THE FIRST ARGUMENT EVER

[papillon]

1) Yes, there is a huge point being missed here. A point that was reiterated many times and made quite clear. And it is being missed by you.

2) I think you have it totally wrong. Maybe you didn't see how there was no indication of my opinion about American Psycho, I just used the structure of the book and only that as my example, and then Jake talked about the quality of the writing of the book that he did not even read as his rebuttal. I'm bolding this, so that you may understand.

Now, go back and read my post and respond to what I actually said.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand my post, there's not much point in me making any further posts. When you've understood the last thing I said, perhaps I can say something new.

[A22]

I backed up my response to your false accusation with facts.

No. For one thing, I had not actually made any accusations against you in the post to which you were replying. Pay attention.

And my own accusation may only be false because Jake said two different things in the same post, which is not only what I think, by the way, as Nicol was able to see through the veil of verbosity and penetrate it to find the contraction within.

You misrepresented Jake's position. Jake clarified his position. You twisted Jake's clarification.

MrSulu: Starting with a hook is good.
A22: Starting with a hook is bad.
Jake: Starting with a a hook is good, but in some long fiction, is is permissible to delay the hook past the opening paragraphs.
A22's first misrepresentation of Jake: So you think all fiction absolutely has to start with a hook.
A22's second misrepresentation of Jake: So you think that starting with a hook is not necessary. We are in agreement.

And "hit you in the face" means a hook would be in the opening paragraphs. You think every opening paragraph in "pretty much all fiction" needs a hook in the opening paragraphs? I disagree. And that is what this is all about.

I that case, I do think pretty much all fiction should "hit you in the face" with a hook. It should also "hit you in the face" with good grammar, correct spelling, and good writing style.

1) You accused me of misrepresentation. Actually, it is what I said that was misrepresented. By you, for one.

2) No. Let's not be so glib(not to mention wrong). Sulu said the hook had to be soon. In the opening scene. He said that the main character getting up and going to school is too boring. A door should be opened in his face to introduce a cute girl, and then there should be mass exposition. In the opening paragraphs of the game. Then, I said that was a crappy hook, and unnecessary. And then, a shitstorm ensued. Then, THREE DAYS LATER, in this thread, Jake said that Mikan's story needed a hook soon in the text as it was boring and would only appeal to some people... then said fantasy stories don't need hooks early on because the concept would appeal to some people and they can wait for the hook.

3) "All fiction should be good. And it needs a hook in the beginning, always."

[Nicol Armarfi]

MrSulu: Starting with a hook is good.
A22: Starting with a hook is bad.
Jake: Starting with a a hook is good, but in some long fiction, is is permissible to delay the hook past the opening paragraphs.
A22's first misrepresentation of Jake: So you think all fiction absolutely has to start with a hook.
A22's second misrepresentation of Jake: So you think that starting with a hook is not necessary. We are in agreement.

You also seem to be misinterpreting A22's thoughts of where a hook should be. A22 thinks that a hook does not necessarily need to start at the beginning, and that you definitely shouldn't just start it off with a cliche hook that has almost no relevance to the story afterwards at all, which is what MrSulu originally suggested when he stated that it should start with a girl opening the door into Nick. He stated the reason for this was that it was more interesting to start it with a girl, even though this event has nothing to do with the story afterwards. This sort of blind, meaningless hook is what A22 and I do not believe should ever be at the beginning of a story. I do not mind a hook being in the beginning as long as it isn't forced on me, and it also has relevance to the plot. Otherwise I believe it's better for the hook to be later on in the story, which is how I've always enjoyed it.

[A22]

1) Yes, there is a huge point being missed here. A point that was reiterated many times and made quite clear. And it is being missed by you.

2) I think you have it totally wrong. Maybe you didn't see how there was no indication of my opinion about American Psycho, I just used the structure of the book and only that as my example, and then Jake talked about the quality of the writing of the book that he did not even read as his rebuttal. I'm bolding this, so that you may understand.

Now, go back and read my post and respond to what I actually said.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand my post, there's not much point in me making any further posts. When you've understood the last thing I said, perhaps I can say something new.

