"Discussion killers" Topic

Two comments seem to appear in almost every TMP rules or scenario thread:

"Your game / your table, your rules. If you don't mind it, nobody else should."
" 'I disapprove of how you are playing with toy soldiers.' Stop telling me that!"

Both statements are, in themselves, true. No one is obliged to play a certain way, and fun is subjective.
But I wonder if they've also become conversation-stoppers rather than contributions.

If taken to their logical conclusion,however, they can effectively end any discussion of rules mechanisms, historical plausibility, balance, or design intent. Any criticism—constructive or otherwise—can be dismissed with a slogan rather than engaged with.

Posting on a discussion forum surely implies at least some willingness to hear alternative views, comparisons, or suggested improvements—even if one ultimately ignores them at the table or opposes them in the thread.

So where do people here draw the line between:
– the unhelpful: "You're having fun wrong" commentary, and
– Legitimate discussion of whether a rule or scenario does what it claims to do?

I would say that everything I write is merely meant as personal opinion & I think that is true for all posts on TMP?

I'm interested in how others see this.

NB apart from in the political threads, I find TMPers to be a delight- helpful, kind & pleasant.

You're essentially looking at the philosophical question 'can there ever be a right answer' to which virtually all non-religious philosophers answer no and all religious philosophers answer yes [well they should, but who knows..]. When it comes to wargaming there are of course some who apply the religious principle and some who don't.

In my opinion you can express any opinion you like because it's a discussion board so I'll discuss anything. You don't know where I live so you can't threaten me, so why not. Will you change my mind; that depends on the strength of your argument. I'd like to think that largely depends on evidence and/or logic; but I know enough abut psychology to know my subconscious is having it's say and anyway David Hume showed logically that logic isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Clearly there are people on this board who struggle with admitting to being 'wrong', but that's their problem, not mine.

I would not have regarded either answer as such, though I'll grant you there's not a good follow-up to the first. "Your table. your rules" is more or less an expression of good wishes. "You're having fun the wrong way" almost always includes some intimation of that the poster regards the right way to be and why. Surely that's the point of a conversation?

Or am I missing something? Wouldn't be the first time.

Sometimes the guys make a comment or two about rules (usually when they don't go in their favour) but otherwise the conversation is both polite and entertaining – especially the polite but witty trash talk

Who is the governing authority to police us to play by the right rules?

Personally, I keep my mouth shut and don't bitch about the game while I'm playing, even if I'm not enjoying it.

I've always found it amusing when two players, neither with the pertinent military experience or knowledge, attempt to convince each other that their rules are better and more realistic than yours.

Wolfhag

I may not have been clear.

I'm not arguing that either phrase is wrong or illegitimate. I'm asking whether, in practice, they sometimes function as a rhetorical full stop rather than a starting point—particularly in rules discussions where the original poster has invited comment.

"Your table, your rules" can be a friendly sentiment, but when offered as the entirety of a reply, it doesn't really engage with the substance of the question being asked.

That's really all I was getting at.

Ah. Quite right in that sense. By itself, neither advances a discussion. I tend to regard the first at least as moral support and let it go at that. After all, while all threads do, as you say, "invite comment" not all original posters are equally thrilled by negative comment. And not all persons commenting feel they have anything positive and original to add.

Seldom my problem, I'll grant you.

I suppose the real point isn't whether there is a right answer, but that discussion itself has value. David Hume* argued that certainty is elusive and that our beliefs are grounded in experience rather than proof.

Forums give us a place to compare those experiences, test our assumptions, and sometimes rethink them. Agreement is optional; engagement is not.

.* NB bring up the Scottish Enlightenment to a 'Thistle-basher' at your peril!

I recently said ‘your house, your rules' to a question of whether or not it is ok to use proxies in your own game on your own table. Honestly, I don't consider that a discussion stopper or trite answer. I meant it. If you come to my table and complain about me using proxies, I will politely tell you that your opinion is worth f'all and you can go play elsewhere. If you then persist, I will tell you to leave. If I go play at someone's table and complain about them using proxies, then I am a real douche and wouldn't expect to be invited again. That is really how I feel.

You can feel free to disagree with me here and discuss it further. I try to be open minded and could be convinced of the error of my ways if you have a good argument. It is just my opinion and worth exactly what you or I paid for it, which is nothing.

Tgerritson +1