Oooo-kay... so what the hey went on here?

Again with the “BroFic”. What is that even supposed to mean?

I’m also sorry you don’t see the value in this discussion, which I’ve found personally enriching.

Honestly, while I understand Peter’s feelings, I think this is the kind of sofism thread that wants to prove anything AND the countrary of anything. Arguing about semantics and spelling of words while forgetting the larger scope. Tom and Jerry, as much as Heart of Darkness or the Hobbit, were written in ages when racism wAs the usual, mainstream thought. It’s ridiculous even to discuss if they were sons of their time. I want to stress out that – yeah – the discussion is NOT sterile if it brings new thoughts in illuminated minds or conscience where ignorance stood. But I believe it can STILL be toxic to the targets of said racism. And it should be continued only if some of those actually added to the discussion. Otherwise, is just us privileged winding up our arses.

This said – talking about enlightening the ignorant, and incredible as it may sound – Victor really taught me something. I read LOTR when I was too young to be critic and never thought it over again. Thanks for showing me.

PS : although the OP has been banned, I think it’s about time someone point out that Charlie Hebdo IS NOT A DUDE. It’s a magazine. Stop calling it “He”.

As I noted in the first reply here - I shut down the thread not for being about a topic too virulent to discuss, but because it was opened as an attack upon another forum member and the resulting conversation was increasingly uncivil.

At this time, there are no rules for what should and should not be in the General/Off-Topic section. Please remain courteous. (General/Feedback section would be a good place to open the question of whether there should be such rules, if you or anyone else wishes to do so.)

I don’t see how it was. Maybe the fact that some people jumped to the conclusion that it was an attack generated the rest. That’s my whole point.

I think the results of this conversation here were very positive (which was my point, despite JoshuaBro thinking so little of civility). I am frankly - honestly - puzzled by people saying things about “toxic” and “noxious” when referring to this thread, especially given some of the great input by matt w and VictorGisjbers, and spankmister’s earnest desire to explore LotR, and David being able to freely express his perplexity - without offending anyone! - at the current state of things, a topic which was mused on by everyone who thought it was worth musing on.

Everyone who didn’t, of course, didn’t join in. Isn’t that how things should be?

So I really am astonished at the latter couple of replies. As far as I care, the thread has served its purpose, and gone beyond it, and if the discussion is pver (it seems to be) it can be left alone. The vitriol at the end doesn’t really add anything to it.

And not to be nitpicky - the OP of thaf other thread, Silver, wasn’t banned. It was namekusejin who was, and not because of a single incident.

EDIT - If of course the issue is that this sort of discussion - nonIF discussion - is actually, positively unwelcome, then that should be made clear. If this is to be a board strictly about IF and nothing else, it should be the time to say so.

This is important because we will know where we stand. I used to feel this was a place to talk about a great number of things, except that I never really had any reason to talk about anything other than IF. I thought, until JoshuaBro’s response, that there were people here who were open to the occasional discussion of non-IF topics, possibly even loaded topics. Matt w is a great example of someone who always handles these topics with a lot of grace and sensitivity, far superior to mine.

You’re right, cvaneseltine, maybe this issue should be brought up in the proper board of the forum. Is JoshuaBro speaking for himself or for everyone else? Does the whole community really think that discussion on non-IF topics should be curtailed (and in such strong terms)? Is a discussion about the Mammy stereotype in T&J, and an investigation into how much racism creeped into LotR (product of its time? Of Tolkien’s prejudice? Who knows), really all that noxious and toxic?

I would understand that not everyone here has an interest in discussing these topics. That’s what I would expect of any given topic in any given forum. But it the general feeling - general, mind you, not a single individual, and maybe this is what bears looking into - is that this discussion is positively unwelcome…

Hasn’t IF explored racism at one point or another? Isn’t is possible that in a few years some of the IF we’re creating will fall under this same harsh spotlight?

When the original poster was asked why he was even bringing this up, he immediately said that it was in response to another forum member’s signature. There was no jumping to conclusions there.

It’s not correct that David failed to offend anyone. I had to make a huge effort to restrain myself from responding more intemperately. I’d rather have bowed out at that point (among other things, I have a deadline today), but I don’t think it would’ve been a good look for the forum if his posts had gone unanswered, and I don’t think flaming him would’ve done any good.

Thank you. And I appreciate that you really thought through the issues and responded in a open-minded way, even though we start from very different positions here.

But I do think, as I said earlier in the thread, that even on the off-topic board things are a lot better if we don’t start with needlessly provocations. There are a lot of topics that are basically guaranteed to start flame wars, and it’s better to stay away from them.

Now as you say the question of racial sensitivity etc. really is relevant to IF, as it is to pretty much any other medium. But again, I feel as though there are more and less provocative ways to bring it up, and on the forum we’re better off if we bring it up in ways that are less provocative. (“Provocative” in a literal sense. And this isn’t to say that art on a provocative topic can’t be good! But our forum posts aren’t art. To extend the analogy of the in-person meeting, David Mamet is art but if you bust out your favorite Mamet lines at a bar there will be trouble.)