No, why don't you go read my posts, and your own posts, and Nicol's posts, and respond to what was actually said, instead of acting haughty and throwing out insults to make up for lack of substance.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand my post, then there's not much point in you acting like you have something to be so angry about. Until you understand that, maybe you can chill out and realize that you walked into this thread, made a post that contributed nothing and was just "lol i agree with jake" and are now acting all wounded about my replies.

[papillon]

Quote:
Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in, [and it's still good fiction], therefore it is not required for good fiction to have a hook at the beginning of the story."

Party A: "I heard Book-X wasn't a very good book."

Party B: "I NEVER SAID IT WAS!"

Party A: *total confusion*

You say you've read A22's post, but no where in there did he actually say it was good fiction. He didn't mention his opinion on it at all until after Jake assumed he liked it. Here, I will quote it for you:

You do not need to quote it for me, as nowhere have I said that A22 said in clear, explicit language that it was good fiction. In fact, even in my fictionalised narrative, I used brackets to suggest the implied statement.

Rather than requote a bunch of quotes that we've both already read, I displayed a slimmed-down narrative to explain to you exactly what the dialogue appeared to be. I intentionally did not use exact quotes, because they would serve to obscure the dialogue.

Now, let's take the same narrative again, but remove the implications.

Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in."

Party A: "Yeah, but is it any good?"

Party B: "Well, no."

Party A: "Then it doesn't demonstrate anything about the value of hooks in good fiction, so why did you mention it?" *confusion*

Without the implication-proof, it's not relevant. Party B might as well have said "I am wearing an orange hat." That may be absolutely factual, but it's also entirely irrelevant. Similarly, it may be factual that Book X has a hook that is not at the beginning, but if Book X is also a crappy book, then this has no bearing on the subject of whether or not good books have hooks at the beginning.

Therefore, because I assumed A22 was trying to make sense and not being totally irrelevant, I filled in the implications. Sure, I'll agree that nowhere did A22 say those things that I assumed were implied. However, in that case, he was making no sense. My mistake was in having too high an opinion of his debating skills.

Are you? Because to me it looks like you are just reading Jake's posts and assuming everything Jake says in reply to A22 is correct and drawing all knowledge from his posts, without actually reading A22's. Also, you have been calling him names. I can specifically remember you calling him an arrogant-idiot in one of your posts without even having to look up.

You should go back and look it up, then, as A22 called himself (mockingly) an arrogant idiot, and I corrected it to an arrogant potential-idiot, since I don't think I have enough information on A22's thought processes to make any such declaration. Your specific memories seem to have some holes.

[A22]

Quote:
Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in, [and it's still good fiction], therefore it is not required for good fiction to have a hook at the beginning of the story."

Party A: "I heard Book-X wasn't a very good book."

Party B: "I NEVER SAID IT WAS!"

Party A: *total confusion*

You say you've read A22's post, but no where in there did he actually say it was good fiction. He didn't mention his opinion on it at all until after Jake assumed he liked it. Here, I will quote it for you:

You do not need to quote it for me, as nowhere have I said that A22 said in clear, explicit language that it was good fiction. In fact, even in my fictionalised narrative, I used brackets to suggest the implied statement.

Rather than requote a bunch of quotes that we've both already read, I displayed a slimmed-down narrative to explain to you exactly what the dialogue appeared to be. I intentionally did not use exact quotes, because they would serve to obscure the dialogue.

Now, let's take the same narrative again, but remove the implications.

Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in."

Party A: "Yeah, but is it any good?"

Party B: "Well, no."

Party A: "Then it doesn't demonstrate anything about the value of hooks in good fiction, so why did you mention it?" *confusion*

Without the implication-proof, it's not relevant. Party B might as well have said "I am wearing an orange hat." That may be absolutely factual, but it's also entirely irrelevant. Similarly, it may be factual that Book X has a hook that is not at the beginning, but if Book X is also a crappy book, then this has no bearing on the subject of whether or not good books have hooks at the beginning.

Are you? Because to me it looks like you are just reading Jake's posts and assuming everything Jake says in reply to A22 is correct and drawing all knowledge from his posts, without actually reading A22's. Also, you have been calling him names. I can specifically remember you calling him an arrogant-idiot in one of your posts without even having to look up.

