TOPIC: Thoughts on XP

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Raven wrote: Second: I saw a lot of talk about “what the high XP players want.” What I didn’t see, though, was a lot of high XP players voicing their opinion.

I think it is inferential based on numerous proposals put forward, both in the recent debate and in the past years, whose apparent purpose is clearly to keep the leader board rankings static, as long players keep showing up to Gen Con and getting to room 7 on Nightmare.

This includes proposals such as:

1. Annual XP capped to what can be obtained at Gen Con alone.
2. XP for redux / best of / retro dungeons limited to people under some XP cap (5th level, 7th level)
3. XP simply not awarded for dungeons not at Gen Con
4. Extra XP awarded to those at the top of the leaderboard (this one may have been tongue in cheek, but it was mentioned in the recent thread).

Regardless of what the top players may actually want, proposals such as this have the effect of keeping the leader-board static, and so it is a reasonable inference that those who promote these approaches do so for the purpose of keeping the leaderboard static.

Drawing such inferences, then srguing against the proposals based on them, is the essence of the ad hominem fallacy.

So no, I don’t think it’s reasonable. I’m fact I think it’s counterproductive as people waste energy on arguing state of mind.. Proposals can be good or bad, regardless of the motivations behind them, and I feel they should be discussed on their own merits.

One of the reasons some discussions get so heated is people feel their character and motives are under personal attack, then they respond in kind, and soon everyone is taking everything as a personal attack. Because when you get down to it, it kind of is.

An ad-hominem attack is an attempt to discredit an argument by bringing negative characteristics of the person making the argument that are otherwise irrelevant to the argument into play.

Stating the implications of a policy someone advocates for is not ad-hominem towards that person.

If you advocate for a policy which entails outcomes X, Y, and Z, it is reasonable for people infer, and then state, that you are in favor of X, Y, and Z.

Saying "Constituency A wants X, Y, and Z" is a reasonable and comprehensible shorthand for: "Constituency A is advocating for policies that bring X, Y, and Z about."

If you truly are against or neutral to X, Y, and Z despite supporting policies that primarily bring them about, it is up to you to clarify how your position makes sense. Until you do so it is reasonable for others to state: "You want X, Y, and Z" as shorthand for "Your behavior is supporting a policy that would bring about X, Y, and Z."

You play fast and loose with your use of the English language.

Your idea of “reasonable shorthand” is inflammatory and defamatory.

Did you know car accidents cause more deaths than firearms? Do you agree with banning all automobiles? If not, you’re in favor of killing 12,000 innocent children a year.

So now I’ve dismissed your opposition to car bans by refusing to listen to any of your logical arguments on the basis you’re a monster who wants to kill children.

I said that’s the “essence of ad hominem” - I’ve attacked your character instead of addressing your logic. And you’d be fully justified in being offended by my “reasonable shorthand.”

I'm not following you at all.

I suspect we agree quite a bit, let me try again.


1. I don't think people should lump together and characterize "all players on the leaderboard" as having a single set of motives (unless those people are acting as a uniform group, which isn't happening here).

2. I think generally that motive mongering is not productive in argument, e.g. saying: "You're only saying 'give us X' that because you really want Y!" is generally not helpful.


So far so good?

The next question is:

When: a particular person advances a particular policy X in a debate, and there is no reasonable dispute that enacting policy X will have result R, and that result R is the primary result of policy X:

Is: responding to that person by saying: "You want R."

a. An ad-hominem attack.
b. A fair statement.

I think the answer is B, it is a fair statement.

I am not sure, but it seems to me like you are arguing the answer is A, and ad-homimem attack.


I also agree that in, for example, a formal debate or drafted bill or something we should be very careful and precise with our words, but I think that in an online discussion forum: "You want R" is perfectly acceptable shorthand for "Your statements are in support of policy X, which we all agree would bring about R."

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Raven wrote: Second: I saw a lot of talk about “what the high XP players want.” What I didn’t see, though, was a lot of high XP players voicing their opinion.

I think it is inferential based on numerous proposals put forward, both in the recent debate and in the past years, whose apparent purpose is clearly to keep the leader board rankings static, as long players keep showing up to Gen Con and getting to room 7 on Nightmare.

This includes proposals such as:

1. Annual XP capped to what can be obtained at Gen Con alone.
2. XP for redux / best of / retro dungeons limited to people under some XP cap (5th level, 7th level)
3. XP simply not awarded for dungeons not at Gen Con
4. Extra XP awarded to those at the top of the leaderboard (this one may have been tongue in cheek, but it was mentioned in the recent thread).

Regardless of what the top players may actually want, proposals such as this have the effect of keeping the leader-board static, and so it is a reasonable inference that those who promote these approaches do so for the purpose of keeping the leaderboard static.

Drawing such inferences, then srguing against the proposals based on them, is the essence of the ad hominem fallacy.

So no, I don’t think it’s reasonable. I’m fact I think it’s counterproductive as people waste energy on arguing state of mind.. Proposals can be good or bad, regardless of the motivations behind them, and I feel they should be discussed on their own merits.

One of the reasons some discussions get so heated is people feel their character and motives are under personal attack, then they respond in kind, and soon everyone is taking everything as a personal attack. Because when you get down to it, it kind of is.

An ad-hominem attack is an attempt to discredit an argument by bringing negative characteristics of the person making the argument that are otherwise irrelevant to the argument into play.

Stating the implications of a policy someone advocates for is not ad-hominem towards that person.

If you advocate for a policy which entails outcomes X, Y, and Z, it is reasonable for people infer, and then state, that you are in favor of X, Y, and Z.

Saying "Constituency A wants X, Y, and Z" is a reasonable and comprehensible shorthand for: "Constituency A is advocating for policies that bring X, Y, and Z about."

If you truly are against or neutral to X, Y, and Z despite supporting policies that primarily bring them about, it is up to you to clarify how your position makes sense. Until you do so it is reasonable for others to state: "You want X, Y, and Z" as shorthand for "Your behavior is supporting a policy that would bring about X, Y, and Z."

You play fast and loose with your use of the English language.

Your idea of “reasonable shorthand” is inflammatory and defamatory.

Did you know car accidents cause more deaths than firearms? Do you agree with banning all automobiles? If not, you’re in favor of killing 12,000 innocent children a year.

So now I’ve dismissed your opposition to car bans by refusing to listen to any of your logical arguments on the basis you’re a monster who wants to kill children.

I said that’s the “essence of ad hominem” - I’ve attacked your character instead of addressing your logic. And you’d be fully justified in being offended by my “reasonable shorthand.”

Brad, I agree with you on this. I thought the XP conversation was particularly bad regarding attacks on people and their assumed positions rather than on the merits of various proposals. Which is why I'm definitely not jumping into any XP discussions on this thread.

Except to say that the statement that the current XP system (ability to get all XP for the year at one convention) keeps the leader board "static" is not accurate. My friend has steadily moved up the leaderboard to #8, from the teens, over the last few years.

Very tempted to say more - but I'll wait until XP is up for change again.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Is: responding to that person by saying: "You want R."

a. An ad-hominem attack.
b. A fair statement.

I think the answer is B, it is a fair statement.

I am not sure, but it seems to me like you are arguing the answer is A, and ad-homimem attack.

If R is a morally or ethically questionable result, and you’re attempting to silence your opposition by shaming or bullying them into abandoning their position, then I don’t see it as B. It may not be exactly A, but it has a lot of the characteristics.

But your premise is that R is an inescapable consequence of the policy in question, and everyone agrees. That’s not always the case, and what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others.

Made-up scenario:
Me: I want to drive my car to work.

You: Then you are in favor of dirtier air, Middle East wars, and more pollution.

True statement? Taken literally, no. I don’t want any of that, I just want to keep my job.
Fair statement? Maybe, but questionable.
Useful statement? Absolutely not. You’re not winning me over to your side in favor of more mass transit and stricter emission standards with that sort of attitude. What kind of monster WANTS wars and pollution? That’s what you really think of me? Then why should I engage with you on any level?

That’s my point.

I just reread your last paragraph in response to Raven. Nope, still doesn’t sound like “shorthand” to me. You have “reasonably inferred” the purpose of everyone who disagreed with you. That was what got me churned up. Not your analysis of the consequences (which have some merit but are built on some flawed assumptions, IMO).

What I reasonably inferred from that paragraph is that you believe:

- the only reason anyone would advocate for limited XP is for the purpose of making the leaderboard static,
- you believe such an outcome is morally reprehensible,
- all right-thinking people agree with your solution, and
- elitists who don’t may be dismissed out of hand. Therefore,
- you come across to me as arrogant.

I’m a terrible mind reader, so the middle three points are a bit fuzzy, so the last is very judgmental of me. I’m ashamed to admit it, but in the interest of honesty that is my (probably mis?)-perception. But I’m pretty confident in the first one, because that is literally what you said.

And I’m sure that I come across as pompous and arrogant to some people. I don’t mean to. I just get worked up about certain things I see as injustices, then launch onto quixotic quests to address them. Sorry if I’m being a jerk.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Is: responding to that person by saying: "You want R."

a. An ad-hominem attack.
b. A fair statement.

I think the answer is B, it is a fair statement.

I am not sure, but it seems to me like you are arguing the answer is A, and ad-homimem attack.

If R is a morally or ethically questionable result, and you’re attempting to silence your opposition by shaming or bullying them into abandoning their position, then I don’t see it as B. It may not be exactly A, but it has a lot of the characteristics.

But your premise is that R is an inescapable consequence of the policy in question, and everyone agrees. That’s not always the case, and what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others.

Just so!

That's where the productive debate should happen.

Made-up scenario:
Me: I want to drive my car to work.

You: Then you are in favor of dirtier air, Middle East wars, and more pollution.

True statement? Taken literally, no. I don’t want any of that, I just want to keep my job.
Fair statement? Maybe, but questionable.
Useful statement? Absolutely not. You’re not winning me over to your side in favor of more mass transit and stricter emission standards with that sort of attitude. What kind of monster WANTS wars and pollution? That’s what you really think of me? Then why should I engage with you on any level?

That’s my point.

I understand what you're getting at, but this is a false analogy.

There is no reasonable standard where that the _primary result_ of me driving my car to work is pollution and war.

The _primary result_ of me driving my car to work is quick and cost effective transportation.

It would be fair to say: "You just want quick and cost effective transportation!" as that is the primary result of the policy (I should be allowed to drive to work) under consideration here.

Certainly we could have a discussion about the secondary and tertiary effects, and I think this is where we could agree.

It would be unhelpful to attribute to one side in a debate who is advocating policy X the goal of trying to obtain the tertiary results of X.

I just reread your last paragraph in response to Raven. Nope, still doesn’t sound like “shorthand” to me. You have “reasonably inferred” the purpose of everyone who disagreed with you. That was what got me churned up. Not your analysis of the consequences (which have some merit but are built on some flawed assumptions, IMO).

My post was to try to explain to Raven where people were getting "what the top players want" when many of them haven't commented at all, and many who did had different opinions.

I wasn't trying to endorse that perspective.

I should have been clearer about that.

If you read my comments in the thread, I am reasonably confident I made it clear in that debate I was arguing with those who advocated XP limits for new dungeons presented outside of Gen Con, or against whose who argue for different XP ruels going forward than they have benefited from in the past.

Certainly I have no disagreement with "the people at top of the leaderboard" - most of whom I don't know and those of whom I do I generally have a positive opinion.

What I reasonably inferred from that paragraph is that you believe:

- the only reason anyone would advocate for limited XP is for the purpose of making the leaderboard static,

I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force.

I'm open to arguments to the contrary in the abstract, but since it's settled for the time being I'm not interested in debating it more now.

- you believe such an outcome is morally reprehensible,

There are two different issues:

a. What the XP program's outcomes will be for TD.

For example, I feel that denying full XP for brand new dungeons not presented at Gen Con is harmful to TD. I don't adopt a "moral" stance on this issue, however I do assume that we are all interested in TD's best interests.

b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue.

- all right-thinking people agree with your solution, and

I don't believe I have proposed any solution at any point in these threads. Perhaps I have.

- elitists who don’t may be dismissed out of hand. Therefore,

I have never used the word "elitist" in this thread.

- you come across to me as arrogant.

I’m a terrible mind reader, so the middle three points are a bit fuzzy, so the last is very judgmental of me. I’m ashamed to admit it, but in the interest of honesty that is my (probably mis?)-perception. But I’m pretty confident in the first one, because that is literally what you said.

And I’m sure that I come across as pompous and arrogant to some people. I don’t mean to. I just get worked up about certain things I see as injustices, then launch onto quixotic quests to address them. Sorry if I’m being a jerk.

Matthew, you said

"I think that keeping the leaderboard static is the primary result desired by people who advocate for not granting XP for new adventures presented outside of Gen Con, or who advocate for more restrictive XP rules than they themselves have benifitted from.

I don't think it's the only reason, but it's the only one that I think has any persuasive or rhetorical force."

I just have to mention - one reason that was mentioned in the thread was that the vast majority of True Dungeon players only play True Dungeon at one convention, and it's a minority of players that do multiple conventions. It certainly seems reasonable to advocate for having XP rules that benefit the majority of players instead of the minority. Being able to get max XP at a single convention, especially the largest (GENCON), benefits the most people. It is tailoring the rules to the majority of players.

You may disagree with that position (and I do think there were multiple valid positions), but it's a stretch to say that it doesn't have any persuasive or rhetorical force. It seems that you are only acknowledging what you portray as a "selfish" position in order to undercut other positions.

Even the argument that people want to keep the XP list "static" is not valid, because the XP list isn't static. There are a lot of changes year to year.

I don't want to argue the XP issue again, since Jeff has (for this year at least) resolved it. But, I do agree with Brad that you are assigning motives to people as a way to undercut their positions (and you certainly weren't alone). I hope that there is a lot less of that in general going forward.

Matthew, I agree with you that I don't want to debate XP at this point.

But I did want to comment on something else you said:

"b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue."

So, you are basically invalidating the argument for limiting XP in any way for anyone that got XP at True Heroes, or True Realm, etc, because in your opinion they are being hypocritical, and unvirtuous.

How is that? What players set the rules allowing XP from True Heroes, or advocated for that to be the case? Just because someone got XP from True Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that is what that player would have done if they were setting the rules. That decision was clearly made by Jeff, and I think at that time it was thought that True Heroes would be an ongoing event just like True Dungeon is. And both were available at GENCON.

If players did indeed get extra XP from True Realm, those players might not have advocated for that, or would have made those rules if they were able to. To be honest, I don't think the plan going in was for True Realm to give extra XP. I recall conversations after True Realm, when attendance was far less than hoped for, that if there had been extra XP perhaps it might have been more successful (and I'm sure there were people both pro and con for that position).

Since everyone at the higher levels of XP did get XP from True Heroes and/or True Realm, you are conveniently disqualifying any of those people from arguing for any limits on XP by saying they are being both hypocritical and unvirtuous if they take that position. Even though those people had no decision making authority on how XP would be handled at True Heroes or True Realm (or whatever other exceptions you have noted).

And I'm not sure you can fully apply those decisions to the current state anyway, because the environment today for True Dungeon is so different than it was in 2004 or 2009.

I don't see how painting the other side of a debate as hypocritical and unvirtuous is helpful to any discussion, and I don't think it's fair to those people.

Hey, wow... lot of heavy stuff to read here.

I'll admit, I had a knee-jerk reaction to your first post, Matt, and crafted a *fantastic* reply at 2am... and then decided to sleep on it. When I re-read it this morning, I was glad I waited. The reply was vindictive and snarky, and you don't deserve that. I suspect you and I (and most people here on the forums) want the same thing: a healthy, fun TD experience. I really appreciate what you contribute to the forums with your various token analyses and trend tracking, and I hope I can contribute constructively to this conversation.

So, let me try again to say what I wanted to last night.

Matthew Hayward wrote: Regardless of what the top players may actually want, proposals such as this have the effect of keeping the leader-board static, and so it is a reasonable inference that those who promote these approaches do so for the purpose of keeping the leaderboard static.

That really hurts. Especially the presumption between "what the top players actually want" and "proposals such as this." It's a huge presumption. The presumption is that the Top Players are the ones making such proposals. Then it follows into your "reasonable inference" that those same Top Players are promoting those approaches, in order to keep the Leaderboard static, and maintain their place at the top.

What I'm trying to say here is that, while some of those proposals are being made, it's NOT the Top Players who are making them. Nor has it been my experience that they were made with the intent of keeping the Leaderboard static.

Rather than get into any further explanation about styles of argument, let me directly address your list of proposals, and why I don't make the same inferences.

This includes proposals such as:

1. Annual XP capped to what can be obtained at Gen Con alone.
2. XP for redux / best of / retro dungeons limited to people under some XP cap (5th level, 7th level)
3. XP simply not awarded for dungeons not at Gen Con
4. Extra XP awarded to those at the top of the leaderboard (this one may have been tongue in cheek, but it was mentioned in the recent thread).

My responses:

1. Annual XP capped to what can be obtained at Gen Con alone.

I recall a huge debate about this, around the time True Realm premiered.

It was the first time XP could be obtained outside of GenCon, and there was (ahem) significant "polite" concern (cough) that this was going to turn XP into a money-grab. Ie, Pay-to-Win, with the wealthy TD players jetting off to events outside of the normal convention season and earning XP which no one else had access to. This was seen as a potential way for the top XP players to permanently secure their place at the top, and for the plebian masses to remain permanently on the bottom half of the XP list. in other words, it was actually proposed as a way to keep the XP list more fluid, instead of static.

2. XP for redux / best of / retro dungeons limited to people under some XP cap (5th level, 7th level)

Again, those promoting this weren't doing so to maintain their position at the top of the XP pile... The support came from people who were new(er) to TD and wanting to catch up to the curve. True Dungeon was getting extremely popular, and every year the new players joining were looking for ways to bridge the XP gap. But if past dungeons could be re-run for "new" XP, then the gap would keep widening. So rules were put in place that would keep the higher XP crowd from "double-dipping" while still allowing newer players to catch up.

It was literally a push from New Players, to give them the chance to climb the XP list.

3. XP simply not awarded for dungeons not at Gen Con

Can't say I know where this come from.
Might have been that XP was too much of a hassle, especially in the days when the XP desk could be backed up an hour deep, as all the new players made accounts (because XP was recorded on-site back then.)
It doesn't make sense to me, though, that this would be put forward as "clearly trying to keep the leader board rankings static" since those who benefit most from XP at other Cons are the total newbies who do their first runs there - and they wouldn't be shaking up the XP rankings any more than Newbies joining at Gen Con.

If the concern is that Vets would be shaking up the XP list by jetting off to those "extra" Cons, and climbing up the rankings, then keep in mind that the top XP crowd would also be trying to make it to those Cons to get that extra XP, which would just result in the rankings staying more-or-less the same, but with a wider gap between the lowest and highest XP available.

4. Extra XP awarded to those at the top of the leaderboard (this one may have been tongue in cheek, but it was mentioned in the recent thread).

I am pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek, aimed at mocking the XP-grubbing crowd... So how exactly does it support the theory that people are trying to keep the leaderboard static? If it's satire, then the aim is, in fact, the opposite.


To sum up: I can see how someone might make the inferences you did, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. In fact, it stings that someone would look at those efforts which have been made to keep the XP list fluid, as use it as evidence that there are forces trying to keep themselves firmly ensconced at the top.

You know what I think is the most significant factor keeping the XP list static? The fact that TD is an awesome game.
The same people are playing TD over and over... and getting XP for it.

Unless you want to bar certain players from continuing to play, or withhold their XP, or introduce some other way to gain XP which isn't connected to playing (ie, buying it) then the Leaderboard is likely to remain relatively static... at least among the higher ranked players, who have proven that they're committed to supporting this awesome game.

Raven wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: Regardless of what the top players may actually want, proposals such as this have the effect of keeping the leader-board static, and so it is a reasonable inference that those who promote these approaches do so for the purpose of keeping the leaderboard static.

That really hurts. Especially the presumption between "what the top players actually want" and "proposals such as this." It's a huge presumption. The presumption is that the Top Players are the ones making such proposals. Then it follows into your "reasonable inference" that those same Top Players are promoting those approaches, in order to keep the Leaderboard static, and maintain their place at the top.

What I'm trying to say here is that, while some of those proposals are being made, it's NOT the Top Players who are making them. Nor has it been my experience that they were made with the intent of keeping the Leaderboard static.

To be clear, I don't believe it's "what top players want" either.

I think there are a few players who argue for policies that entail keeping the leader board static, for the primary purpose of ensuring they can obtain max XP by attending Gen Con only.

I do not endorse the idea that all or even many of the people on the top players fall into that category.

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, I agree with you that I don't want to debate XP at this point.


But I did want to comment on something else you said:

"b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue."

So, you are basically invalidating the argument for limiting XP in any way for anyone that got XP at True Heroes, or True Realm, etc, because in your opinion they are being hypocritical, and unvirtuous.

How is that? What players set the rules allowing XP from True Heroes, or advocated for that to be the case? Just because someone got XP from True Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that is what that player would have done if they were setting the rules. That decision was clearly made by Jeff, and I think at that time it was thought that True Heroes would be an ongoing event just like True Dungeon is. And both were available at GENCON.

You're right that in the abstract someone may have participated in a system that they did not approve of for many reasons, and such people may escape a charge of hypocrisy in advocating against such a system.


Since entering in XP at TD is a completely voluntary action, entering in XP for an event amounts to strong evidence that one approves of being awarded that XP.


Did you not approve of XP being granted at True Realm at the time?

Do you now, in retrospect, not approve of XP being awarded at True Realm?

