ITWastrel wrote:Where I'm from, that's called "and also", you quote the agreed to post, then make affirming statements, add depth, additional information, and insights to a branch in the thread.
"And also" is used to expand on a topic, enriching the thread.
"And also" is the positive version of "Quote and flame", which appears to be the standard post format here.
Greetings and Salutations. I see Nekira already responded, and I agree with those statements. I definitely would recommend starting with a statement of agreement for clarity. Note: Some people will still ignore it, but it definitely helps.
"And also" does happen here, but not as much. If we had something like a "Like" button, I'd probably like a lot of posts. But, there are two reasons I generally avoid "And also" as an individual.
1: There are rules against short posts. So something as simple as "well said" or "I agree" is actually against forum rules. As such, people are less likely to post in agreement, because it needs to be expanded on (as you did), and it would really just be repeating a lot of what the other person already said. This leads to people posting more to try and prove something wrong than to just agree.
2: As such, when I make a post it's because I generally feel I may be able to add something to the conversation. So if I know of a book rule no one has mentioned yet or I feel no one has addressed a specific point, I will post. Posting takes time and effort for me, so it needs to be worth it. In this case, I posted because I hoped it would help people realize there's more agreement than disagreement, and because it seems like you were becoming more frustrated and I was hoping maybe if I could explain a few things it might help.
ITWastrel wrote:Rogerd is in charge of Rogerd, I'm only in charge of me.
Agreed. However, there's a couple reasons why something like this can be confusing.
1: Rogerd used your stance (as well as Mark Hall) as part of theirs (I can provide quotes in PM, if requested). I know if I say someone attach my name to a stance I didn't agree with, I'd be sure to denounce it. The timing of some of your posts also make it sound as if in agreement. Note: I understand your stance. I'm merely stating how things can be perceived, because looking at things from another's standpoint can help with understanding and avoiding misunderstandings in the future.
2: The longer and more posts in a thread, the easier it is to get confused on who said what. Also combined with reason 1 above, and people's statements will often get blurred together. This isn't necessarily your fault, but it something that happens. By understanding the issue, we can take steps to avoid it or clarify again. Maybe not a perfect solution, but it can help.
ITWastrel wrote:I interjected into the thread when I logged in and started typing, not because the poster above me happened to have just posted.
[snip]
My full throated defense of "if you feel attacked for doing something, stop doing it" is likewise, all on me. If you look at your posts and think "****, was I the racist?" then let me help. You were the racist.
Okay, let's try a slightly different scenario.
I'm walking down the street. You're on the other side of the street and start screaming: "YOU RACIST!" in my general direction. I'm probably going to look around in confusion and say something like: "Huh?! What did I do that you think I'm a racist?" And maybe you weren't talking to me, maybe you were talking to the person behind me. However, your response is basically: "If you think I was talking to you then you must a racist, you racist!"
Let my clarify I do not believe that type of attitude is good or helpful. It's the type of attitude that will cause a lot of frustration on both sides, and will lead you to believe most people are racist and others to feeling randomly attacked. I wouldn't call that a healthy mindset.
This is the mentality that suggests if I walk up to you and slander the people you care about, if you get offended in any way then everything I said was true. Basically you picked a fight, and if anyone had an issue with that then whatever you claimed is now proven true.
ITWastrel wrote:On reflection, when I use the term "you", as in the sentence above, I am, of course, referring to the general you, not addressing the poster of the quote. Has maybe that been a problem?
I only ask because it seems every post I make, no matter how helpful, gets attacked, and either this forum is full of ******** or I need to adjust my grammar.
Addressing specifically who you're talking to can definitely help eliminate confusion. I also understand why this could be problematic, because then it could be considered targeting the poster and not the post. So my general advice would be to try and avoid directly calling anyone names. Quote the line, and call the statement or viewpoint racist, but not the person. It may not always be as satisfying as fully laying into someone, but can help still get the same point across, clarify who/what you're addressing, and keep you on the right side of the rules.
Also, as an individual, I've found that often the longer my posts the more likely someone is to flame them (I had this issue with a few people on the Rifts forum in particular). As such, I try to keep the posts short and to the point. If you look at my post, for example, I generally try short paragraphs with each paragraph a thought. I've found it a more effective method. On these forums, less is often more. That's at least my experience.
ITWastrel wrote:Oh, and I am also 100% Full on wanting a Palladium Books to address some of their insanely insensitive materials. Even an acknowledgement that some books were poorly handled would go a long way. Maybe make an effort on diversity on their writing staff, so this doesn't happen again? I dunno if anyone noticed, but it's pretty pale and male over at PB.
Well, at least you think they're pretty.
Seriously though, I'd have no objections to Palladium addressing some of the more insanely insensitive material. Exactly where everyone draws that line I know will vary, but some material is almost universally accepted as racist. Like I've heard no good things about Spirit West from Rifts (though I've never read it personally). Please, yes, let them address it.
As for the hiring practices, I know that's a complicated issue addressing adversity. I know there can be arguments on both sides, and I'm not going to try and start that debate here. More so, I don't think I'm qualified to address it satisfactory. With that said, there are at least some members of non "pale" complexion. I don't ask people's authenticity, so if I get anything incorrect I apologize, but Chuck Walton is in house staff, artist and writer (primarily Splicers). Glen Evans is a freelance writer who did a recent book for PF (with another that Kevin talks about often and just released the RAW Manuscript ... so you know, pick up RAW Lopan to support the diversity!
). Robyn Stot was, I believe, a female intern a while back (who did some of the old Rifter Q.A. with Shawn Merrow).
I'll also say I never met a lot of the freelancers. For example, I have no clue to the ethnicity of Todd Yoho, Mark Hall, or John Klinkel (RAW Land of the South Winds manuscript), to name a few. So, without having met them (or doing research on each freelancer who ever had a book released), I cannot say how diverse the freelancers have been or not.
If it matters (and it really shouldn't), but I'm mixed. In my childhood I was too white to be Mexican and too Mexican to be white (that's not a joke). I've had 3 Rifter articles published, the official Palladium Fantasy Interactive Character Sheet (Excel-based), and some material that may (or may not) be worked into the Land of the South Winds manuscript and/or some different material for a PDF only project (pick up some copies today to support diversity!
). Edit: Oh yeah, and credited with the slogan for the
Living the Fantasy PF T-Shirt.
Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.