Thread Closed
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:I'm catching a lot of argumentativeness in your posts as well. As a suggestion, instead of disseminating my posts based off their diction, perhaps you would like to analyze it again based off of intent?
I mentioned your intent at the bottom of my post. It is possible to recognize both intent and diction, and the way that one may not serve the other readily. Please note that argumentation is not synonymous with aggression.
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:- If you feel you are unaffected by my statements, perhaps it is simply just that, you are not the addressee of my statements, and therefore are excluded from them, instead of thinking that I am implicating you in them?
I never said that I was implicated in them. I will nonetheless argue this points because I do not find them to be rational or conductive, and will therefore point out the damage that they do in hopes that you may think differently when it comes to dealing with the other side of the debate. I have engaged the other side on this topic as well (and have even done so about a page back).
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:- Lore is subjective. Therefore it is perception. Anytime a lore lacks an absolute it is up to the reader to speculate upon on, and FFXIV also has a tendency to also completely disqualify its absolutes.
Beyond this, you have to consider the fact that the majority of the lore we have is told through perception of character, therefore even if an absolute statement is made by then, it may, in fact, be false. Put bluntly, unless you're an SE staffer, most particularly the story staff. You're viewing the lore through a lends, we all are.
Lore is not subjective. If lore says the sky is blue, then the sky is blue. The only way that this becomes subjective is if one delves incredibly far into skeptical philosophy, at which point any sort of definition becomes meaningless in the first place. Lore can be ambiguous, at which point it becomes interpretative, but the words that are present on a page still have objective meaning.
Some lore, meanwhile, is not within the realm of an "unreliable narrator" at all. We have things that have been told to us by the developers, whether through talking to us, or through what happens during the game itself; these things are called Word of God, and stand as they are until changed or retconned later on down the road.
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:- As far as me saying it's fanfiction. It's not meaningless to remind people of the core premise of what we are doing. In fact I feel as if it needs to be more emphasized, you're doing more the encourage that by the cross-examination trend then discourage it. It is meant as a reminder to take a step back from one's own 'personal stake' in the matter and remember that ultimately we are achieving the same goal through different means.
We are all aware of the premise. It is impossible not to be aware of the premise through the act of doing the activity, unless one's perception of their actions is extremely lacking, and I highly doubt that anyone on this board is that unaware. Not everyone has a personal stake in this matter; my stake, for instance, is mostly academic. Cross-examination is not necessarily a bad thing on its own; there are those that use it for improper purposes, of course, but to disregard the entire idea of cross-examination as something negative is improper.
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:- As far as the 'Peer pressure', you may have missed it in all the thread trimming.
I acknowledged it in my post. I merely pointed out that it can, and has, been pointed in the opposite direction, even within this very thread.
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:- Additionally, I never denied the responsibility on both ends of the the debate and repeatedly cited the problem as a two prong spectrum. However what I was describing was a case example of where one side is feeling it whether the other may not realize, in showing that there's an underlining premise in trying to enforce lore that comes off as unwelcoming to others. This does not deny the fact that there are those who, on the other end, are guilty of forcing their hand. We can touch further on that subject if you wish, but in that case I was directly addressing one side through the perspective of an other.
This unfortunately does not change the generalized statement in which one side of the debate is implicated for the poor view that the greater community has of this website. As I said at the bottom of my prior post, I don't think that your attempt was very successful in communicating this thought.
(10-22-2016, 03:26 PM)Hyrist Wrote:- As far as me 'making projections' this is a double edge sword of an argument. You made the assumption upon me that I haven't done my homework on this issue, instead of asking. I've done three years of research on this by repeatedly and privately inquiring current and former members of this community, as well as those without it. It simply just isn't as easy to post when you're ghosting on your phone and my home time is limited.
I will however, take your criticism to heart to say that my words may well not build a bridge between the segments of the community - if I am to take it on faith that you speak for said community. So far, you're the only one with outspoken critical feedback on my delivery but I'm willing to learn more of your particular perspective on how this might be accomplished with better diction.Â
Who in this thread on the opposite side of the argument have you asked in regards to their opinions on lore compliance, and what about them makes you sure that they are taking roleplay "too seriously"?
As for whether or not I think that building a bridge is possible, I do not think it is. I have stated such before; both opinions are diametrically opposed, and arguments in this vein have been going on for literal years.