I feel like this vote belongs to teminally online reddit crowd

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Some people read way too much into things.

"Pure" as a word just means "free of other elements." That is literally what we mean. I play a Class that is not using lines from other Classes, done. There is no "I'm better than you" in there.

The word "Pure" is also used in many other contexts, like in science. If we have "Pure gold," we know that it is 100% gold with no alloys. If I am making a compound in a lab and I purify it, there are no other compounds in there. That is the word for it.

It is people ascribing the meaning of "better" to the word "Pure" (which is not it's actual meaning!) who are then getting mad that other people are using a word which they've ascribed a different meaning to.

While you may intend the word a certain way, that’s a hard claim to make about everyone using it in every context. There’s also the fact that intent doesn’t control impact. For example, in contexts where multiple classes may be chosen (not just ESO, but certainly here on the forums too), I keep seeing the phrase “stay pure,” which is sometimes even capitalized as “stay Pure.” It’s very hard (I would argue largely impossible) to escape the strong connotations of elevating purity as the desirable choice over the alternative with rhetoric and orthography like this.

Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if you do a search for that phrase you’ll find a lot of real historical and cultural contexts where it has been used to direct people to what is morally desirable. That repeated historical meaning can’t be erased or denied even if it isn’t always intended, and it isn’t at all clear it isn’t intended in most cases, since the majority of the time people aren’t disclaiming the implication of superiority and desirability when they use the term “Pure”. This isn’t a science forum, so it’s hard to think we should understand it scientifically here. Scientific language also doesn’t capitalize the word Pure or Purity alone, which is a kind of literal elevation designed to prioritize the referent over other things. As for the meaning, it’s akin to trying to use “molon labe” in its original sense outside of the context of academia. You can try, but those who have seen what associations it has been given in the modern era are still likely to have those associations evoked for them regardless. You can intend to mean it the original way, but you can’t control how it’s taken when it now has very different implications—associations that will likely be connected with you if you use that phrase too, regardless of intent. You can’t expect or force readers to take “pure/purity/Pure/Purity/stay pure/stay Pure” only the way you meant it when it has amassed lots of meanings and implications you may not want. You don’t control those associations and connotations, but you can better express what you want to mean by understanding and accepting the polysemy at work. As a speaker you’re responsible for understanding how multiple meanings and associations are likely be evoked by your choice of specific language. Denying you meant it that way doesn’t change how people understand it based on their understanding of language. Authorial intent is far from the be-all and end-all of language. Once you put out there, it becomes what your audience understands it to be.

eashi wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Pure is entirely the wrong word choice here.
Mono is too. 🤷

Would make wildly more sense to acknowledge that we have more than 7 classes in the game instead of trying to create generic terms to identity ourselves… as a class is compromised of 3 specific skill lines, you take one line out and you no longer fit the definition of said class.

IE. A Dragonknight that no longer uses Draconic Power is no longer a Dragonknight.

This is fine in theory but that would require all of the different combinations to have names which are agreed upon by the community. I don’t dislike the idea though. Ranger and Geomancer come to mind.

And I know without a shadow of a doubt, that our amazing loremasters would LOVE to do this for us.

@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.

Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.

Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.

Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.

Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.

It works just as well as mono. Mono and pure both refer to being unmixed or made of a single thing.

I agree, they both suck. 😁

I think both sides are making this more hostile than it needs to be.

I understand why “pure-class” caught on. It is short, it is already familiar, and in the most basic sense it means “not mixed with another class.” I do not think most people using it are trying to imply superiority or insult subclassed builds.

That said, I also understand why some people dislike it. “Pure” does carry extra connotations that “mono,” “single,” or “primary” do not. Even if the intent is neutral, the wording can still sound like the non-subclassed version is the cleaner or more correct version, while subclassing is somehow the impure version.

Personally, I think “single-class” is probably the clearest option. It says exactly what is happening without sounding clinical like “mono-class” or loaded like “pure-class.” A single-class Warden is using only Warden lines. A subclassed Warden is using lines from other classes. Simple enough.

I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.

Cooperharley wrote: »

I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.

I never meant to imply that I was scolding one side or the other. I only wanted to know what people used, why, and to have some discussion on it.

ZOS initially was using mono-class in the patch notes but now have begun using both. Though iirc they have always put them in quotes.

Pure Class is only being used as a descriptor outside the game to distinguish them from those using a Subclassed build.

virtus753 wrote: »

While you may intend the word a certain way, that’s a hard claim to make about everyone using it in every context. There’s also the fact that intent doesn’t control impact. For example, in contexts where multiple classes may be chosen (not just ESO, but certainly here on the forums too), I keep seeing the phrase “stay pure,” which is sometimes even capitalized as “stay Pure.” It’s very hard (I would argue largely impossible) to escape the strong connotations of elevating purity as the desirable choice over the alternative with rhetoric and orthography like this.

Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if you do a search for that phrase you’ll find a lot of real historical and cultural contexts where it has been used to direct people to what is morally desirable. That repeated historical meaning can’t be erased or denied even if it isn’t always intended, and it isn’t at all clear it isn’t intended in most cases, since the majority of the time people aren’t disclaiming the implication of superiority and desirability when they use the term “Pure”. This isn’t a science forum, so it’s hard to think we should understand it scientifically here. Scientific language also doesn’t capitalize the word Pure or Purity alone, which is a kind of literal elevation designed to prioritize the referent over other things. As for the meaning, it’s akin to trying to use “molon labe” in its original sense outside of the context of academia. You can try, but those who have seen what associations it has been given in the modern era are still likely to have those associations evoked for them regardless. You can intend to mean it the original way, but you can’t control how it’s taken when it now has very different implications—associations that will likely be connected with you if you use that phrase too, regardless of intent. You can’t expect or force readers to take “pure/purity/Pure/Purity/stay pure/stay Pure” only the way you meant it when it has amassed lots of meanings and implications you may not want. You don’t control those associations and connotations, but you can better express what you want to mean by understanding and accepting the polysemy at work. As a speaker you’re responsible for understanding how multiple meanings and associations are likely be evoked by your choice of specific language. Denying you meant it that way doesn’t change how people understand it based on their understanding of language. Authorial intent is far from the be-all and end-all of language. Once you put out there, it becomes what your audience understands it to be.

This is how you can end up being offended by every little thing in life.

Another approach is to ask, "is this something I should actually be offended by?" Because we're talking about builds in a computer game. Does it really matter even if someone does think pure classes are better than subclassing? Even if someone clearly expresses that they think pure classes are superior, any adult with a sense of perspective can appreciate that this is simply a gamer with a different opinion about builds and treat it as such. Rather than looking for ways to be offended because someone used the word "pure" to describe their game build.