One issue there is that I suppose any way of introducing the topic of racial and gender sensitivity can be provocative to some people, no matter which side. If you start discussions from the point of view that this isn’t an issue that generally needs to get addressed it’ll provoke me, and if you start them from the point of view that it does need to be addressed (even when authors aren’t necessarily trying to be insensitive) then there are other people who will be provoked. But I took it that, well, if the mention of Social Justice is provocative to someone then the IntFic board is a better place for them to have those discussions. (And let me say this is not at all directed at you, since again though we disagree you can have these discussions without getting mad.)

I guess I’ll have to accept that the way I read some things is probably not the correct way, then. As to Silver, I saw a reference indeed to a signature, not an attack. If I’m the only one to see it that way I have to accept I was wrong - Occam’s razor. And thank you for responding to David - and to me, when I used the N-word. I think that’s what started this thread on its substantially more productive tangent.

Very well put. I agree. I knew this thread would be provocative from the get-go, and yet I did not intend to troll or flame. Ever since the CoC discussion I was very much afraid that the day would come when this place would prefer to stifle discussion of any given topic rather than address it; force silence upon anything that “the community” might see as offensive, however it is discussed.

I wanted to see if we’d reached this stage yet. It appears we haven’t, and I am very relieved, but there seems to be some sentiment that we should get there. That worries me.

Plus, of course, one thing that I’d always admired in this community was its ability to turn offense into reason. This was true up until the Brothers thread (and of course I play partially guilty) and until the Parser Is Dead thread and until the new CoC. Instead of talking things down, now we have the possibility of moderation imposing something. So far the mods have been top-notch (despite my occasional rant to the contrary), but I still fear for a stifled future.

I’m not sure that people have got the right end of the stick about IntFic. Both you and David, for instance, would be welcome, with your differing points of view. And IntFic is pretty much about IF. Here are the current top topics:

Welcome to the Intfic Forum
Praising “The Mulldoon Legacy” [PeterPears - Original Poster, Most Recent Poster]
Notes from Witt’s End #1 On Adventure [Laroquod - Original Poster]
Plans for 2015? [AndrewS - Original Poster, Most Recent Poster]
Searching for new term to replace the aging “interactive fiction” Authoring [namekuseijin - Original Poster] (and before you ask, no, namekusejin isn’t flaming anyone)
Flexible Windows - Beta version 15 for 6L38 News [curiousdannii - Original Poster, Most Recent Poster]
In-Line Topical Hints: extension in production Authoring [AndrewS - Original Poster, Most Recent Poster]
In-line hints vs. separate hint menu Authoring [blue_green - Original Poster]
Guncho development updates News [vaporware - Original Poster, Most Recent Poster]
Moments out of Time series (Review)

Somehow these issues don’t seem arise there. On the instances where swords have crossed, they were subsequently sheathed. So… yeah.

Oh, I wasn’t trying to say that IntFic was only for posters with a certain kind of view, or only about a certain kind of discussion. Just that it was designed to be a say-anything board whereas this board is not anymore.

I don’t agree with the barrier being imposed here between daily life and art. It’s true that many things people say, write, or generally create are not designed specifically to be art products. But they can still be interpreted and appreciated as art, which obliterates the distinction. I have seen ancient Chinese roof tiles and gutters, which were originally manufactured in the millions as a workaday building material, displayed as fine art in museums. Rightly so. That’s only one example. A more pertinent example would be how frequently personal correspondences are analyzed as literature. These forum posts are essentially correspondence.

This train of thought can be extended to imply that everything is art. I think that’s technically true. Usually it’s a silly technicality. But this thread has made it into a salient point.

One of the big things that art does is address difficult issues. That’s a big thing that IF itself does. But art isn’t addressing these issues in order to keep them cloistered within itself. Art is meant to enter into the audience and change the world, sometimes radically, sometimes only very slightly. But the barrier between daily life and art is what art exists to break down, so that we will think about things differently, and we will have different conversations, and our lives won’t be the same. To say that talking about David Mamet in a bar would be inappropriate just isn’t a sentiment I can get behind. Maybe I have a very different idea about what social gathering places like bars are for.

As you’ve said, some topics like racism are always going to be provocative. But that doesn’t mean that provocation is intended when someone addresses such topics. If we never talked about provocative topics in our daily lives, and always insisted that they be funneled into art and kept there, roped off from common interaction like a painting on a museum wall, then we’d be doing the world an enormous disservice.

All that said, the only reason I’ve written this response is because the “General and Off-Topic” section is what seems to me like this website’s social gathering spot. The bar. The place where the community can come to talk about anything. If that’s a misrepresentation of the sub-forum’s purpose, and the community decides that the entire website really ought to be dedicated purely to IF, then that of course is a different situation. Then it’s not a question of whether conversations are provocative, but simply whether they’re on topic. As a new member, I’m not in a position to know the history around these parts!

