From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:40:56 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

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. 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.*, unless it is an attempt to mine humor from a tragically
inept proposal. But even if you assume that he merely mixed up the order
of the questions (though the "To answer your questions in order" bit
makes me suspect this is all an elaborate joke. It isn't April 1, is
it?) he doesn't answer the questions as asked. First, "are you out of
your mind" is clearly not a serious question. In american usage, it is
most often an interjection, an attempt to lighten the mood of discourse,
rather than a serious question deserving of a reply. The proper answer
would be silence, with a close runner up in "My doctor took me off those
little pills over two weeks ago." Next, cbnorman answers the question
"do you think no campaigns are discussed in rec.games.frp.*" by
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. In this post cbnorman thinks that games and campaigns are
synonymous, substantially identical, and in other posts he bases his
argument on proving they are completely different. If they are the same
then cbnorman could propose rec.games.frp.games as his newsgroup name,
but even he recognizes this is ludicrous.


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.

> 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.

   For example, "This newsgroup is for the posting and discussion of
   roleplaying campaigns, including settings, characters, scenarios,
   rules, and other techniques that facilitate campaign play."

Of course the astute reader will recognize that this example is a
paraphrase of one of the 5 topics in cbnorman's proposal.

>>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.

> I sincerely doubt that anyone else holds
> your view that I should have completely ignored all suggestions for 
> improvement to the charter I have received, in order to keep it simple
> enough for you to understand.

And finally, three more interesting rhetorical tools in the same
sentence, first cbnorman speaks for the entire rest of the world when he
states his opinion, aligning the entire world behind him to support his
position, meanwhile the position against which he argues was not the one
taken by his opponent, but is cbnorman's straw man (see above). Finally,
cbnorman implies that his opponent cannot understand his proposal, and
that it is beneath him to make his proposal simple, when his opponent
hasn't complained about the simplicity of the proposal but rather that
it was self-contradictory and universal in scope.

I hope you have enjoyed today's lesson, chilluns, and I'm sure we'll be
back for more exciting analysis of cbnorman's rhetorical bombast.

Now let us travel to another post where cbnorman asserts that campaigns
and games are completely different. I weary of this professorial pose,
and will address cbnorman's points directly.

The message number is BxI95n.n0p@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu, and the
poster is once again cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca.

>In article <1992Nov9.173958.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>>And the name also blows chunks. Absolutely every single part of a
>>roleplaying game is related to the campaign. 
>
>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 entire concept of the campaign is totally non-rules
>specific.  This is because campaigning is based totally on role playing.
>You can have an adventure without a campaign.

Others would claim that you can have a campaign that lasts for exactly
one adventure. How are you going to distinguish adventure from campaign?

>You can have a string of
>adventures without a campaign.

How?

>You can not have a campaign without role
>playing and a "world environment" for the characters to live in.

Oh really? This isn't what I understand campaign to mean. I think a
roleplaying campaign is any series of game sessions (even 2 sessions is
enough) that is led by a GM and played in by players, which the players
and GM recognize as being connected in some way.

Perhaps if you would define campaign we might be able to understand the
intent of your proposal, and propose changes in the suggested charter or
the suggested name that would make it acceptable. But there's still a
good chance that we understand your proposal perfectly well and do not
agree with you that it is either a good idea or a need.

>That's because every single
>>extended roleplaying game is called ... a "Roleplaying Campaign". 
>
>People who call a string of unrelated adventurers where characters play a game,
>go into hibernation, and then magically "pop" into the next adventure are not
>playing a campaign.  They may call it a campaign, but they're no more valid
>than the people who say that "I swing my longsword at the orc" is role playing
>(hey, it's a role-playing game, I'm playing it, so I must be role playing!)
>
>I don't think so....

Oh, you're one of those "role"playing bigots, huh? That explains some of
your arrogance. If you want to get anywhere on this net, though, you'll
have to abandon your pretense of superiority and use the same language
that everybody else uses instead of defining words (campaign,
roleplaying) to mean what you like.

  When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more
  nor less.                          -- Humpty Dumpty

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu