Alright. I needed to break from this for a day. Debates like these just suck away my energy like nothing else.
Here's the thing, Moose. If I'm interpreting your Frankensteining of my previous quotes correctly, then yes, I've already addressed that. Perception. I'm just gonna say that as of this point, you're probably just going to have to accept that maybe I'm not as wrong as your originally
perceived. I've offered explanations galore already to defuse past and present issues, but I think there's plenty of information to go on already for the rest.
The ball is in your court with your choice of perception. I done offering explanations (if I ever really needed to, even).
But here's one last thing about perception, though, since it's on my mind now: Though a map maker makes his maps to be enjoyed, the maps themselves do not necessarily have to be intrinsically enjoyable themselves. A map maker may also make concept maps, experimental maps, test maps, or even private maps just for their own enjoyment. Things that others will probably not appreciate on their immediate surface value alone; if at all. But that does not mean they do not have value.
A speaker, too, may make their messages abstract, symbolic, sarcastic, or even intended only for themselves (but talking to oneself is generally frowned upon
). Though I've already accepted from the onset of this thread that reasoning may not be an option (that is, people will not always adopt a logical choice of perception), there is a certain level of control over perception that even the listener must adhere to as part of being respectful. A player can just choose not to play a map they don't enjoy. A listener can choose to ignore a speaker's messages just the same. That's
fair to expect.
But the problem here that's been made apparent is that messages cannot
just be ignored. In fact, technically speaking, NO message can
just be ignored after it has been received, really. There is a layer between that where a choice has to be made to do that. Asking for respect and other shit is one thing, but until one sees how
they play into all of that, it's a hollow request to agree to. I've been hoping to address that layer with this thread's discussion so that it is acknowledged as a choice, for a start. Defining limits to that choice, therefore, is trivial (could just call it 'fairness', perhaps).
Ultimately, that part will be your decision in the end, Moose. I just hope you're able to make it a good one, now.
Now then. I need a
real break. Unless the little birds on your shoulder want to come down and speak for themselves for a change (and even then I'm not sure I have the stomach to continue this debate on their behalf), I really want to get back to doing what I enjoy rather than spend more of my energy on this, thank you.
None.