Switch Theme:

Anti-Intellectualism in GW Discussions  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






I've noticed a trend recently in discussion.

People tend to say things like "RAW idiocy" or otherwise criticizing people for applying logic and the rules of grammar to an ambiguous piece of writing to come to a conclusion about what it actually means.

Sometimes, the conclusion reached by applying logic, precedent and normal rules of interpretation can be counter-intuitive. Of course, the Copernican universe is much less intuitive than the Ptolemaic model of the earth going around the sun. I think few people here still think we should follow that model.

Some of this may arise from the behavior of jerks trying to find or invent loopholes. But in my experience, I've found more jerks who ignore rules (2100 point armies in 2000 point games, not phasing out, etc.) than those that follow them.

So, why the discrepancy in reactions?

Maybe it has something to do with latent anti-intellectual prejudices. Think of how Al Gore had to adopt a 'folksy' image to try and appeal to the lowest denominator when running for president. You would think that being seen as a smart capable person would be a good thing, but apparently the opposite is true.

The same principle seems to be true on Warseer, B&C and to a lesser extent among certain members of this board. People who make well-reasoned attempts to try and interpret the writing are criticized. People who read the rules to say what they want them to say rather than what they actually do say are applauded as being true to the spirit of the game.

The spirit of the game is making up the rules as you go? If you wanted to play Calvinball, you should have said so at the start. I could have saved $50 by not getting the rulebook.
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

Yep. It's why I purposely don't go into Warseer except to poke some fun or read some rumors. Hell, the other day I saw some asshat (user "The Warsmith" I think) make an attention-whoring post about how he played a game with someone and was pissed that that person was actually trying to play the rules correctly. He claims part of it was because the guy was a jerk, but the mass majority of replies were in the "BUT THE TERRAIN RULEZ IN FANTASY SUXX, PUT TERRAIN IN MIDDLE LAWL" category. In fact, most of the people who were telling him to follow the rules and whatnot were bending over backwards trying to be apologetic.

I didn't reply because now I know that Warseer's a mostly-European board, so if some UK players wanna play like asshats who purposely bend the rules, doesn't affect me. You're right about Calvinball though.  I read a game with bendable rules called "Nomic" a while back and some of the Warseer attitudes about warhammer/40k sound just like that.

WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Sentient OverBear






Clearwater, FL

Asmodai, that sounds like something Hitler would say.

Ooops, gotta go.  I'm late for my Flying Spaghetti Monster (Reformed) meeting.

Seriously though, you're right, but I don't think that there's much we can actually DO about it.  People will believe what they want to, and don't listen to logic oftentimes because they don't like to feel stupid.

Another part of the problem is our damn "touchy-feely, everyone's a winner, Disney ending" culture.  We've placed so much importance on self-esteem that it's become a cardinal sin to be wrong, or have problems, or lose.   People don't seem to realize that we can be wrong, or have problems, or lose, and not be a worse person for it.  I'm wrong ALL THE TIME, but I don't think that makes me bad (unless I won't admit I'm wrong when I know that I am). 

I almost type up a point about how gamers = geeks = math and logic ability, but then I think about all the gamers I've met who couldn't add their way out of a wet paper bag.  Bah.

DQ:70S++G+++M+B++I+Pw40k94+ID+++A++/sWD178R+++T(I)DM+++

Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1
- BBAP

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





People go out of their way, at least in my eperience, to find loop holes to demonstrate a point. No one actually tries to tell you that terminators don't have terminator armor, they just want to point out the neccessity for clear, well written rules. This goes double since the primary way of dealing with an issue is RAW. (and this is the way it should be as well, since 'logically' is in the eyes of the beholder)

Be Joe Cool. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Anti-intellectualism is prevalent pretty much everywhere on the internet. You're almost guaranteed, no matter what forum you're reading that somebody will get mad if you point out that A => B does not mean that B => A.
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





The wilds of Pennsyltucky

Oh, I see.. if you don't agree with RAW than you aren't intellactual! Wow.

It doesn't matter how you try to cloak your post but it is nothing more than school yard name-calling. How's that for intellectualism? Saw right through your ponderous attempt to bash those who don't agree with you.

