When posting responces try to keep to the topic of the post and what the original post is talking about. Beyond that, No reason to post. If you cant post positive criticism, dont post. I have not posted alot on others posts because there was nothing that I could say positive about it. I try to post to the original post but other than that I try and fill out some basic understandings. And if you dont know the history about something, keep quiet.
Fishing...........
1. Negative criticism/feedback can still be constructive.
2. The OP is not king of the thread. Threads tend to wander a bit, which is actually okay, because if every minor variation on a topic was its own thread, we'd have 5000 threads about warlords instead of 500. If the discussion wanders away a bit from what the OP wants to talk about, so be it.
3. The OP is responsible for putting any relevant "history" into the OP. If you want to compare a game mechanic from 1999 to one from 1975, you should at least summarize them both, rather than assuming that anyone who doesn't have 50 years of D&D manuals at his perusal isn't entitled to post.
I agree that offtopic or troll responses are bad. But a couple points:
1. Negative criticism/feedback can still be constructive.
That is like telling a child that they are fat, stupid, or a moron. Then wondering why they died from an overdose, suicide, or went on a killing rampage. Nothing good has come from negative criticism, That is why it is call negative.
2. The OP is not king of the thread. Threads tend to wander a bit, which is actually okay, because if every minor variation on a topic was its own thread, we'd have 5000 threads about warlords instead of 500. If the discussion wanders away a bit from what the OP wants to talk about, so be it.
I do understand and agree.
3. The OP is responsible for putting any relevant "history" into the OP. If you want to compare a game mechanic from 1999 to one from 1975, you should at least summarize them both, rather than assuming that anyone who doesn't have 50 years of D&D manuals at his perusal isn't entitled to post.
I was refering more to actual history. One post stated they didnt get why the monk class and then went on talking about without the eastern vibe, the monk is just a unarmed fight. This is what I call ignorance, showing lack of knowledge on something they state.
1. Discussion of dr who is forbidden
2. using "alot" in a post is forbidden
I agree that offtopic or troll responses are bad. But a couple points:
1. Negative criticism/feedback can still be constructive.
That is like telling a child that they are fat, stupid, or a moron. Then wondering why they died from an overdose, suicide, or went on a killing rampage. Nothing good has come from negative criticism, That is why it is call negative.
Well, it depends what you mean by "negative." I'll definitely agree that any disagreement should be expressed constructively.
3. The OP is responsible for putting any relevant "history" into the OP. If you want to compare a game mechanic from 1999 to one from 1975, you should at least summarize them both, rather than assuming that anyone who doesn't have 50 years of D&D manuals at his perusal isn't entitled to post.
I was refering more to actual history. One post stated they didnt get why the monk class and then went on talking about without the eastern vibe, the monk is just a unarmed fight. This is what I call ignorance, showing lack of knowledge on something they state.
That was my post and I have a doctorate in Japanese literature (srsly). The D&D monk isn't a friggin' Buddhist monk. It's some weird hybrid of Chinese wuxia movies and Okinawan karate. But yes, the "real-life" historical warrior-monks that come closest to the D&D class WERE in fact unarmed fighters (except that they were usually armed), because magic isn't real, even "ki" magic.
EDIT: More to the point, even if I am just a big dummy-dumb-dumb-head about the history of monks, I still might have a valid opinion about the D&D class. If I learned everything I know about monks from Jackie Chan movies, or from Dragon Ball Z, or from Avatar, or from D&D novels, but I really enjoy the archetype and want to play one, do I get locked out of the discussion? Wouldn't a better approach be to point me to some historical (or literary or mythological) sources, so I can learn something new and also participate in the discussion?
Wow Japan, one culture from there. Shouilin and Buddasts originated from CHINA!!!!
Those sound tasty, what are they ?
(btw, Buddhism comes from india)
so we're allowed to make our own rules now?
1. Discussion of dr who is forbidden
2. using "alot" in a post is forbidden
I like these rules alot. New excuse me, I have to go watch the new Dr Who (the best one EVAR!)
That is like telling a child that they are fat, stupid, or a moron. Then wondering why they died from an overdose, suicide, or went on a killing rampage. Nothing good has come from negative criticism, That is why it is call negative.
You are conflating negative criticism and insults.
I propose that one big reason that there are so many fat, stupid and/or moronic people is precisely because it has become unacceptable to simply tell them so. You can be blunt with people and still have an interest in helping them.
On the other hand, some people can just be malicious in their intent.
The first would be negative, constructive criticism; the second would be insulting.
I was refering more to actual history. One post stated they didnt get why the monk class and then went on talking about without the eastern vibe, the monk is just a unarmed fight.
Actually, historically the term monk is used for a member of a religious monestary.
This is what I call ignorance, showing lack of knowledge on something they state.
I'd call this a typical "pot calling the kettle black" scenario.
This is what I call ignorance, showing lack of knowledge on something they state.
I'd call this a typical "pot calling the kettle black" scenario.
Again showing lack of knowledge and information. This argument was started on another post. You have just validated my point. Thank you.