thread: 2005-12-03 : Closing GNS and RPG Theory is Good
On 2005-12-03, Curly wrote:
If my newbie experience is any indication,
here's the rub:
A newcomer seeking to signal his friendly deference to the groundwork already-established/
and seeking in good-faith to participate;
will try to get up to speed by reading old theory discussion before posting.
And will then join-in, waving-around GNS jargon like a happy hello. And will be surprised to be met unenthusiastically. And assumed to be a hostile dissenter.
I don't think your response is a sin.
I am grateful to have been set-straight so quickly; instead of a being left to flounder 'at my own speed'. Which woulda been a waste of my time.
However, I did sometimes feel that the course-corrections I received (not just from you) weren't as informative as they shoulda been. For example, flatly describing GNS as 'obsolete' is misleading to a newbie. 'Antiquated' is a better term, I think—because it says "keep going" past GNS/ not "throw it away". "Groundwork" is a good term, too.
Ron's a biology prof, right? I wonder if the recent 'intelligent design' nuisance is influencing his distaste for fighting won-battles ad nausea.
In that battle and this one; you gotta decide whether you're content to lose those who Don't Get It. Or whether you feel compelled to win them over.
How much charity do you have for plodding slow-learners? For lost causes? For those too immature to realize that brusque correction contains generosity? (You can lead a horse to water...)
I'm impressed that the Forge community is capable of adapting, to grow. Instead of doing the same things that didn't work last time, again & again. Fixing the 'system' of how people interact is very Lumpley Principle. Good design.
Reading this today eases the gnawing concern I expressed in the "VA hospital" post—written at 3 a.m.