There are good reason to apply the RAW method. There are also reasons people may not want to apply a RAW method. It's a game. If people want to modify it and play in a manner they find more appealing... more power to them. They just need to know that MAY not fly at a tournie.

ender502, practitioner of RAW, holder of a Doctorate Degree and one who doesn't take this non-sense all that seriously


"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock

"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C. 
   
Made in ca
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






I think you missed the point. There's nothing wrong with modifying the game to play in your own style.

Saying that doing so is objectively better and that people who try to actually play the game they bought are somehow doing something wrong or against the spirit of the game is objectionable.

The fact that every time someone tries to determine what a rule is there's a pile-on of people saying that they should ignore the written rules and follow their own personal version is problematic. It obscures the problems that actually exist with the rules, create localized standards and makes it harder for new players to learn and understand the game.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I'd hardly call dissecting the language of a loosely written rule system "intellectualism".

I don't like it when people use obnoxiously literal interpretations of grammatically ambiguous codex entries to justify stupid crap like shooting between a wraithlords legs or tank-shocking squads already in close combat. You might call it "intellectualism" but I call it "being an ass". It's not like we're having a discussion on Russell's set theory. It's not a tightly written ruleset. Deal with it.

Went digging through my old posts, and guess what? I've been hating on mat ward since before it was cool

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/244212.page 
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





The wilds of Pennsyltucky

Posted By Asmodai on 03/30/2007 8:47 AM
I think you missed the point. There's nothing wrong with modifying the game to play in your own style.

Saying that doing so is objectively better and that people who try to actually play the game they bought are somehow doing something wrong or against the spirit of the game is objectionable.

The fact that every time someone tries to determine what a rule is there's a pile-on of people saying that they should ignore the written rules and follow their own personal version is problematic. It obscures the problems that actually exist with the rules, create localized standards and makes it harder for new players to learn and understand the game.

Actually, if club A says "THIS is how we play" and then induct new members in the same method of play then it will be just as easy to learn as club A saying "THAT is how we play." THIS or THAT could be RAW or could be house-rules. Can you define by my example which is which? No. Because learning is always the same.

As I stated, the only problem is when house-rules collides with tournie rules. And that only MAY be a problem....

Also, unless you are ONLY speaking of the philosophy of intellectualism (defines the final reality as defined solely by logic)... Intellectualism is the devotion to intellectual pursuits. That person A says "RAW" and person "B" says "House Rule is better" does not make Person "B" anti-intellectual. It means their reason dictates a difference response to the evidence as modified by personal preference.

What you have is not pro v. anti-intellectualism. What you have are differences in opinion. Why you feel the need to label and categorize those who do not agree with you is beyond me.

ender502


"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock

"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C. 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






"Actually, if club A says "THIS is how we play" and then induct new members in the same method of play then it will be just as easy to learn as club A saying "THAT is how we play." THIS or THAT could be RAW or could be house-rules. Can you define by my example which is which? No. Because learning is always the same."

Except that, in theory, the player could buy a copy of the rulebook and learn the rules from it. Very few clubs have their house rules conveniently defined, bound and available to new players. It creates an information barrier at best and allows Calvinballing by established members at worst.

The argument re: anti-intellectualism is an attempt to determine why some people have a visceral emotional reaction to people trying to logically determine what the rules are and instead insist that their arbitrary versions are better. Look at the YMDC sections here or the rules discussion of other sites. The reaction to the DA codex is also informative. The argument attempts to explain the negative reaction to the process of attempting to determine through reading, logic, and analogy what the meaning of certain words is by looking for similar parallels in other places.
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

Posted By dumbuket on 03/30/2007 8:56 AM
I'd hardly call dissecting the language of a loosely written rule system "intellectualism".

I don't like it when people use obnoxiously literal interpretations of grammatically ambiguous codex entries to justify stupid crap like shooting between a wraithlords legs or tank-shocking squads already in close combat. You might call it "intellectualism" but I call it "being an ass". It's not like we're having a discussion on Russell's set theory. It's not a tightly written ruleset. Deal with it.


I think most people here are disregarding his real message: that people are lazy and don't actually look into the rules but instead prefer to "play it like the club plays it" or some other crappy reason like "I don't like arguing about rules or anything so we'll just ignore that one."  Warseer has a lot of this reasoning.  Look through any of the rules threads sometime and you might get 1 or 2 out of a dozen replies that actually quotes the rulebook instead of an anecdote.  Some people in my club are the same as well. They don't really want to think about the rules so they'll come up with an excuse to continue doing that.  I appreciate people who'll look up the rules with me and even discuss the rule for a bit, but I've also had my share of idiots who'll continue to argue with you but will never open the book.

Also, mind telling me which rules are "stupid crap"?  If I hid my guys behind barrels that counted as cover, would you also consider that stupid "because, man, they're behind barrels! That's not REAL cover!" (Or hills with a crest since those usually count as WYSIWYG/LOS cover too but I can bet lots of people will conveniently ignore that fact when it comes to assault.)   I hate getting mired in some rules arguments with a history of no satisfactory resolution, but I'll be damned if some idiot declares that initiative-based removal of assualt casualties is stupid because I play Tau and a staple of Tau tactics is to readily remove the one or two guys in base contact so the enemy can't sweep.

Edit: Curse you, Asmodai! That's what I get for writing up a paragraph again.


WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






You seem to have trouble grasping the point of Asmodai's casual argument (he's not sending it for publishing I bet).

You scored ok on the Math but not so well on the Reading Comprehension part of the SAT amiright? You aren't even arguing the corpus of the argument, just some of the words that are in it, forget the fact that if you had read other posts after the initial one the point would be clear. Now you might not agree with that point, but at least you wouldn't be arguing about why you don't like the way geese squak outside your window when the discussion is about how delicious bacon butties are or aren't.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Unbalanced Fanatic





Minneapolis, MN

Forums like YMDC are valuable because they sometimes can hammer out something of a consensus based on RAW and logic.  I've cursed RAW a few times myself, but agree that it is the best way to have rules disputes not be determined by the pushiest nerd-monger in the club.  It doesn't go to have people not following rules because they feel they are stupid.

However, its worth noting that GW's rules are written for (and sometimes it seems like by) 12 year olds.  As has been pointed out, there are a ton of ambiguously worded and poorly elaborated rules that lack precision technical writing.  Some of these statements can be read in different ways, legitimately.  Sometimes the YMDC arguments hinge on semantics and someone trying to finagle a ruling that is counter-intuitive based on an ambiguous rule. 

One aspect of these arguments that can be frustrating is when one party dons the cloak of authority in the form of rhetorical principles and legal jargon and dismisses the other side's claim by arbitrarily labeling reasonable arguments as logical falacies or based on a false premise.  Rhetorical tools are useful and necessary for a valid argument, but if employed without properly demonstrating their relevance to the discussion at hand, they can come off like a high-handed put down. 

40k/Fantasy are easily digestible games made with teens and young adults in mind.  GW players just happen to be interested in toy soldiers, and come from all walks of life.  It is frustrating when I run into players that blow off sound arguments and literal readings of the rulebook in favor of  what they want to see.  Often times they are people who don't feel like exercising the critical thinking needed to have an argument and would rather just bluntly refuse, but sometimes they are people who couch their exploitative interpretation in legal mumbo-jumbo.  It seems to me more like a selfish or obsessive personality trait that manifests itself in different ways than an anti-intellectual bias.  In general the more convivial gamers I've met can tackle any rules query with a brief and principled discussion on the matter then find an agreeable solution and get on with the game. 

The 21st century will have a number of great cities. You’ll choose between cities of great population density and those that are like series of islands in the forest. - Bernard Tschumi 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It also gets frustrating when you go to a tournament, and keep out finding in the middle of the game that they don't follow the rules there because, to them, thier way makes more sense. Especially when you made moves considering how the rules actually work.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Posted By Asmodai on 03/30/2007 7:20 AM
I've noticed a trend recently in discussion.

People tend to say things like "RAW idiocy" or otherwise criticizing people for applying logic and the rules of grammar to an ambiguous piece of writing to come to a conclusion about what it actually means.

