nobthehobbit wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:59 pm
There's nothing wrong with having superfluous text if it avoids lengthy rules disagreements.
If. Doesn´t the design would need to know it in advanced then, which cards create rule discussions and wich not? And is that really possible with card space being limited?
There is nothing wrong having the competent rules department explaining/clearifing the rules, e.g like Takket suggest in the Dilemma Guide like Gorn Encounter, because apparently not everyone is having the same consent otherwise to play by the same rules.
Idealy talk internally with desing/playtest/rules that everyone tells their interpretation to see if there is consent or not. So its solved earlier, non-public. Talking to each other is useful before making a judgement.
Because both sides have always right to have different subjective opinions in democraties and stick to them, unaffected by Nob. I think its important and allowed to point out why once opinion is more competent then others, to the rest of the group/community though. What happens if people discuss it, without coming to the point that the otherone is allowed to be unconvinced. is seen here in the lengthy rules disagreement. I allow myselve to be unconvinced by armus too.
This is why I give armus the right to be as unconvinced as he likes and me to stop discussing with him after many pages, as I there is everything right with me to be as unconvinced as I like, too. Because i am frustrated that IMO discussions where on or both sides do not want to be convinced is pointless and ending with: Okay we agree to disagree is a solution i suggest. I am ok with armus to not share my point of view, as i expressed with: "you may be as unconvinced as you like". Also after I put (past tense, when I wrote it, as the moderators did not like to end the loop) him on my personal ban list, as a temporary solution. I decided to read his posts afterwards anyway. Because JeBus and others tried to see his point of view, which works sometimes to come to a consent. Did it help to end the discussion? or was allowing him the "you may be as unconvinced as you like" be the solution, for at least me and his endless loop? I say yes. Because the reason I am frustrated is that I like constructive discussions or ending them more, then lengthy rule discussions. So I am frustrated for the same reason as NobtheHobbit. We just have different solution suggestions. And I think being frustrated is ok, as well as having different solution suggestions. I am for not having Armus banned, I said I like the training and demonstrated it. I temporary put him on MY ban list (and read only when I want). and not read stuff as an alternative to Nob not wanting to call it a "we agree to disagree, end the loop". If I didn´t wrote the sentence correctly, I point out that germans have a language barrier to non-native English. I also do like being a community where mods do not call people jerks in public or private messages, as i already pointed out to Charlie and NobtheHobbit earlier.
I would like communities where positive behavior is enforced too. Where moderators see both sides. Try reconciliation, or accept both sides sticking to their opinion. Or seek mediation before judgment. Or admit fault in themselves too. Or have CoC, that is less subjective "not be a jerk", like "you may positively and negatively attribute the behavior of others but not calling them negative names as a person". or "don´t use s**ual language, as its a tabu for American culture" that way @VulcanHello would know exactly in advanced which culturally tabus to avoid. I know already that Americans are sensitive to that topic, so I avoided it. "or don´t use XYZ because of "german culture" to also welcome germans here. or more positive: instead of "don´t be..." "be respectfully by using praise (which I did by the way to armus)" or "listen to others (which I tried to armus at a point). or focus on making your point constructively (which I did). And if after X-pages there is no consent: Offer that both disagree and end the discussion (which is basically what I suggested to the authroity/mod by describing the infinity loop)". Or you are free to call the mods and suggest something to them without the risc of being blamed for that. Or: Do not assume you know the intend of other people´s words, know words are subjective and even in the same language in voice chat people talk past each other. Use I language, instead of implying what others meant. Or be paragons in respect themselves, as Mods, because IMO teaching/educating others does not work, others tend to mimic the behaviour that authority live. I did not call anyone a jerk here, though. I stick to I messages and my believes in this post here. I also would consider it better if FYI has a possibility to put in the other points of view. After all if people want to feel welcome giving them a chance to publicly show their point of view if moderators make theirs public. I respect those behaviors more. I also do not feel save, to have to post in a foreign language and have the safety to be understood correctly. Its important to me to be the authority for at least MY words.
Maybe i found my own community then, to have all that. I at least will raise my suggestions for those stuff, see above.
You woudn´t mind a Balanced Interactive Multiplayer Game with simplified rules, themed pre-constructed decks? see
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=45643&start=15 or join
https://discord.com/invite/rsRy5GV or PM