Oh, I don’t mean talking about David Mamet in a bar. I mean actually acting out a David Mamet play in a bar, or trying to provoke discussion in a bar the way Mamet tries to provoke discussion in his plays. I wouldn’t necessarily walk into a bar shouting “Fuckin’ Ruthie Fuckin’ Ruthie Fuckin’ Ruthie,” which is the Mamet line that springs to mind for some reason, and expect not to be kicked out. (I should maybe also mention that I think when Mamet is being most deliberately provocative he descends into hamfisted agitprop, as far as what I’ve seen, so maybe that’s not the best example anyway.)

Yeah, I guess there are two things; talking about provocative topics and talking about them in a way that’s likely to start a needless flame war. To some extent I think introducing some provocative topics out of the blue is going to be inflammatory–I’m remembering when I was doing some physical therapy and one of the other therapists was loudly offering his opinions on something which I don’t even want to bring up here and I was like, “Man, I don’t even want to talk about this, let alone hear your stupid opinions” (though I did not say this). And it’s not that the conversation was off-topic, it’s just that it was the sort of thing that was likely to get heated, and there was no reason to bring it up.

I think it’s common sense, really; if there’s something that is likely to raise heated feelings, do you really need to bring it up? Sometimes yes. (But the new moderation policy means that a lot of this stuff can be taken to the moderators instead of aired out on the board.) But often no.

I suppose I just don’t think it’s possible to introduce a topic, heated or otherwise, out of the blue. Not in a place intended for social gathering and conversation. If you’re introducing a topic on a forum, this means that the topic is on your mind, and you have enough to say or are inquisitive enough about it to type a message and ask for input from others.

I have been on forums where people make controversial posts on purpose to stir up ire amongst the community. But those are usually easy to spot, and even such antisocial posts won’t start flame wars if the community is mature. This community does seem to be mature.

Maybe I should put where I’m coming from into a little perspective, though. I only started really diving into IF a few months ago. It was basically a new art form for me, and it broadened my perspective. I played games like Howling Dogs and The Baron and was really impacted. But I never expected to be able to personally interact with people like Porpentine and Victor Gijsbers because, with most art forms, you simply can’t interact with the artists. They’re too far removed. But then as I kept exploring the IF landscape, I discovered that you could interact with the artists on forums like this! They’re very down to earth and plugged into the community. Victor Gijsbers has even participated in this thread! It’s not really like any other community I’ve encountered, where you’ve got intelligent, creative people making great art, and they’re open to their audience, willing to discuss things.

Basically, even though I’m new around here, this community seems to me like it would be one of the most valuable places to have conversations about societal and philosophical issues. The reason I have that opinion is because of what I’ve experienced through the games that this community has produced. I wouldn’t want to see that potential for conversation removed because people are frightened to speak about loaded subjects.

Quoted for truth. When I first came here and saw zarf posting around, and Emily Short, et al… I mean, as of very recently Bob Bates has posted here and on RAIF! Bob Imp Bates! Bob Legend Entertainment Bates! Bob Eric the Unready Bates! How COOL is that!

And what’s more, you can call him Victor. :wink:

Victor is too modest to tell you all this, but he gets all of his philosophy from the lyrics of ‘Turtle Power’ by Partners in Kryme.

-Wade

I’m now being accused that the person whose signature sparked the thread is, in fact, me also. (I can’t find this discussion so it must be occurring privately somewhere) Imagine how crazy I must be to make a separate account in order for me to construct a signature for me to be offended about. Equally insane would be me reporting my own post a week later from the other account. Someone clearly hasn’t been taking their medicine here but I can assure you all it isn’t me.

Years ago Conrad thought Pudlo was Adam Thornton, as I recall.

Rather than re-hash that whole sorry mess it’s probably best not to start accusing people of being someone else. Unless there’s evidence, it gets really ugly really soon.

It’s even uglier if it goes on behind closed doors, IMO.

Sorry, I think it’s just one person’s suspicion. It’s the second time it’s happened though. I’m not bothered particularly except having a sock puppet account is probably a banable offence.

I’m pretty sure having multiple accounts isn’t bannable–sometimes people need them to preserve the pseudonymity of their contest entries. In any case, the behavior you have apparently been accused of is by no means unprecedented on this board!

If that’s the case it makes no logical sense to accuse someone of it, if it’s something that is tolerated.

In mathematics, you can prove that any number equals any other number if you allow your proof to divide by zero. This isn’t a statement about the fundamental equivalency of all numbers; it’s a statement about division by zero. When students ask why zero has to be handled specially, one way to explain it is that if it weren’t, these absurd proofs would appear to be valid.

In literary criticism, you can deconstruct almost anything to find any message you care to look for, as long as you only have to meet a fairly low standard of intellectual rigor. You can find racism in a Lorde song, misogyny in gay porn, and imperialism in a take-out menu. I don’t think this is a statement about the larger culture, because with a little effort, the same sort of analysis can be applied to anything, regardless of origin. I think it’s more of a statement about the quality of analysis that develops from a tradition of prizing subjective reception over content and authorial intent, especially in communities where disagreement with such analysis is regarded as complicity in the oppression it appears to find.