Sometimes, the conclusion reached by applying logic, precedent and normal rules of interpretation can be counter-intuitive. Of course, the Copernican universe is much less intuitive than the Ptolemaic model of the earth going around the sun. I think few people here still think we should follow that model.

Some of this may arise from the behavior of jerks trying to find or invent loopholes. But in my experience, I've found more jerks who ignore rules (2100 point armies in 2000 point games, not phasing out, etc.) than those that follow them.

So, why the discrepancy in reactions?

Maybe it has something to do with latent anti-intellectual prejudices. Think of how Al Gore had to adopt a 'folksy' image to try and appeal to the lowest denominator when running for president. You would think that being seen as a smart capable person would be a good thing, but apparently the opposite is true.

The same principle seems to be true on Warseer, B&C and to a lesser extent among certain members of this board. People who make well-reasoned attempts to try and interpret the writing are criticized. People who read the rules to say what they want them to say rather than what they actually do say are applauded as being true to the spirit of the game.

The spirit of the game is making up the rules as you go? If you wanted to play Calvinball, you should have said so at the start. I could have saved $50 by not getting the rulebook.



You can't blame people when the rules are themselves questioned, retooled, and unused by the company themselves. The whole " Spirit of the game" argument is slowed from the offset, especially when your average joe gamer is already from the offset having to read through a phonebook sized tomb of crap for even the most mudane reference to situations that truly do arise in game. And the "New and Improved" answer? -Follow a BS flowchart that ends up having you call a phone number to the mail order department.

There is a point in time when intelligence is not even part of the equasion, and you are left with a hot steamy plate of BS. There is very little intelligence given to the product, why should you expect the even grizzled vetern gamer of the system to use a clear, concise and logical system to work out an issue. Hell, that the countless issues that do show up do as frequently as it does should tell people that there is an issue with the rules as written, and then when you tell GW about it, your pegged as stupid and that you arn't playing to the spirit of the game.

Compound that issue with the factt hat you are playing a product targeted to 10-15 year olds, is there any wonder that you have issues when the comprehension of the rules takes a PHD?

You want an example?- The Assult Rules

I find it funny that you want to leap to GW's defense in the regard of thier vaguly written, misspelled rules when they themselves take this, "Just get something out there to keep people quiet" approach to thier own game, and even when a FAQ comes out, ( And that even can take longer then a year and a half for some) The band-aid is even worst then the wound. The fact that they do this with both game systems makes it even worse.

To help the process along GW could as a fix; hire technical writers, proofread thier products, play and replay and triple play thier products, Use the training audiance to recheck thier products, play more then 5 games using the product, and in short do what the audiance here on dakka has been saying all along when this topic ALWAYS crops up.




At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money. 
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





The wilds of Pennsyltucky

Skyth-

But is it you or the tournament using RAW? The beauty of your statement is that a RAW player or a "house-rules" player can each make it.

Asmodai-

Unless there is a defined "objectively" better way to play than you or the "house-rules" guys can each claim the more objectively correct way to play. Considering that every GW article says the game is about FUN I can easily see an argument that states that fun is the only objective goal of the game.

There are strong feelings about RAW. I think it is the EASIEST way to play though not always the most correct. Supporting RAW helps create predictibility and makes games go more quickly. That is one of the reasons that I, in general, support RAW as a way to play.

But has been pointed out RAW has its limitations. As Asmodai (I think) pointed out we have to use logic and look for paralells that can make clear the often ambigous GW writing. Of course, as soon as we have to look for paralells we have basically said that the RAW has failed us. The RAW cannot answer the question.... Logic has dictated that the RAW is insufficient to answer the question. Personally, I will never accept the lame answer to instant death and armor's "failure to activate."

But the relative strength and weakness of RAW is not the point of my responses. Asmodai's charge of anti-intellectualism is uncalled for and strikes me as an attempt merely to pigeon-hole folks that don't agree. It is a tActic well founded amongst intellectuals and politicians. You can look at he current politics of the U.S.A. to see some great examples of this. It is also a tactic that is not necesary.

