Well, this week's been kinda short, as well as pretty hectic. I'm somewhat surprised about the seemingly lack of comments on the current news, as well as some comments which have been floating around, although aren't topics we directly cover, is something I feel we need to address. If you don't mind... I'll need to borrow the resident fanfic soap box, and excuse me for the length...

*Runs off to fanfiction, 'obtains' box, then steps on*

Ok, now, I've been recieving - shall we say - reports, (involving editorials and discussions about them) of how it seems that there's an upsurgence in arguing between you guys. If it's just an increase in people willing to discuss it with me or an actual increase itself, I'm not sure, but I think it's about time to address this.

Arguing a point with another person isn't a bad thing. We do it enough here, and it hasn't caused anyone to spontaniously afflicted with an outbreak of death. (Thank whoever or whatever up there for that.) In fact I will argue that it's a good thing to openly discuss things, and that won't change for a long time. (I am quite sure that some people would be concerned if I started censoring topics.)

So what exactly am I going to discuss? When to draw the line. It's by far not perfect, but since I have this nice soap box to stand on, I'm going to throw a few thoughts in a general direction on this topic.

Now, the first thing I'm going to say is something which I learned in a basic communication class. "You know you've lost an argument the moment you leave all reason to make it." Now that seems simple enough, but it's quite easy to step past the line... particularly when the other person you're discussing it has already crossed the said line or if you're being beaten back so to speak.

(And no, I am not referring to sarcasm, which exaggerates a point to stress an inconsistency or demonstrate a certain point, that is a tool which draws close to this line, but it doesn't cross it. I'm referring to the next step above that, where there's no point.)

It is an easy option to pick when you're arguing with anyone and everyone since once you do so, it becomes a matter of who's more able to manipulate their skills to basically beat the other guy in the ground and how well the groups involved can ignore what's thrown around, without the necessity of actually being logical, since there isn't any need to defend. After all, if you believe so strongly that you're right and the other guy is wrong to the point of non-logic, worrying about defending your position would be the last thing on your mind.

It's an easy way out, and all sorts of people will do it all the time. You'll see a parent once in a while go to this point when discussing certain points with their children; you'll see the media do this; you'll see all sorts of organizations, governments and corporations resort to this on rare occasion. You'll however note that particularly in any sort of organization, they'll most likely be transferred from their position if not fired altogether after such an event, and if they don't they will get warned to say the least. I'll outline why this happens further on.

My personal advice? Never cross that line.

It sounds easy enough, but believe me, you will come across days where you don't want to keep behind that line. You have a reputation, you have your point of view which the other guy is relentlessly attacking without reason, and you want to swing back in the same fashion that he or she has. Some would say it is cowardice if you don't do so. I've been guilty of this from time to time, I'm sure all of us have with have . Many if not all of us are pretty good at it. I'll happily admit that I'm pretty good at this sort of covert tactic, and many a time I will admit to considering if I should.

But consider this. The moment you cross that line, you have already conceded that you can't defend your own position at all. It proves to the other person as well as anyone else spectating that you're willing to sacrifice anything and everything to win. If your objective is to just hurt the other person, that's just a side point, but I honestly doubt that all of you are that malicious. Companies don't want that sort of image (since they have reputation to keep) which might surprise some people, hence they don't like their PR doing the same.

Remember that it is the person's argument that you're taking on, not the person you're talking with. You may not have to like another person's argument, but give the person the right to speak. Smashing the person to pieces is satisfying when you do it... then you realise that you've killed any chance at all of doing what you wanted to do to begin with. Why? Because you wanted to reason with the other person and to at least let the other person take the view on board, and you just alienated them entirely just because you crossed the line. (People do argue to present their points of view to begin with, right? If not, why argue when you can flame?) If you fail... all you've just proven is that you can't win at the lowest level possible.

Although I would like to think that I'm preaching to a crowd that already knows this, I honestly doubt that it's really the case currently. For all of you who wish to take up a counterargument with an editorial, remember you're not out to hurt the writer. You can dislike the point he or she made as much as you like, and present a case as much as you like, but don't cross the line of making it... personal. Don't take the focus away from the argument to each other. Anyone wishing to defend their point of view I would like to think should try avoiding crossing the line when it comes to countering.

But I know for at least some people, it is a bit late for that. For those in that position... I have one piece of advice. Once you realise it's gone to that point acknowledge the point of view as being there, politely say that you don't agree and finish giving any remaining reasons for your point of view, thank the other person, and finish the discussion. You may not have succeeded in presenting your point and giving him the chance to examine how you feel on the topic, but at least you can walk away and say that you tried not hurting him or her as a person, and you gave your side as best you can.

It also, from an arguing perspective, does something which one might find useful. It literally cuts the platform which they stand on right under them, and they'll have no answer to it. Why? Because if they pursue and defend their right to take you out personally without reason, they'll prove that they're more interested in domination rather than conversation, and they're going to do anything they can to get there. And I don't think anyone deserves to be put through that.

Just a thought.

*Steps off and takes back the soap box to Alanna*

Ok, that little comment said, now to business. I'm sure you've have noticed that companies are focusing more towards online RPGs, particularly with more servers for the popular Everquest, Enix indicating they were developing an online RPG, and with Blizzard's announcement to create World of Warcraft. Also, as you might have noticed, there's been another flurry of announced and ported games, particularly due to the upcoming ECTS expo, from monster breeding, to Tsugunai, to Vikings in Midgard. A question for you: Have RPGs really lost all their 'Dungeons and Dragons' association with it due to the popularity of seemingly more exotic and unusual settings, (Such as the futuristic FFVII, VIII and Front Mission series, and games with other sets of legends such Midgard and Saiyuki: Journey West) and will the 'classic' RPG survive for the future?

As for this week's eds? Well, I did say this week is short. We do have more comments concerning the trend of RPGs, and suggestions on how it can be improved, as well as what seems to be one of the final words on Villainry, but as I say, this week is quite short.

Well, there's no helping that I guess, but maybe it's time for some suggestions for people to consider? I will say some quite serious, some almost nonsensical, but maybe someone out there would like to share their wit and their ideas with us, hopefully well thought out.

Since we've on the subject of people and motives... have you ever wondered about a not so major character and wondered what ever drived them through? Are relatively minor characters even needed at all other than slot fillers?

Anyone ever wondered why Pokemon and all their kin and relatives are so popular? Is it really all just blantent marketting, or is there really some secret to Pokemon's success?

Has anyone considered just where the new storage formats available for the new generation systems are going to take us? Do we seek RPGs to have more story length wise with the extra space, improvements in rendering, or do we seek more in terms of world depth?

And for all out for fun, I have a question for you. You think it's easier to live in an RPG world or is real life the way to go? (Yes, I know that this was a debate topic but...)

Just another thought there. Have fun reading and writing, and I'll catch you next week.