Aryvane
I used "elitist" as a descriptive term, more than anything. In fact, I defined the term specifically
as
the first generation of zOMG! players who developed a bunch of tactics that they later
passed on to newer players.
I don't believe there was
anything derogative in that statement. I didn't bring up any "elitist
thing;" I didn't give or ask for opinions concerning elitists or their dedication to zOMG!. In fact,
I used the word "elitist" as a synonym for "first-generation player," as a
title rather than an adjective.
If I had the power to simply strike terms from the zOMG! vernacular - I've tried, though, and I don't sweatdrop - "elitist" would be be very high on my list (second only to "abuse", I think). At this point there is simply too much ambiguity in the meaning of the term for it to be useful anywhere, and as becky indicates the result is that it tends to generate an undue amount of confusion and strife. If your goal is to communicate anything clearly in the z!F, I'd strongly encourage avoiding the word altogether.
I understand that you defined the term explicitly as you used it, but the trouble is that even explicit definitions don't eliminate negative connotations - you could define "jerk" or "buffoon" as "first-generation player" just as easily, but it's obvious why that would be offensive. Because "elitist" still carries similarly negative implications - and indeed, those implications serve as the primary definition of the term for many users in the community - it's hard to argue that it's any better than calling them "jerks". I can see why having a term within the context of the guide would be useful or even necessary, but something neutral - like "oldbie" - or even only comically derisive - like, say, "fogey" - would get your point across just as well (or, arguably, even better), without evoking anything genuinely negative. 3nodding
curtneko
her guide clearly contains humourous elements that weren't meant to offend, but you took those humourous elements seriously
The trouble is that "elitist" isn't really a funny word. "Kumquat" is, though. Indeed, it's such a funny word that they likely couldn't be offended if they tried. If the goal were humour, there are many other terms that cover that ground better. wink
Similarly, if the goal were objective accuracy, "elitist" still doesn't hold its ground - it has established meanings other than the one being used here, even within the context of zOMG!. While that ambiguity was introduced by those who tried to 'own' the term in the first place, propagating it through continued use only exascerbates the issue.
beckygrendel
Yes, now you get it! It was an inside joke which lost its hilarity long ago.
If it were ever hilarious in the first place, you mean. razz
That said, I don't believe anyone was intending to be offensive here, dear; it's just the ambiguity of the term that's causing problems. I assume she genuinely defines the term as she uses it here - I think you were right to question it, but I don't think she was wrong to use the term that made sense to her, either. If the term simply had a single definition, there would be no problem here - we just have to recognise that the "elitist" she was using is not quite the same as the "elitist" that we read. I think that you and I can agree that that's justification enough to abandon the term altogether - and I pray we will, eventually - but I don't think that we can really consider it anything more malicious than a miscommunication...