|
I think an important part of tuning D&D rules over time is looking for and addressing "Debate Club" tactics where clever use of existing rules can substitute for having a stronger argument. To some extent that's inevitable in any rule-based debate space,but it should still be limited. One that stands out for me lately is the flexibility of "Show me proof that X." Sometimes it's totally reasonable and concrete and leads to showing who actually has some evidence on their side, but other times it's demanding "proof" of something either very loose and subjective, questionably relevant to the argument, or pervasive and obvious but still taking effort to actually chart out and document. Like it's cousin of "If you want a summary of my argument read this book," it's a way to require more work from an opponent than you are putting it. To be clear, I'm not saying we need to probe people for asking how sure we really are that water is wet, even. Just that it seems there should be a little clarity as to how far people are expected to go to cite proof of an assertion, particularly ones where any plausible proof can easily be met with "nah, got anything else?" or requires doing a bunch of original statistical analysis.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Stringent posted:I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. I cannot think of a single discussion of media literacy on this forum where "vet your sources" and "read the content closely" were on opposing sides of a debate and I have seen many where both were in the same post, so I don't know where this "schism" is coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 07:35
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:All true, a good example of this is that once in a blue moon actual Trump Voter that shows up and everyone piles in to question their sanity. It's not organized or anything it's just everyone wants a piece, which is a hard thing to moderate I guess. This is basically the history of the Libertarians thread. Mostly it's a quiet "Check out this dumbass Libertarian poo poo that happened" but true believers would periodically show up to make a stand and get chewed up by the mob, not because of a conspiracy or rule-breaking but because they made bad arguments that were easy to pick apart with interesting and informative posts. Yeah, they eventually stopped showing up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 18:46
|
|