Honestly, the folks who OUGHT to be pigeon-holed don't need anyone's help. They do just fine all on their own. We all have horror stories of those jerks that cannot accept that some times a duck is a duck and that the marines (in game terms) don't always win is okay no matter what the fluff says.

Those folks are NOT involved in an intellectual pursuit when it comes to the rules. What they want is to be right and to have an advantage. Those guys don't even deserve the respect of a response.

ender502

 


"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock

"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C. 
   
Made in us
Plastictrees



Amongst the Stars, In the Night

I don't have anything to add other than when I read this the first thing that came to *my* mind was a Perry Bible Fellowship strip:



OT Zone: A More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
The Loyal Slave learns to Love the Lash! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Who was it who said, "It is very hard to get a man to understand the problem when his salary depends on him not understanding the problem"?

He's got a mind like a steel trap. By which I mean it can only hold one idea at a time;
it latches on to the first idea to come along, good or bad; and it takes strenuous effort with a crowbar to make it let go.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Let's not take this off-topic. If you wish to discuss the science of climatology, the merits of Al Gore's arguments against global warming, or whether or not George W. Bush is an incurious man with rigid habits of thought, start a new thread.

He's got a mind like a steel trap. By which I mean it can only hold one idea at a time;
it latches on to the first idea to come along, good or bad; and it takes strenuous effort with a crowbar to make it let go.
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






I'm not saying whether he is or isn't an 'intellectual' (no real point getting into that since no one will ever convince anyone else). The point I was making was that he sure as heck didn't want to be seen as one when he was running for office.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Posted By Asmodai on 03/31/2007 8:15 AM
I'm not saying whether he is or isn't an 'intellectual' (no real point getting into that since no one will ever convince anyone else). The point I was making was that he sure as heck didn't want to be seen as one when he was running for office.



My apologies Asmodai....You just made me splurt my coffee when I read that.

I think America in general has always been anti-intellectual. Look at the WWE and the old WCW...the smart guys, the rich guys, the businessmen and corporate execs were always the bad guys, and the common man, the down to earth guys, the All American blue collar guys were always the good guys.

The result of people abusing RAW and finding loopholes in the rules are codices like Eldar and Dark Angels where all the options are laid out for you, and you can't, or shouldn't, be able to find loopholes. The whole Skyleap rule is an example of where they messed up and further proof they need to hire proofreaders or technical writers.

 

 


.Only a fool believes there is such a thing as price gouging. Things have value determined by the creator or merchant. If you don't agree with that value, you are free not to purchase. 
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





The wilds of Pennsyltucky

Sorry if this is a bit OT but I think part of the GW problem with rules is that the guys that develop them (and know their own intent) are also the playtesters. They need the testing to be seperated from the development.

Sadly, ANY effort that uses reason and logic is an intellectual pursuit to one degree or another. Much of the call of "anti-intellectualism" is merely angst over why someone disagrees with the "intellectual's" logic.

Trying to stay away from incindiary topics... but look at the difference between supply and demand side economic theories. You have very intelligent people each arguing their side is correct. Each is involved in an intellectual pursuit that uses logic and evidence... and they can't agree. Are either "anti-intellectual?" No. (except for thos moron supply side proponents... what jerks. Kidding...Just kidding).

Back to RAW... arguing against RAW is not anti-intellectual. It is merely following logic and reason to a divergent conclusion.

ender502


"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock

"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Vancouver, Canada

But, if there is a rule book right in front of you would the intellectual not stop the supposedly illogical argument to read the book? And, remember there is no winner or loser in an argument only a common logical and sound conclusion. But, if the other individual cannot open their eyes for one second to read the book then why play? Besides we all know that the people who are mainly at the center of these arguments are the little gamers who cannot comprehend most of the vocabulary in the rule books. So, the next time you are playing a game just sit back and think, do I need to get in argument with this kid? And if he still 'cheats' or bends the rule then go along and whoop his or her ass!

Also about the whole SAT reference previously stated most people never can pass those tests so please try not to use that as a bases for sound reasoning.

-Death Wing

"Repent! For tomorrow you die!"

Dark Angel commander for 12 years and counting 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

From dictionary.com:

intellectualism -
2. The exercise of the intellect.

