Dungeons and Dragons

11029 readers

88 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Be a Decent Human Being
Credit OC content (self or otherwise)
Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

Posts must have something to do with Dungeons and Dragons
No Piracy, this includes links to torrent sites, hosted content, streaming content, etc. Please see this post for details
Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
No NSFW content
Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

160

Apparently all of the DND 5.5 physical sourcebook team was let go during Hasbro's December layoffs (www.youtube.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (12 children)

From the video (basically the first thing said):

It just came to me from Ben Riggs ... I'm going to read it exactly as I received it: Multiple independent sources with knowledge of the situation say that the team in charge of production and distribution of physical DND books was laid off in December 2023. So that's the previous round of cuts. Now I'm not a journalist, but Ben is, so I consider that solid.

[+] [email protected] -15 points 9 months ago (11 children)

That's not a citation. That's a quote of hearsay.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

Not everything that some specific person said is automatically true. However, a specific quoted statement made by an identified qualified source is, in fact, a citation. Now we know who (allegedly) said it, and we can get on into a conversation about whether they actually said that, or whether they're qualified, or what other qualified people say about it or bring other sources to bear etc.

What would you say is a citation, if not who said it, why they're qualified, and what they said?

[+] [email protected] -14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

citation noun [C] (EXAMPLE): a word or piece of writing taken from a written work.

I guess it depends if they were taking a quote from published work?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This is such a silly aspect of this to be spending this many words on.

citation /sī-tā′shən/
noun

The act of citing.
A quotation of or explicit reference to a source for substantiation, as in a scholarly paper.
A reference to a previous court decision or other authority for a point of law, usually by case title and other information.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

This is number 2. Usually an explicit reference is enough, but in this case it's got the exact quote, the exact source who said it (you can contact him on Twitter if you want to verify it or find out more), why the source considered it reliable information, and why they should arguably be considered an authoritative source. Again: Doesn't mean what's in the video is true. But it forms a basis for starting to talk about whether it's true.

I think people have gotten accustomed to invoking the word "citation" as a way of disagreeing with something they don't think is proven, so much so that they've lost sight of the actual concept involved and the next steps once you have the source and what they said. It seems like at this point it's just a way to sound smart or skeptical in a comment.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think, too, people have interpreted "citations" as "smoking gun proof", and not, literally, just the thing that was said, and the name of the person who said it/location where you can find the thing that was said. As if the point of citing sources is to win arguments, not to let information be traced and independently verified.

There's an infamous Twitter exchange among the online Toronto Blue Jays fandom, where the team's official Twitter account announced that a player was injured, and someone replied with "Source?"

The team's account replied in turn with "Literally us, the Blue Jays".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

I think quite a lot of people on the internet view the entire point of the operation to be winning arguments, as opposed to getting at the truth. I can understand the drive but it's not a real productive tradition.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)