A Comedy of Species

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Its been mentioned on this board a lot

I was judging from this thread. I couldn't bear to read through the entire thing, but the gist seemed to be that he had been denied leadership. Presumably it didn't end that way, but these details are irrelevant. That he is currently a kingdom leader only strengthens my point.

I know what precedent is, and the thing is that it IS okay for Gryf because its not overused

...

You recognise that the present and the future are different things, right?

You base this on?

Occasional observations. The Pirates, Samurai and Zormite seem to come under fire more often than Forest and Dustari. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

He's from an obsure race, it has no world altering super special elements

World-altering: It posits the existence of an entire race. That doesn't alter the world?
And it's not special to be a centuries-old dewinged-bird-turned-redeemed-elf creature?

He isn't more powerful for it

When was that ever the issue?

Being a paladin has more influence than having a special race

It is also more likely to involve wearing a shiny hat. What's the relevance?

I think you would agree that I can, if we use a slightly different example. For instance, if someone read that the town you live in has a low rate of church attendance, and no one in that town cares, and the town was facing other issues of economics and safety. Does the fact that you don't want to name the specifics of the economic issues prevent you from making the observation that out of towner's grevience is of little importance compared to other issues?

You're begging the question. Here's a better example:

A: "Hey, we shouldn't be worrying about (saving the rainforests/achieving world peace/finding a clean energy source/etc) while there's so much other stuff to be concerned about!!"
B: "Like what?"
A: "Um. I don't feel like answering that question"

Should we heed A's objection?

There are no absolutes of rules, only a loose desire for everyone to be happy with how things go

If there are no absolutes then the hat thing stands. If all rules are relative to the situation then you have absolutely no idea how to roleplay while wearing a huge purple hat. How could you? You don't have the experience.

Its not up to me, I assume they'll "see how it goes" and all that

Should/will the devil guy get to keep his origin story?

Wah, maybe you need to find something that concerns you to get upset about

Haha, please try to stay on topic.

They want a story that works with the group they play with

Who does? Every roleplayer in existence? And are all the kingdoms strict about what 'works'?

Gryf and a few people have unusual races, which at this time don't have any negative impact on the game

Or, rather, on your enjoyment of the game.

no one wants to adhere to your suggestions

Man, my objective here isn't to convert people like Gryffon. I'm just not that optimistic. This whole thing is primarily a fun debate, but there's a slim possibility that some of you will actually think about what's been said here, and if that leads to improvement then all the better. Just don't think that I'm depending on it.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I was judging from this thread. I couldn't bear to read through the entire thing, but the gist seemed to be that he had been denied leadership. Presumably it didn't end that way, but these details are irrelevant. That he is currently a kingdom leader only strengthens my point.

You are just compounding the obviousness of your ignorance to the current affairs of the community. Who is to say when you need direct experience to offer advice? When the fast majority of the people you are offering advice to decide to tell you to stop babbling and go away is a good start. There are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.

...

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You recognise that the present and the future are different things, right?

Duh, and I do understand what you are saying, I got it a few posts ago. What you are missing is that the only precedent gryf is setting is to be creative. If people all 'do what he did' they would do something original and creative, which would not include starting a fad of a million unique races.

Hey I was a king once, if I close my eyes when I sleep, and I setting a precedent for people to think its fine to close their eyes while driving? Can you see how your argument breaks down yet?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Occasional observations. The Pirates, Samurai and Zormite seem to come under fire more often than Forest and Dustari. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

And yet you can't even tell us who the current leader of Forest is. Forgive me if I find your research to be... not beyond reproach.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

World-altering: It posits the existence of an entire race. That doesn't alter the world?
And it's not special to be a centuries-old dewinged-bird-turned-redeemed-elf creature?

Unless 'they' invade or something I would say 99% of the graal world wouldn't even notice any impact without meeting him. I doubt anyone would say 'BIRD RACE??? CRAP!! YOU RUINED IT!!! I AM QUITTING THIS GAME!'

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

When was that ever the issue?

You have to measure impact when someone adopts a new type of rp element. If he was a fallen god who could turn people to stone with his finger nail clippings that would be something to get bothered about.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

It is also more likely to involve wearing a shiny hat. What's the relevance?

To roleplay with a paladin, you can assume his word is trusted and he has influence over many in the church, gets special treatment, and has advantages other players do not. There is more impact on other players to play with a paladin than with Gryf's characterr. That is the relevance.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You're begging the question. Here's a better example:

A: "Hey, we shouldn't be worrying about (saving the rainforests/achieving world peace/finding a clean energy source/etc) while there's so much other stuff to be concerned about!!"
B: "Like what?"
A: "Um. I don't feel like answering that question"

Should we heed A's objection?

Sorry, did you mean to say 'dumb' example? Think for two seconds,
rainforest = current problem
wars all over the world = current problem
energy polution = current problem

then we have...
Kai is worried one day, even though it hasn't happened yet in the last 3 yrs that gryf has been a strange race, that everyone will want to be some strange race and it will eventually impact RPing negatively on the server = theoretical problem only you feel is likely to occur

Get the picture yet?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

If there are no absolutes then the hat thing stands. If all rules are relative to the situation then you have absolutely no idea how to roleplay while wearing a huge purple hat. How could you? You don't have the experience.

Where do you get that deductive result? I know you are smarter than this, just try to review it for a moment. The purple hat...if a person has other traits in their RP style to which any hat is irrelevant then you can talk about those and have credibility assuming you do have experience that is relevant.

Hat types...not relevant. Contemporary experience with the community in question...very relevant. If you have roleplayed, you have probably worn enough variety of hats anyway that a purple one is not a significant variant anyway. There is absolutely nothing for you to hang that argument on.

If you want to know what the absolutes are, the absolute bottom line is 'are people having fun rping or not?'

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Should/will the devil guy get to keep his origin story?

How should I know? Without talking to the members and all that, I can't tell what the group wants.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Haha, please try to stay on topic.

Please don't take snipes at players you don't even play with.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Who does? Every roleplayer in existence? And are all the kingdoms strict about what 'works'?

The individual with the story. I use 'they' in place of 'he/she' for singular at times. Not all kingdoms are as strict or even consistent but the issue then is if cross-kingdom conflicts arise, and they do at times, but if the leaders are decent they get worked out.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Or, rather, on your enjoyment of the game.

No, not mine. I am talking about the communitys' enjoyment.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Man, my objective here isn't to convert people like Gryffon. I'm just not that optimistic. This whole thing is primarily a fun debate, but there's a slim possibility that some of you will actually think about what's been said here, and if that leads to improvement then all the better. Just don't think that I'm depending on it.

Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

You are just compounding the obviousness of your ignorance to the current affairs of the community

Oi, the ad hominems begin again. Unless you can show that knowing the current leaders of all the kingdoms is a prerequisite for understanding good roleplaying practices, your argument reduces to a desperate, petty attack.

Duh, and I do understand what you are saying, I got it a few posts ago. What you are missing is that the only precedent gryf is setting is to be creative

Well that's a pretty stupid argument.

A: "Hey, kid, I'm gonna sanction your act of murder this time because you were really really angry"
B: "But judge, doesn't that set a bad precedent?"
A: "What? No. The only precedent it sets is to make law rulings of some sort, which is good!"

You can't pick and choose, man. Every aspect of everything he does is included in this precedent. The nature of the 'creativity' is just as important as the nature of A's ruling.

And yet you can't even tell us who the current leader of Forest is. Forgive me if I find your research to be... not beyond reproach

Don't be ridiculous. Complaints about RPing are far more common than threads about new leaders. If I read random threads, it's to be expected that I'll see more of the former than the latter. Since the latter neither concerns me nor affects the debate, there's no reason to raise it.

Again: If I am mistaken in my assessment of the kindgoms, please correct me. Is Dustari below average in terms of management, then?

Unless 'they' invade or something I would say 99% of the graal world wouldn't even notice any impact without meeting him

Well, it would be nice to imagine a world where nobody ever has to meet him, but I don't think that's entirely viable.

You have to measure impact when someone adopts a new type of rp element. If he was a fallen god who could turn people to stone with his finger nail clippings that would be something to get bothered about

Agreed. But that wasn't the basis on which I was criticising him. You don't gain any ground in this debate by arguing against points that I never made.

There is more impact on other players to play with a paladin than with Gryf's characterr

Yeah, probably. And again, the paladin has a shiny hat. Neither factor relates to the issue of letting people invent kooky backstories.

Sorry, did you mean to say 'dumb' example? Think for two seconds,
rainforest = current problem

I doubt that A would agree. But, of course, you're automatically right because you say so? You cannot simply assert that something isn't a problem and expect your word to seal the debate. The whole point of the thread is to determine whether or not that's the case.

And this still doesn't change the fact that your allusions to greater problems mean diddley-squat if you don't actually specify them.

Where do you get that deductive result?

Sigh.

By saying that the purple hat makes no difference, you are positing the existence of absolutes - factors that are true regardless of your current attire. You also tell me that these absolutes are decided by a polarised group of roleplayers, making them strictly relative, according to your logic. If they're not absolute then who's to say that wearing a purple hat doesn't modify the experience beyond your comprehension? If they are absolute then you need to show how you determined them, and show that the process wouldn't work equally for me.

Summary: If you can dismiss hats as irrelevant as a matter of assertion, I can do the same with arbitrary GK details.