Now my reading comprehension might be crap because I did score higher on math, but when someone talks about application of arguments and logic to rules (excercise of the intellect maybe?) faced with negative feedback (anti-, maybe?), that sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. But hey, I'm a simple math kid and I'm misconstruing Ahtman's post as a reply to me (dumb reader and all)l, but my psych prof once said something about boys scoring higher on the math half of the SAT and girls on the language, so that's OK with me.

WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan




Florida

Umm, I don't think I'm smart enough to contribute. Me sad.

No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Complaining about anti-intellectualism, even when justified, is a bit like complaining about how people judge you when you're beautiful, or how difficult life is when you're wealthy: nobody wants to hear it.

If you're an intellectual person, than take your abuse like a man and move on. If you're not, your complaints are mainly an attempt to claim the status of an intellect.

IMO, the intelligent way to resolve rules debates is thus: "While it is important to simply play with the RAW, as they are the rules of the game, in many local areas house rules arise to deal with what many people consider inconsistencies with the RAW. Since GW has failed to adequetly support the rules with FAQs, and enocurages us to make the hobby our own, many people have seized the opportunity to create their own ad hoc rules. While this makes entering a new community difficult, gamers are faced with either playing with poorly worded RAW or a nebulous raft of house rules. In this debate, those who frequently travel to play (trounament players) want uniformity, while those who play in a small setting (club players) want rules that make sense.
Until either GW releases more complete FAQs, there will be no resolution of this issue."

If anything, as several people have posted earlier, it is a bit naive to assume that every problem has one and only one intelligent solution.
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





The wilds of Pennsyltucky

Deathwing-

The SAT is not a pass/fail exam.

Stonefox-

the problem with your argument is that it assumes that logic always yields a single answer. People can both be involved in intellectual exercises and come to divergent conclusions. That being the case... which one is "anti-intellectual?"

My issue is that the label of "anti-intellectual" is being used fallaciously. Some are calling opponents of RAW "anti-intellectual" when that term does not apply. It stinks of elitism and kindergarten name-calling. I will not stand for that kind of non-sense especially when it comes from those that are saying they hold the intellectual high ground.

It's called intellectual honesty..... I think we can ALL use a dose of that on occassion.

ender502

 


"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock

"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Madrak Ironhide







Zug zug.

Work complete.

DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++
Get your own Dakka Code!

"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude 
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





The wilds of Pennsyltucky

Polonius-

Will you have my baby?

Malfred-

Don't get jealous I am only doing it for the money.

ender502


"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock

"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C. 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Posted By Polonius on 04/01/2007 7:04 AM
Complaining about anti-intellectualism, even when justified, is a bit like complaining about how people judge you when you're beautiful, or how difficult life is when you're wealthy: nobody wants to hear it.

If you're an intellectual person, than take your abuse like a man and move on. If you're not, your complaints are mainly an attempt to claim the status of an intellect.



Something that I feel needs to be defined is what exactly is an intellectual. If you look back at my Gore post, I merely stated my view that he was not an intellectual per se, but never said he was not an intelligent man. You can be a man of ability, a man of proven achievement, but not be the "classic" intellectual.

Same with a man who is "beautiful". There's a derogatory term that my friends use for men who are "beautiful"...pretty boys. One of my friends would never date a guy who had model looks...she'd prefer a more manly guy. She would pick Daniel Craig over Pierce Brosnan for example. Craig is beautiful to her.

So when one wants to bandy terms like intellectual and beautiful, you really need to define your terms. What is an intellectual person? John Kerry was described as an intellectual, what exactly has he done to merit that term? Do you mean someone who is educated and articulate? ( and if you add clean, you can include Barack Obama in the list)

When it comes to the rules,  we get 2 kinds of people...people who play with the rules the way they were intended, and the people who want an advantage on their part through a beneficial interpetation of RAW. Are the latter the intellectuals? Who sift through every page of every rulebook and codex looking for in's and out's, who will happily debate the interpetation of a line due to the placement of a comma?


.Only a fool believes there is such a thing as price gouging. Things have value determined by the creator or merchant. If you don't agree with that value, you are free not to purchase. 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: