Why blog?

I got into a discussion with my wife and some others recently about blogs versus more discussion-oriented forums (mailing lists, web boards), and she's kind of against blogs like mine because they are a barrier to discussion. A lot of that discussion happened on the Gamers mailing list on The Phoenyx.

I've been thinking about this even more, especially after discussion there and a recent "What is Fudge (and D&D) about?" thread on the [[http://fudge.phoenyx.net/guide/bin/view/Guide/FudgeList|Fudge List]].

Here's my problem. I'm trying to develop some idea, concept, theory or problem in my game. I blog about it, in part, just to get everything out of my head and onto the screen. I learned a long time ago in software development that articulating the problem in such a way as to make someone else understand it often reveals things before any feedback ever occurs. I think it's the same here.

I like to get feedback, but I don't always want to enter into a full-blown discussion. All too often, free-for-all discussions on lists like Gamers or the Fudge List seem to spiral out of control. Somebody picks up some minor nit and runs with it, pulling all the energy of the thread into arguing about something that is irrelevant to the initial post. And I get sucked into it.

Advice on Gamers was "killfiles, score files, ignore the poster, ignore the thread." None of which really work when there's stuff in the thread I want to read (I started it) and I don't necessarily want to ignore the person entirely because they often have good things to say. And I don't want to divert energy into managing scorefiles and carefully controlling who I converse with.

Karen seems to imply that, by using a blog, I'm doing people a disservice by creating barriers that make it difficult to enter into a discussion with me. Sometimes I think the barriers on a mailing list are too low. I get wrapped up in something that doesn't really matter to me, but I somehow feel like I have to explain or defend statements that weren't all that important, but someone has fundamentally misunderstood for some reason. I feel like I can't just drop it, and that it's rude to say, "I'm not going to discuss this, even though you think it's a big issue. It doesn't matter to me."

Vincent Baker's blog has a rule… you can't make statements, you can only ask questions. He tries to keep it focused on what he's exploring, not what other people want to explore. "Bankuei" has a rule that you can't post comments unless you've covered all the background material he requires first. Which includes playing a list of indie games… he doesn't want to converse with you unless you understand the context in which he is speaking. There's no point in his arguing until he's blue in the face if you've never even read Universalis, let alone played it.

And I understand where these guys are coming from. It's too easy to let all of my energy get sucked up into things I really don't care that much about. And to see the focus of my discussions derailed because there are people on the discussion group who don't really care about my main point, but want to seize on a minor point and make it the main point.

I think this is why they closed the theory forums on The Forge. Too much energy arguing with people who don't buy into the base assumptions of the theory. People who don't want to help but feel like they have to argue for some reason.

But there are times that I wish I could get more discussion about the things I blog on, but I don't want to open it up to just anybody. I'm like Vincent and "Bankuei" in that regard… I want to efficiently keep the discussion on what I want to talk about. I know it's self-centered, but the Internet can be such a time-sink already. I want efficient conversation on the specific things I want to discuss, so I can get back to actually writing instead of finding myself caught up in an argument I have no stake in. Again.