I don't understand some of the changes that've been implmented...

[nHammer]

Originally posted by Agent X

Some people may still have a point. That you find this fruitless suggests perhaps you could stop reading the thread.

 

The only point people are trying to make is that they should have the last word. Now that is fruitless.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by nHammer

The only point people are trying to make is that they should have the last word. Now that is fruitless.

Ironic, isn't it?

[gewing]

I agree. I consider myself a Catholic, but think the Doctriine of Papal Infallibility is incorrect. I don't consider any incarnate living human infallible.

 

 

Originally posted by Agent X

This is a semantical issue. Anyone has the right to disagree with Steve Long concerning what the rule should be. It disturbs me when people bring this up. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the company line on the rules is what Steve Long says it is. That doesn't mean that customers shouldn't complain about rulings they find cumbersome to the enjoyment of the game, especially since it affects chargen design and future rules additions. I didn't follow the other thread where this debate stemmed from. I assume that the starter of the thread decided to discuss it here because the nature of his disagreement changed and it was no longer so much a chargen issue but a rules criticism. Simon chose to follow into this thread and very aggressively and circuitously argue his point.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by gewing

I'm probably about to be horribly flamed, but... Hopefully I won't be banned.

 

Dark CHampions has long been one of my favorite Hero system supplements. It is currently out for random reading when bored. It tends to be in this state. It isn't perfect, but it is very good. I was thrilled when I found out Steve Long was writing 5E.

 

Some of the decisions made for 5E are IMO pretty strange. Some are petty little personal preference issues. That is my problem, house rules can solve most, if not all of them.

 

What really has worried me for some time, though, is that

some of the responses from Mr. Long have been, well, questionable.

 

 

Mr. Long has, imo, sometimes come across as I remember Gary Gygax in my youth. "I wrote the system, and that is all there is to it." THis kind of response tends to elicit a negative response from me.

 

I do know several people who have declined to purchase most of the newer books. This is a shame. The system is still the best I have ever used. I just don't think it is perfect.

 

 

 

Dan seems to write good software, but this is not the first time he has been arguably abusive to what is, apparently, a customer. True the customer is not being fully reasonable, but there is no reason this whole thing has gotten so acrimonious.

 

I very recently bought both Star Hero and Fantasy Hero on the same day, so I am certainly not stopping buying DOJ products, but my enthusiasm has rather waned in the last year. So much so, in fact, that I have considered bowing to the wishes of some of my friends and using d-20 instead. I still hope to convince them to try the FAR superior system, but I am not as rabid about it as I once was.

 

Interesting, well, I wouldn't flame you at all, I agree with portions and disagree with other portions of what you've said. Sometimes the tone can be a bit "high-handed" (I wouldn't say arrogant for the most part) and clearly sometimes somebody will get pushed by a customer and overreact (often I think it's appopriate to ignore certain customers), that's something that could/should be watched. I don't want to get into the individuals. But I think OTOH customer service has been so good in terms of responsiveness and attention to detail that they're still well in the lead, and the tone tends to get countered by an overall rationality.

 

I wouldn't compare it to Gygax, I think there's enough history and respect for that history that it dampens any "me-ism".

 

EDIT - I wanted to add, it seems to me that overall Steve has whether consciously or not abdicated a lot more over the last few months to GM choice and been very careful in not mkaing "pronouncements" as such

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Simon

I disagree. I post on these boards just like anybody else.

 

Just because I wrote a product for Hero Games does not mean that the way I post or the way I act is suddenly changed.

 

Regardless of what you think, I am not in customer service. Nor will I ever be, if I have my way.

 

Dan, FWIW, if I were you, I'd put something in my sig to the effect of "I'm here on these Boards on my own time. I am not in customer service and do not necessarily speak for HERO. But I do speak for HERO Designer." or something probably a bit better.

 

The reality is, regardless of how you feel, you are in a position where without qualifiers people WILL associate your words with HERO and customer service because you wrote the software. I think when someone does a job for a company and speaks publicly on that job, they reflect the company they work for; I think most people do. So I suggest something in your sig to help defray that opinion where possible.

[gewing]

I think reading this thread was the first time I have spent any time on this forum for many months.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

snip---

 

I wouldn't compare it to Gygax, I think there's enough history and respect for that history that it dampens any "me-ism".

 

EDIT - I wanted to add, it seems to me that overall Steve has whether consciously or not abdicated a lot more over the last few months to GM choice and been very careful in not mkaing "pronouncements" as such

[zornwil]

Originally posted by gewing

I think reading this thread was the first time I have spent any time on this forum for many months.

 

I'm thinking especially in terms of Steve's answers in his rules q/a thread as well. Although I haven't been in there for at least a month now, I noted he was creating a tone of "hey, it's your game" more often, while of course also stating the official line to the extent one existed, depending on the question.

[gewing]

Well, that is good. I had actually gotten to the point where I was avoiding such topics to save my blood pressure.

 

Most of the stuff in NGD I can blow off. Stuff about the Hero system is harder.

 

Originally posted by zornwil

I'm thinking especially in terms of Steve's answers in his rules q/a thread as well. Although I haven't been in there for at least a month now, I noted he was creating a tone of "hey, it's your game" more often, while of course also stating the official line to the extent one existed, depending on the question.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Interesting, well, I wouldn't flame you at all, I agree with portions and disagree with other portions of what you've said. Sometimes the tone can be a bit "high-handed" (I wouldn't say arrogant for the most part) and clearly sometimes somebody will get pushed by a customer and overreact (often I think it's appopriate to ignore certain customers), that's something that could/should be watched. I don't want to get into the individuals. But I think OTOH customer service has been so good in terms of responsiveness and attention to detail that they're still well in the lead, and the tone tends to get countered by an overall rationality.

 

I wouldn't compare it to Gygax, I think there's enough history and respect for that history that it dampens any "me-ism".

 

EDIT - I wanted to add, it seems to me that overall Steve has whether consciously or not abdicated a lot more over the last few months to GM choice and been very careful in not mkaing "pronouncements" as such

My theory is that an administrator who gets rude is open to the same sort of replies as any other poster. I read Melessqr's posts over in Hero Designer land and he obviously was annoyed about the fractional speed issue but he didn't mock Simon as Simon did to him.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Agent X

My theory is that an administrator who gets rude is open to the same sort of replies as any other poster. I read Melessqr's posts over in Hero Designer land and he obviously was annoyed about the fractional speed issue but he didn't mock Simon as Simon did to him.

 

Except, of course, when that admin decides that he will have the last word, and closes the thread to futher responses after he gets his last comment in.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Except, of course, when that admin decides that he will have the last word, and closes the thread to futher responses after he gets his last comment in.

 

I don't believe that's been done here, to give credit where credit is due. Or lack of blame, I suppose, more accurately put.

 

Yeah (to all, not picking on you, Kristopher, just tagging this along to the response, not directed at you or your comments specifically), Dan gets defensive and excited, often more quickly than the "average" person (though around here - that average isn't exactly high). That's how he is. If someone has a complaint, take it to Steve or Darren, as discussed. Let's move on now that this has all been said...and no, I'm not suggesting things shouldn't be discussed, it just seems this one has been adequately so. But if you have something to add or an insult to be refuted, whoever you are out there, go for it.

 

And no, I am not claiming I haven't drawn out things more than they should be, I am no better than the norm around here on that count. Please take this as a suggestion, not an insult, not an attempt to shut anything down.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by zornwil

I don't believe that's been done here, to give credit where credit is due. Or lack of blame, I suppose, more accurately put.

 

Check out the Hero Designer forum.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Check out the Hero Designer forum.

 

Ah I see. Oh well. Although I don't think Dan should have the right to close a thread (as he's said, he's not representing HERO, he can't have it both ways), I wouldn't be upset if Ben closed it on everybody. It was/has been fruitless at this point, the ruling is clear, the rationale is out there whether one agrees with it or even finds it logical, and there's not much more to be said. Still, it wouldn't really be necessary for Ben to even do so; it'd be simpler for certain people to just stop responding.

 

Anyway, thanks Kristopher.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Ah I see. Oh well. Although I don't think Dan should have the right to close a thread (as he's said, he's not representing HERO, he can't have it both ways), I wouldn't be upset if Ben closed it on everybody. It was/has been fruitless at this point, the ruling is clear, the rationale is out there whether one agrees with it or even finds it logical, and there's not much more to be said. Still, it wouldn't really be necessary for Ben to even do so; it'd be simpler for certain people to just stop responding.

 

Anyway, thanks Kristopher.

That's the sort of stunt that makes me wonder why this guy is an administrator (I know the answer that he's the software guy). If you are going to close a thread you don't lob some accelerant onto the fire in the last post, "Boohoo" and all that. It's just pathetic.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Agent X

That's the sort of stunt that makes me wonder why this guy is an administrator (I know the answer that he's the software guy). If you are going to close a thread you don't lob some accelerant onto the fire in the last post, "Boohoo" and all that. It's just pathetic.

I think Dan is also the fixit guy for the boards.

I agree with the accelerant comment.

While I think Dan does a good job with most things, dealing with cranky customers is not one of them.

[schir1964]

Q

 

Just here to disperse trivia information.

 

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

 

Soph-ist-ry 1 : subtly desceptive reasoning or argumentation. 2 : SOPHISM

 

soph-ism 1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; esp : such an argument used to deceive 2 : SOPHISTRY

 

JmOz, I understand why you thought he implied deception on your part, since the root word does imply deception at some level. However, based on what he has said, it would seem he doesn't realized that this word does actually imply deception when used in the form of "Sophistry". The other derivative forms of this word do not mention the word deception in thier definitions, so he could easily have overlooked this fact.

 

It's also possible that the dictionary used was saving space and not elaborating on the definitions of the words and thier root meaning. Either way, he's clarified what he meant even if the word he used implies additional meaning.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Simon]

Re: Q

 

Originally posted by schir1964

Just here to disperse trivia information.

 

 

 

JmOz, I understand why you thought he implied deception on your part, since the root word does imply deception at some level. However, based on what he has said, it would seem he doesn't realized that this word does actually imply deception when used in the form of "Sophistry". The other derivative forms of this word do not mention the word deception in thier definitions, so he could easily have overlooked this fact.

 

It's also possible that the dictionary used was saving space and not elaborating on the definitions of the words and thier root meaning. Either way, he's clarified what he meant even if the word he used implies additional meaning.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Actually, to continue beating a dead horse, here is the progression of that part of the conversation:

 

Me:

The argument that you and JmOz keep trying to make is a sophist argument of semantics, which has no bearing on the situation as (as I have stated many, many times) it will not change the way I act or the way I interact with people one iota.

 

Here I use the term "sophist argument". Since you appear to prefer Webster's, we'll use their definitions:

1. capitalized: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the 5th century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
2. Philosopher, thinker
3. a captious or fallacious reasoner

Now...I didn't capitalize the word, so I'm not calling JmOa an ancient Greek teacher in this statement. Based on the context, it is also clear that I'm probably not calling him a philosopher/thinker (no offense, it just doesn't fit in the context of the statement). Which leaves the third definition: "a captious or fallacious reasoner".

 

Given the statements I made later, this is a justified statement.

 

Now...the statement that I made that apparently really set JmOz off was this one:

Me:

You can resent the accusations of presenting a sophistic argument all you want. I state that you are attempting to use sophistry to prove your point because you persist in basing your arguments over assumptions that you have made about my role and my responsibilities. I do not share those assumptions, yet you state them as if they were fact and shared by all on the boards. As these are the basis for your argument, your argument boils down to sophistry.

 

Now, here I use several variations of the word. Let's start with "sophistic" (I'll continue to use Webster's):

1. of or relating to sophists, sophistry, or the ancient Sophists
2. plausible but fallacious

 

Again, I think it's clear that I'm not talking about ancient Greece, so we go with the second definition: plausible but fallacious.

 

This means that his argument makes sense (it's plausible) but is based on incorrect assumptions and is, therefore, incorrect or false (fallacious).

 

Now, the other variation on the word that I use is "sophistry". We'll turn back to Webster's yet again:

1. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2. sophism

 

Following "sophism" we get:

1. an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid

 

In my mind, given my use of the word previously and the general gist of my statements, it should be clear that I am not saying that JmOz was intentionally trying to deceive. When he gave indication that he took it that way, I quickly posted statements to the contrary.

 

Basically, you have three forms of the word...two of those forms are very clear in their meaning, the third can have "subtle" differences in meaning within the context that it is used. JmOz chose (apparently) to take what he viewed to be the most negative meaning, while I had intended nothing of the sort (and said as much).

 

I think we can move along now.....the language lesson is complete.

[JmOz]

Well one last detail, I think it should be pointed out that my original post, which was a heck of alot harsher, was deleted with in two minutes of posting, I was still shaking with rage when i wrote the replacement post, however realising that I took it more perswonal than I should does not always eliminate the emotions behind it...For this I am square with Dan, IOW I don't hold it against him, and considering how he behaves at times if he chooses to hold it against me, well the word Hippocrit comes to mind.

[Simon]

Originally posted by JmOz

Well one last detail, I think it should be pointed out that my original post, which was a heck of alot harsher, was deleted with in two minutes of posting, I was still shaking with rage when i wrote the replacement post, however realising that I took it more perswonal than I should does not always eliminate the emotions behind it...For this I am square with Dan, IOW I don't hold it against him, and considering how he behaves at times if he chooses to hold it against me, well the word Hippocrit comes to mind.

Errr...when in any of this have I been holding anything against you?

[Simon]

Originally posted by JmOz

Well one last detail, I think it should be pointed out that my original post, which was a heck of alot harsher, was deleted with in two minutes of posting, I was still shaking with rage when i wrote the replacement post, however realising that I took it more perswonal than I should does not always eliminate the emotions behind it...For this I am square with Dan, IOW I don't hold it against him, and considering how he behaves at times if he chooses to hold it against me, well the word Hippocrit comes to mind.

Also, just to elaborate on this a little bit:

 

When someone gets offensive or agressive with me in a post, I get offensive/agressive right back. Often more so than the original offense. I make no apologies for this. If you don't like it, then don't get offensive/agressive with me.

 

However, I tend to not "hold grudges" at all. If said offender posts again and is acting nicely, I respond in kind.

 

If you'd like an example of this, just take a look in the HD forums....two of the main "issue threads" that I've had going for the past couple of days are by Melessqr and Kristopher. Both of them have been acting just fine....so I have been treating them in kind (or at least, I've been trying to).

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Simon

Also, just to elaborate on this a little bit:

 

When someone gets offensive or agressive with me in a post, I get offensive/agressive right back. Often more so than the original offense. I make no apologies for this. If you don't like it, then don't get offensive/agressive with me.

 

However, I tend to not "hold grudges" at all. If said offender posts again and is acting nicely, I respond in kind.

 

If you'd like an example of this, just take a look in the HD forums....two of the main "issue threads" that I've had going for the past couple of days are by Melessqr and Kristopher. Both of them have been acting just fine....so I have been treating them in kind (or at least, I've been trying to).

"Often more so than the original offense." I would agree with that.

 

I'm of the opinion that your definition of offensive/aggressive is a bit too broad. Not that you care.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Simon

Errr...when in any of this have I been holding anything against you?

 

That was my point, you have not been, but I will not presume to read your mind and know what you think either.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Simon

(stuff snipped before and after)

When someone gets offensive or agressive with me in a post, I get offensive/agressive right back. Often more so than the original offense. I make no apologies for this. If you don't like it, then don't get offensive/agressive with me.

 

Well, we all have personality issues we should work on.

 

Apparently mine is throwing in condescending posts...

 

Serously, Dan, think about what you wrote and if that's how you really want to be as a HERO software developer who writes on these boards and whether you like it or not WILL be seen as representing: A) HERO the company; and HERO Designer.

 

On Count "B", well, that IS all you. You may not like Count "A", and you can stay in denial all you like on that count. But you represent HD. How you act is how people will judge not just you but the software.

 

I'm trying to ignore it with you as I appreciate your logic even if I don't agree with it, but I will say that I do not respect dealing with people who act this way in supporting their product. I respect "I can't continue to dialogue with you as you're acting" and then silence. Acting the way the irate, unreasonable customer does is just no good.

[Ben Seeman]

*lobs incendiary device