I am in an odd position with regards to the Forge. I am glad that it exists and that it creates the thought and games that it does, but a lot of what it generates is not necessarily for me. And, there are times when one or more of the people on the Forge strike me as behaving like jackasses, Ron most definitely included.
And, then, Ron does something like what he just did. And my jaw just drops in awe.
sdm go "I'm also oddly positioned"*
WMW go "It's infectious, though"*
Yeah, this seems like a good time for this. I never really participated in either of those fora, because it seemed to me even a year or two ago that most of the productive discussion was already complete. I am interested to see how this changes things over at the Forge.
The Forge is nothing more or less than the sovereign territory of Ron Edwards.
It took me a little while to realize that, but it retrospect, it's blindingly obvious. Within this context, these sorts of announcements are not only not surprising, but inevitable.
Whether anyway is the sovereign territory of Vincent Baker is perhaps not quite as clear.
RE go "and Clinton Nixon"*
RC go "Absolutely"
BT go "RPG.net"*
ecb go "huh?"*
ecb go ""huh?" about anyway, that is."
BR go "I've had productive discussions on RPG.net"*
WMW go "Signal to noise"*
Roger: "Whether anyway is the sovereign territory of Vincent Baker is perhaps not quite as clear."
Care to test it?
MW go "That's it! Uprising!"*
VB go "bring it, Wilson."*
MW go "Activate Lego caltrops!"*
VB go "owie! Dammit. Ouch! Hold on."*
NinJ go "Hm. Hard to make."*
MW go "That's been my experience"*
VB go "that's what I was talking about!"*
VB go "CLACK rattle rattle rattle."*
JB go "Go central vac, Vincent..."*
WMW go "A funeral pyre"*
Chris go "Helps me add to the Ignore list"
VB go "I <3 RPGnet."*
luke go "i loved so much"*
MW go "oh my sweet lord"*
VB go "<3 means a heart."*
luke go "i see"*
misuba go "<3 means the head of a mouse"*
luke go "much funny"*
JCL go "my favorite part"*
luke go "wankery"*
JAK go "My favorite bit"*
JAK go "I would seriously pay $100.00..."*
JBR go "I want my Kool-Aid"*
MM go "Luke, you start the best flamewars"
XP go "34 pages?"*
luke go "hope springs eternal"*
BL go "Kool-Aid?"*
TC go "How do they do it?"*
JB go "Luke, you're a cruel and vicious man."*
luke go "Noo!!"*
BL go "Dead at 40"*
WMW go "I can't believe I killed the thread"*
luke go "huh?"*
WMW go "Handle vs name. Same guy."
Look at me! I'm staging a coup d'??tat over here! Because we haven't quite reached our quota on military metaphors for the year.
Vincent, all I mean is that, in my observations, there have been numerous times when you've tried to gently guide the course of a conversation in a comment thread towards a particular direction. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
The guests are jumping on his furniture, and Vincent is politely asking them to please stop. Some do, some don't. I've generally tried to heed his words, and if that makes me a slavering fanboy, then I guess I'll live with it.
I would suggest this is a contrast to Ron's style of hosting. I'm not trying to condemn either style, though that's really besides the point -- the whole great thing about sovereignty is that you don't need to give a rat's ass about anyone else.
RC go "D'oh"*
VB go "for what it's worth..."*
RC go "Hurray"*
WMW go "Yeah, VB runs a nice little cafe"*
Chris go "Yeah..."*
NK go "Chris, you're a softie!"*
Chris go "Yeah, well"*
I answered in marginalia but come to think of it I should answer here: 'Scool. I'm comfy with my moderatorial style and so far things have worked out. I can't think of a time when I've tried to gently guide a conversation and a) it didn't work out, but b) I didn't put an end to it on that account.
It will be interesting to see what new kinds of threads creep into Play, Design, and Site Discussion. I look forward to a more practical method of discussion. I'm a big hands-on kind of learner anyway. This is good :)
Definitely good. I never contributed to those fora, because anything I could care to discuss already had been discussed at some point in the past. When that ratio nears 100% for most people, or just for Ron, it's time to close the doors. But the forum isn't gone. Now, instead of talking, you just sit down and listen.
Partly, yes. I think good theory is valuable in its own right.
But I don't think the goal of creating good games is served by this manoeuver either, because of two reasons. First, even 'pure' theory will generallt impact applications after some time. Second, 'applied' theory is not always most easily discussed in conjunction with a particular example of play.
I had a bad experience with the Theory forum once. It was horrible...
That aside, I still agree with Vincent and Ron and all other yay!-sayers. It feels right, and over the past few years I think that the amount of useful theory that the forum was producing had been rapidly diminishing. The time was right. And as for GNS, well, it has already been said. Every thread came down to the same things, and they had already been dealt with. Its a good move I think. I look forwards to the more newbie friendly documents. I sure wish they had been around when I first showed up (but then I found anyway. and Vincent made it all make sense)