
Piers: like MJ says, if you want to talk about your theories here at the Forge you'll just need to use examples from your own play experiences. It shouldn't be too difficult to do. After all, your experiences are where your theories came from.
Thanks Vincent, MJ and Sindyr. I'm hoping to write up a detailed post after Easter. I have some concerns that I'll be repeating stuff that might have been discussed here before. Having looked at the majority of the articles I can find only passing mentions of my interests and concerns. I will post in Actual Play and attempt to base it on my experiences but also the experiences that others sometime describe.
Regards
Piers
M. J. Young:
Sindyr, I am entirely sympathetic. I am one who thinks theoretically and has trouble connecting it back to the concrete from which it arose (I tend rather to apply it forward to what it implies for play that has not yet happened). I also think that actual play is much too busy a forum for someone interested primarily in theory. I know that sometimes some peoples' eyes glazed over when they came to some of my theory posts; but I feel that way with most of the actual play posts.
However, this is not my playground, and I will abide by the rules.
So what are the alternatives?
It seems to me that one alternative is for people who want to discuss theory to take it to a different forum. The Gaming Outpost site would be ideal for this. It is easy to post there, role playing discussions of all types are welcome, and it is not overly busy at present. In addition, anyone interested in posting articles can do so on the articles side of the site fairly easily, simply setting up an author account. That is where most of the theory discussion that long lived here was birthed, and some of that (what was not lost to computer failures) is still archived.
Yet apparently not enough people are interested enough in discussing theory as such to support such activity elsewhere.
I can also sympathize with the decision here to terminate the theory forum. At least some of the activity was becoming perhaps esoteric. Ron in particular develops his thoughts from observation of conduct (a key reason why the word "motive" is never used in his theory: it cannot be observed). A great deal of "theoretical" work is based on what the theoretician imagines must be so, converted into dogma without any clear connection to reality.
In short, Ron's view is that if your theory does not arise from practical observation of describable events, it is not worth discussing. If it does arise from such observation, any such discussion begins with a description of those events. That's not an unreasonable position--it just tends to exclude those who don't think that way.
--M. J. Young
The Magus:
Quote from: M. J. Young on April 09, 2009, 04:10:51 PM
It seems to me that one alternative is for people who want to discuss theory to take it to a different forum. The Gaming Outpost site would be ideal for this. It is easy to post there, role playing discussions of all types are welcome, and it is not overly busy at present. In addition, anyone interested in posting articles can do so on the articles side of the site fairly easily, simply setting up an author account. That is where most of the theory discussion that long lived here was birthed, and some of that (what was not lost to computer failures) is still archived.
Thanks MJ - I think it retrospect I'll post an article at Gaming Outpost. I don't want to be accused of trolling or undermining the many achievements of this website. I'll link over here so that those who want to read it can. I found some of your theory articles there and at ptgptb interesting and want to expand, contradict and offer my own views.
Quote
In short, Ron's view is that if your theory does not arise from practical observation of describable events, it is not worth discussing. If it does arise from such observation, any such discussion begins with a description of those events. That's not an unreasonable position--it just tends to exclude those who don't think that way.
--M. J. Young
This is one of the problems with theory development for me for me. I think if Ron wants to gather data a certain way that's fine. This method is flawed for a number of reasons. I'll explain in my post at Gaming Outpost (if they decide to publish it).
Ron Edwards:
Mark (M.J.), although I appreciate your support, your paraphrase of my reasoning is not correct. This is not about favoring empiricism as the basis of theory. As I've stated before, the reason for basing theory discussions on actual play is so that one person's use of any term (ordinary speech, jargon, slang, whatever) can be understood as that person means it by readers. Once that essential problem of gamer and internet talk is solved, all else becomes easy and clear, and discussions produce powerful results.
The policy also cuts down on blithering and status games of all kinds, but that is a bonus. Contrary to any number of stupid speculations (often directed to me in angry emails), the policy does not marginalize deductive reasoning. Deduce all you want, but when posting about it here, provide actual play points so people can tell what you mean. They (and I) literally cannot understand you without that.
See the thread Interview with Vincent and me (my first big post) for an earlier presentation of this point.
Sindyr, I explained this to you directly a long time ago, which you apparently did not believe. In fact, you've explicitly called me a liar in this thread. So I don't see any particular reason to explain myself to you now. Your post is effectively spam.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page