You should go back and look it up, then, as A22 called himself (mockingly) an arrogant idiot, and I corrected it to an arrogant potential-idiot, since I don't think I have enough information on A22's thought processes to make any such declaration. Your specific memories seem to have some holes.

Actually, I think your memory is the one that is full of holes.

>No, you are an antagonistic potential-idiot and ALSO you disagree. Separate points. Try to keep track.

My, my, what an antagonistic thing to say, but you try to justify it so well. I'm sorry, but I will have to say that I see a lot of malicious implication in that little post of yours. But, wait, you'll say, are you implying shit in my post when it is not there?

That's quite funny, because you just admitted to doing so yourself. In this very post that I am quoting.

[Nicol Armarfi]

In fact, even in my fictionalised narrative, I used brackets to suggest the implied statement.

Why would you do this at all? This is actually insulting to the reader, as it implies that the author thinks they are not smart enough to understand implications, or metaphors, or whatever form of indirect speech it may be. You also cannot reasonably suggest we write everything twice for you so that you have two different things to try and interpret.

[PyTom]

Okay, I'm an admin, and admins are moderators, so let me pull my best Jim Lehrer and try to moderate this debate.

I'm going to suggest that the two sides step back and focus on the question at hand, which I define as:

How long can a game be sustained without a 'hook'?

My own definition of "hook" is "something out of the ordinary that is intended to make the player want to see how it is resolved." Other definitions of hook are also acceptable, but please post what your definition is.

I'm suggesting that everyone post a completely self-contained version of their argument, so we're no longer making heated references to post days ago. And please try to write as clearly as possible, leaving nothing up to interpretation. Don't respond to someone else's position without first posting yours.

And just so we know who's playing by these rules, please include the words 'Squeamish Ossifrage' somewhere in your message, so as to let others know that this is your position statement.

Once we have position statements, we can finally figure out exactly what the disagreements are, and actually have a meaningful discussion. And I actually do think there's potential for a meaningful discussion here, which I why I haven't closed it down, despite both sides going a bit overboard with the name-calling.

[A22]

Okay, I'm an admin, and admins are moderators, so let me pull my best Jim Lehrer and try to moderate this debate.

I'm going to suggest that the two sides step back and focus on the question at hand, which I define as:

How long can a game be sustained without a 'hook'?

My own definition of "hook" is "something out of the ordinary that is intended to make the player want to see how it is resolved." Other definitions of hook are also acceptable, but please post what your definition is.

I'm suggesting that everyone post a completely self-contained version of their argument, so we're no longer making heated references to post days ago. And please try to write as clearly as possible, leaving nothing up to interpretation. Don't respond to someone else's position without first posting yours.

And just so we know who's playing by these rules, please include the words 'Squeamish Ossifrage' somewhere in your message, so as to let others know that this is your position statement.

Once we have position statements, we can finally figure out exactly what the disagreements are, and actually have a meaningful discussion. And I actually do think there's potential for a meaningful discussion here, which I why I haven't closed it down, despite both sides going a bit overboard with the name-calling.

1) Moderators aren't moderators in that way.

2) I have no need for a position statement, as I have pointed out that me and Jake actually agree... but for some reason he disagreed. However, as I have pointed out, we actually agree and have the same points.

3) That question has been lost and this thread is now basically name-calling, although as you see, I have not called anyone a name yet, however jake and papillon have. Hardly "both sides."

[papillon]

Why would you do this at all?

... In order to perform the exact task that I explicitly explained the narrative was designed for - to indicate what the dialogue appeared to be. It was, in fact, absolutely necessary to make that statement implied, otherwise it would be ludicrous to have Party B later claiming not to have said the statement. That would require making Party B out to be a liar.

[Nicol Armarfi]

And I actually do think there's potential for a meaningful discussion here, which I why I haven't closed it down, despite both sides going a bit overboard with the name-calling.

I refuse to play by these rules because:

1) I have not actually called anyone a name.
2) I fail to see how this is not meaningful discussion. It is a discussion on a literary device, on a forum about writing stories.
3) In all my years of browsing various internet forums I have never once witnessed a moderator attempt to hijack a thread. This is because a moderator's job isn't to kill valid discussion, but to remove spam or outright flames, and ban the offenders.
4) I refuse to have to rewrite everything I've already written in a more compact form, when the users should have been reading it in the first place.
5) I refuse to have to justify my position by writing a codeword on my posts.

