From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.164056.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>Chilluns, let the lesson on how to set up rhetorical straw men and knock
>them flying begin. I propose to use the post numbered
>BxI9ow.146@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu from one
>cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca as the text for today's lesson.
>
>He/She/It wrote:
>> In article <1992Nov9.174800.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>>>In article <Bx6600.K72@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cbnorman@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu writes:
>>>5. Discussion of campaigns. Pardon me, but you say that no campaigns are
>>>discussed in rec.games.frp.*? Are you out of your mind? The campaign
>>>includes every single piece of rolegames: setting, characters, rules,
>>>and everything else. EVERY SINGLE ROLEPLAYING DISCUSSION NEWSGROUP IS
>>>FULL OF CAMPAIGN DISCUSSIONS! If you have seen no discussion of
>>>campaigns in these newsgroups I can only assume you have never read
>>>them.
>>>
>> To answer your questions in order.
>>   1. No, I don't say that no games are discussed in rec.games.frp.*
>>   2. No, I'm not out of my mind.
>
>See here how he answers different questions from those that were posed.
>He claims to answer the questions in order, but does not. He answers
>them in reverse order. 

Technically, the only question he asked in there was "Are you out of your mind."
I also responded to his statement "but you say that no campaigns are 
discussed in rec.games.frp.*" which was more of a lie than a question.


>I fail to see what relevance "No, I'm not out of
>my mind" has to whether or not campaigns are discussed in
>rec.games.frp.*,

I hate to use caps but, I NEVER SAID IT WAS RELEVENT.  Infact, it's totally
irrelevent to .campaign in a whole.  What is relevent is that it was directly
stated that I had stated that "no campaigns are discussed in rec.games.frp.*",
which I did not say.  If you were proposing a new group on, say, space 
research and someone against your newsgroup stated "millerl says that
space ships fly by flapping really big wings" would you ignore him? Well, that's
an example so rediculous you could probably afford to ignore it....



>answering a different question, whether "games" are discussed in rgf.*.
>I have to make the distinction between games and campaigns, because
>cbnorman argues that this distinction by itself justifies his proposed
>newsgroup. I

Oops (I hate it when this happens), you're right :(  I "typoed".  Half
of previous flames are now retracted :)

>Next is an excellent example of the ad hominem attack as a rhetorical
>tool, which fails because it isn't clearly intended to be humorous nor
>is it clearly insulting. Whether it is intended to elicit belly-laughs
>or cries of rage, it does neither, and the reader instead winces at this
>pathetic attempt at witty repartee.
>
Thank you for your running comentary.  Are you perhaps an announcer on
"Wide world of debates"? I would have thuoght that the humor would have
been at least *slightly* implied by my next statement....

>> Since you've jumped to so many conclusions, I must conclude that you
>> are a tabloid reporter....
>
>
>> Second, I strongly doubt that anyone besides you will truly believe that
>> .campaign covers everything that was covered by .frp.  By that logic,
>> my charter, which lists only *four* acceptible types of post, should include
>> every single aspect of .frp gaming.  If you believe that .frp gaming can
>> be reduced to four narrowly defined post classifications, you are sadly
>> mistaken.
>
>Here's an interesting form of argument. Use statistics (4 types of post)
>to conceal the substance of the disagreement. Never mind that cbnorman's
>RFD includes 5 types of post rather than 4. I'm after the interesting
>rhetorical tools, not just bald-faced lies. It is quite possible, by
>specifying one type of post, to encompass all roleplaying discussion.
>
Read'm and weep, 4 types
  -FAQ
  -Campaign Moves
  -GM Statistical Posts
  -Discussion of Campaigns

These are from the November 6th posting of the charter.  Check your facts
before you flame.

>>>the newsgroup that large, then what will be your charter? Every time you
>>>post you say something else about your charter, until it has become as
>>>paradoxical and all-encompassing as a book of zen koans.
>>
>> I'm sorry if you believe that proposed newsgroups should not change their 
>> charter as discussion unfolds.
>
>Another good exmple of answering by misdirection. Here cbnorman claims
>that his opponent believes that charters should not change during
>discussion periods, when the opponent's actual complaint was that
>cbnorman's charter was paradoxical (i.e. self-contradictory) and so
>loosely defined as to include everything within its grasp.
>
He was complaining about me changing my charter, I was sarcastic in reply.
Please provide evidence, from the actual latest proposal and not some 
month old antique, examples of "paradox" in my proposal.

>>Not true whatsoever.  To give a minor example, how does "falling damage"
>>affect a campaign?
>
>About as much as it affects any roleplaying game, whether it is a single
>session or a long campaign. You may have been reading rec.games.frp.dnd,
>which unfortunately concentrates on rules issues at the expense of more
>general issues on how to run a campaign or play a character, but .misc
>isn't a rules-junkie's paradise. In fact, rules discussions are
>typically either short lived or get moved to .advocacy.
>
The point is that the rules for falling damage do not affect the campaign.
If you determine falling damage by rolling dice, picking thumbtacks out of
a sack, or asking your grandmother for advice, the point is if you fall
you get hurt.  That's the affect on a campaign.  You fall--you get hurt.
Not "you take 1d6 hp of damage for every 10' fall" or any other rules
jargon.

Newsgroups: news.groups