From: Brian Tickler (tickler@netcom.com)
Date: Tue 13 Apr 1999 - 03:32:04 EEST
> Eric
> Who has a bitter seething hatred of Avalon Hill.
Apologies to Eric, as I'm about to seize on his signature line to launch
in another direction:
I have something to say about these little battles I keep getting into
Most of these threads follow this general pattern (note that this cycle
with various people. Eric's signature line gave me the spark; why?
Because when I read that line, I already knew (pretty much) that Eric
felt that way, via my perusing his posts for a few years and reading
between the lines. I also have a pretty good notion about how Nick feels on
various issues, how Alex feels, etc. I have *another* pretty good notion
that most of you here on the digest, being of above average intelligence
(I'm guessing here at the average digester's profile in a horribly
general way), have a pretty good feel for where I'm coming from by now.
has been co-authored by an anonymous source :)...):
1. Brian, scanning the digest, reads something that perks his interest,
annoys him, etc. enough to make him post something.
2. Not having time to post all that often or consistently, Brian posts a
very direct opinion(s) or asks a very pointed question(s) right out of the
blue.
3. One or two people respond, also in a direct manner, focussing on what
they feel are the more inflammatory aspects of the post, culling the rest.
4. Brian responds, focussing on what he feels he's being targetted for,
and culling the rest.
5. Repeat 3 and 4, adding 1 or 2 new people against Brian's POV, then 0 or 1
for it (with disclaimers usually, for protection :)...). Keep repeating
until a critical mass of 6-8 against, 2-4 mildy for, is reached.
6. Exhaust points on both sides until it's clear where the fundamental
difference lies.
7. New cycle.
Why, if I'm aware of this cycle, do I bother posting just to go through
it again and again? It always comes down to when I'm reading something
that I having another viewpoint on, and nobody else is saying anything
about it. If somebody says something in the same vein I'm thinking, then
I feel fine about it. If nobody says anything, then I post, because
somebody has got to say something. The fact that sometimes people chime
in to agree only proves that it's not just me and that, while a valid
opinion was out there, it was going to go unheard for some reason.
"For some reason" is an interesting issue. Like or not, there are a
number of people who read the digest who don't feel all that comfortable
posting opinions that are contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the
moment. I know that many members of the digest, responding to
grumblings of an oppressive atmosphere, go out of their way to be
helpful to combat this perception. BTW, Nick is one of the best at this
(surprised I could say something good about you, eh Nick?). Even so,
that general feeling, be it based on reality or perception, seems to
continue. That should not be the case; on this I'm sure pretty much
everyone agrees.
My answer to this is that people will post more freely if they see other
people who are willing to "mix it up" with the digest old-timers and
icons. So I do. Does this mean I never agree with anything? Do I only
post just to get myself into trouble? Not really. With X amount of
time to read and post to the digest, I only jump in when I feel strongly about
something, and more often than not, that means disagreement. Nature of
the beast. In spite of comments about my lack of positive contributions,
I do post tidbits occasionally, they just get lost. The last time I got a
positive response to something I put together for the digest was a few
nice comments about my story during the Onslaught saga (thanks Joerg and
Martin, and anyone else I've forgotten). Other items like my short
piece on Godtongue, or comments on Chalana Arroy, or whatever it may
be, tend to get buried. The stuff I have to contribute in this area does not
seem to jive with the kind of submissions digestors like (too rules-y,
seemingly). Sadly, more of my contributions were to the RQ rules digest a
few years back; sorry, but I tend to prefer the RQ *and* Gloranthan
contributions over pure Gloranthan ones. Nature of the beast :).
As far as the flame wars/discussions go, I consider those positive
I also feel fairly confident that my various opponents in these threads
contributions as well, actually...just ones that few can appreciate.
However, if I ever start getting enormously negative responses and zero
positive feedback, you can be sure I'll stop. That hasn't happened yet
though...
have an innate understanding similar to what I expounded upon at the
start of this post, and do not hold grudges too long. If/when we meet at a
convention or something, I doubt you'd catch me singing Lunar drinking songs
with Nick, but I'm sure we'd be able to have a cordial, intelligent
conversation :)...
- --
Brian T. Tickler
tickler@netcom.com or tickler@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 19:45:48 EEST