[PyTom]

2) I have no need for a position statement, as I have pointed out that me and Jake actually agree... but for some reason he disagreed. However, as I have pointed out, we actually agree and have the same points.

Please write one anyway. I'm a little confused as to whatr your position is on the question at hand, and I think it would benefit all of us if you clarified it a little. I mean, we've spent so much mental effort on this thread already, it would be a shame to have it totally wasted.

I suspect people are just quibbling over details, and agree on all the important points. But it would be nice if people could just clearly state what they think, so we can have a proper debate.

[A22]

Why would you do this at all?

... In order to perform the exact task that I explicitly explained the narrative was designed for - to indicate what the dialogue appeared to be. It was, in fact, absolutely necessary to make that statement implied, otherwise it would be ludicrous to have Party B later claiming not to have said the statement. That would require making Party B out to be a liar.

Based on the responses I am receiving from you and A22, I do not think debate is actually your goal. I am not saying this to be insulting, but because you do not appear to be interested in either understanding the 'opposing' point of view or in rephrasing 'your' point of view such that it is more easily understood by your 'opponent'. You don't seem to want to explore why your ideas are not understood or accepted. You don't have to, it's not like it's your legal responsibility or anything. However, it does indicate that any further discussion is probably wasted. You can't have a dialogue without some common ground to stand on.

Ooh, "liar." Serious words there. Pray tell, what am I lying about?

So far, I see that I was accused of lying because you decided to read an implication in my post, when there was nothing there. So, basically, the "lie" is entirely the product of your imagination. GG. Like that other guy said, it's impossible for you to read my mind, so you can't be saying that I am a liar, because there is no way that you could know whether I was implying something or not. And because of that, to say I am a liar outright for something that can only be called an implication is kind of out there, wouldn't you say? Yeah, that is totally jumping the gun.

But, for the record, I was not implying anything, and you are reading too deeply into it, chasing a ghost that is not there.

Also, I find it funny you are saying Nicol and I are doing this just for laughs without any intent to understand the other side's viewpoint when we have defended our posts with quotes and nicely worded arguments, whereas you wandered into this thread just to launch a personal attack, saying nothing new and covering your hostility in a big quote of Jake's post that added nothing new to the discussion.

If anything, you are the troll.

And also, I am trying to understand your viewpoint, however it is hard to understand what is not there.

[A22]

2) I have no need for a position statement, as I have pointed out that me and Jake actually agree... but for some reason he disagreed. However, as I have pointed out, we actually agree and have the same points.

Please write one anyway. I'm a little confused as to whatr your position is on the question at hand, and I think it would benefit all of us if you clarified it a little. I mean, we've spent so much mental effort on this thread already, it would be a shame to have it totally wasted.

I suspect people are just quibbling over details, and agree on all the important points. But it would be nice if people could just clearly state what they think, so we can have a proper debate.

I already did it. It is one page back. It's my second post in this thread.

Yes, what you suspect is true, but you left out the part where jake and papillon called me an idiot and started throwing out personal, ad hominem attacks when I was being quite polite and we actually agreed. Up until then, this was already a proper debate.

I still see no need to post my "position statement" as my position was made clear, its meaning fudged by the harpies of misunderstanding and knee-jerk insular defensiveness.

[PyTom]

I already did it. It is one page back. It's my second post in this thread.

If it's the post I'm thinking of, it's a reply to Jake. So your points are kinda mixed in with his points. I think it would benefit us to have a post with just your thoughts in it, totally from scratch. This eliminates things going unstated because you assumed Jake (or other people) understood them when they didn't.

Addressed to everyone:

I'm also going to just declare an amnesty to people for prior instances of calling people and ideas names. From now on, however, if person A calls person B an "idiot" or "troll", or person A calls person B's idea "shit", I'm going to ban them from this thread. (If you see this and just posted something like that, go back and edit your post right away.)

It's okay to call people's ideas "wrong", but nothing stronger than that. It's okay to say someone misunderstands you, but not okay to question their intellect.

If we can keep it civil, I think we can get this thread going, since it's a very interesting point. If we can't keep things civil, the costs aren't worth the benefits. (And that's my opinion as the guy who pays the bills.)