Raven wrote: 2. XP for redux / best of / retro dungeons limited to people under some XP cap (5th level, 7th level)

Again, those promoting this weren't doing so to maintain their position at the top of the XP pile... The support came from people who were new(er) to TD and wanting to catch up to the curve. True Dungeon was getting extremely popular, and every year the new players joining were looking for ways to bridge the XP gap. But if past dungeons could be re-run for "new" XP, then the gap would keep widening. So rules were put in place that would keep the higher XP crowd from "double-dipping" while still allowing newer players to catch up.

It was literally a push from New Players, to give them the chance to climb the XP list.

This take quite amazing to me, as a case study of people coming away from the same event with opposite recollections. I'm not confident I'm right about my recall, but below is what I recall.

Unless we are referring to different events?

I am thinking of the discussion around granting XP for redux/retro/best of dungeons that occured within the last 3 years when TD began presenting at GHC.

I don't recall any proposal that would have allowed anyone to "double dip" on XP. My recollection is that the controversy was solely centered on whether people running the dungeon for the first time would get XP for it or not.

My recollection of those events is that:

a. Initially there was to be no XP.

b. Various parties expressed concern that they should be able to get XP for dungeons they had never run before.

c. Various parties expressed concern that it was unfair and harmful to new players to not allow them XP when attending TD events.

d. A compromise of awarding XP only to players who were under 5th level (or perhaps including 5th level) was arrived at.


If we're both discussing the same event, I think it's incredible that your recollection is basically: "Policy came about to prevent top players from double dipping" and mine is "Policy came about to allow new players to get some XP."


Again, I might be wrong, but if we're talking about the same event then perhaps I'll go re-read that thread.


If you're talking about an earlier discussion that occurred in 2009 around True Realm, then I have no idea.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, I agree with you that I don't want to debate XP at this point.


But I did want to comment on something else you said:

"b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue."

So, you are basically invalidating the argument for limiting XP in any way for anyone that got XP at True Heroes, or True Realm, etc, because in your opinion they are being hypocritical, and unvirtuous.

How is that? What players set the rules allowing XP from True Heroes, or advocated for that to be the case? Just because someone got XP from True Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that is what that player would have done if they were setting the rules. That decision was clearly made by Jeff, and I think at that time it was thought that True Heroes would be an ongoing event just like True Dungeon is. And both were available at GENCON.

You're right that in the abstract someone may have participated in a system that they did not approve of for many reasons, and such people may escape a charge of hypocrisy in advocating against such a system.


Since entering in XP at TD is a completely voluntary action, entering in XP for an event amounts to strong evidence that one approves of being awarded that XP.


Did you not approve of XP being granted at True Realm at the time?

Do you now, in retrospect, not approve of XP being awarded at True Realm?

Matthew, I see that you've either missed the point of my earlier post regarding focusing on issues instead of personal attacks or assumed motives, or just disagree with that post. Either way, this really isn't a conversation I have any interest in continuing. And I'll try to avoid future conversations that go down similar paths.

Mike Steele wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: Matthew, I agree with you that I don't want to debate XP at this point.


But I did want to comment on something else you said:

"b. I believe it is hypocritical to advocate for a set of XP rules that would deny others XP in situations where you yourself have been awarded XP. I'm not sure if I'd take that all the way to "morally reprehensible" - but certainly I don't think hypocrisy is a virtue."

So, you are basically invalidating the argument for limiting XP in any way for anyone that got XP at True Heroes, or True Realm, etc, because in your opinion they are being hypocritical, and unvirtuous.

How is that? What players set the rules allowing XP from True Heroes, or advocated for that to be the case? Just because someone got XP from True Heroes doesn't necessarily mean that is what that player would have done if they were setting the rules. That decision was clearly made by Jeff, and I think at that time it was thought that True Heroes would be an ongoing event just like True Dungeon is. And both were available at GENCON.

You're right that in the abstract someone may have participated in a system that they did not approve of for many reasons, and such people may escape a charge of hypocrisy in advocating against such a system.


Since entering in XP at TD is a completely voluntary action, entering in XP for an event amounts to strong evidence that one approves of being awarded that XP.


Did you not approve of XP being granted at True Realm at the time?

Do you now, in retrospect, not approve of XP being awarded at True Realm?

Matthew, I see that you've either missed the point of my earlier post regarding focusing on issues instead of personal attacks or assumed motives, or just disagree with that post. Either way, this really isn't a conversation I have any interest in continuing. And I'll try to avoid future conversations that go down similar paths.

Your refusal to answer simple questions about your stance is extremely telling.