In a previous post, I discussed how discussion topics can be reframed to the detriment of everyone. In that post, I referenced gamergate as an example, but have recently also been involved in a discussion about shirtstorm aka shirtgate.
I want to use this post to express my opinion on both; I haven’t done so in the past, which has led down the path of intarwebs arguments the world didn’t need. This post, then, is the frame of reference I am implying when I post about either topic.
A short while ago, in a discussion on the intarwebs that got unnecessarily heated, I got accused of “reframing” an argument. I will spare you all the details of that discussion. Suffice to say that the term “reframing” used like this has cropped up before in discussions around the same topic1, but I hadn’t heard it before.
I want to discuss here what this term does and does not mean, and how it applies to discussions.
I found an interesting piece on story in games over on Ars Technica. It’s not the usual “games need better writing” vs. “game stories are fine” arguments, but rather looks at how story ties in with gameplay, and how the two can be at odds.
Software product development requires skills that can be roughly divided into several skill sets. The most common one to take into account are:
I’m sure there are others, but that’s beside the point.
Confucius say: Beware of superficial differences, they may hide deeper similarities.
Corollary: Beware of superficial similarities, they may hide deeper differences.
![[FSF Associate Member]](/images/fsf_4971.png){kind=small}
![[frdm] Support SFLC](/images/support-sflc.png "Software Freedom Law Center"){kind=small}