How should I know? Without talking to the members and all that, I can't tell what the group wants

You take a survey every time you want to make a decision? When was the last time?

Please don't take snipes at players you don't even play with

What snipes? I identified a subset of players. If anybody is in that subset of players then they are in that subset of players, and my comment applies to them. If not, it doesn't. There's nothing personal about it. Would I be sniping if I said "murderers should be in prison"?

Not all kingdoms are as strict or even consistent but the issue then is if cross-kingdom conflicts arise

And would they? If one kingdom were letting players be incarnations of gods, what would the others actually do about it?

No, not mine. I am talking about the communitys' enjoyment

Ah, you took a survey?

Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics.

Oh man, now you're breaking Godwin's laws. You people clearly need more practice at this.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

blah

As usual you use a series BS claims in how everyone else's arguments are flawed, and when you are called on it you just break down the reply with a series of quoted one liners that are even less coherent. The only three possible outcomes are to drop the topic, find the thread locked, or run out of disk space.

Sure, I could be tempted to point out that Godwin's Law applies to **** references, which I did not make, and unless there is some obscure corollary your invocation of it is completely in error. However, even though I could make a point of that, it doesn't matter - even if you were right and I am breaking Godwin's Law by saying "Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics." its entirely ancillary to the debate. Its deflective on your part, as are most of your 'points' that you make. I really don't care about Godwin's Law, its somewhat cute, but of little relevance.

If you can't see your purple hat idea is completely flawed that's fine. I am not going to debate a gorilla about fiber optics and if you can't figure out what is obvious to others about your own comments that is really your problem.

Your judge/murder thing - how can you say something that flawed without it being a baiting ploy?

To be honest, I really suspect you just enjoy baiting people and making arguments you know are flawed, just to see how long you can keep people going. That is the most logical explination given - it is really hard to believe you suffer tunnel vision to the depth displayed here unless you have an ulterior motive.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

As usual you use a series BS claims in how everyone else's arguments are flawed

No, you do! I don't have to prove it, I just have to say it!!!

Sure, I could be tempted to point out that Godwin's Law applies to **** references, which I did not make, and unless there is some obscure corollary your invocation of it is completely in error

Man, he has more than one law. Did you notice that I already invoked his most famous one in dealing with Gryffon, when he likened me to a ****? Don't you think that shows that I know what it is?

Its deflective on your part, as are most of your 'points' that you make

What was I deflecting? Your arrogant, self-righteous claim to victory? Sorry, but if you make such unwarranted claims then you don't get to complain when your opponent gives you a flippant answer. You weren't contributing to the debate, so why should my reply?

If you can't see your purple hat idea is completely flawed that's fine

If you can't see that your everything-is-relative idea is completely flawed, that's fine. I don't expect that I can change your mind without laboriously teaching you the meanings of all the relevant words.

Your judge/murder thing - how can you say something that flawed without it being a baiting ploy?

Your he's-not-setting-a-precedent thing - how can you say something that flawed? Like, at all? You must be the flawingest guy in the world.

To be honest, I really suspect you just enjoy baiting people and making arguments you know are flawed

What a coincidence! I was gonna say the same to you. In fact, I will!

To be honest, I really suspect you just enjoy baiting people and making arguments you know are flawed.

Sorry if it seemed like I deflected all of your valid debatey points!!

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Man, he has more than one law. Did you notice that I already invoked his most famous one in dealing with Gryffon, when he likened me to a ****? Don't you think that shows that I know what it is?

Perhaps it would help if you didn't use it in wrong places too?
You can call a non-sequitur a non-sequitur, and then a completely different fallacy a non-sequitur as well, and it would denote a lack of understanding. I am more curious as to how exactly you feel I 'broke' Godwin's law.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

blah

This is an old game, I point out the flaws in your arguments based on what you say, then you parrot them and act as if you based your retorts on something other than monkey-see.

If you really want it broken down for you here is how it works:

Concept of precedent is that by allowing an action, you are sanctioning further similar acts on the grounds it was accepted originally.
Your comparisons however, intentially skew what can be considered an 'act' and following 'similar acts' in a case of precedent.

In your case regarding the murder analogy, it was even more flawed. To sanction murder because a person was 'very very angry' is not even a case where something is acceptable in the original but can lead to a bad precedent. Of course, you went for one of the largest most emotionally charged negative too, second to say ****s and a few other things.

If you want to get back to a closer to intact argument, you could argue that while obviously Gryf's choice in race has not been a problem that it could set a precedent by which future players are encouraged to use a similar backstory and that that could cause problems.

However, that breaks down the same way as saying that if you allow a person to claim self defense in a murder case, that it will allow all murderers to be able to get away with murder. The reason is there are other material factors involved. In the case of Gryffon, he has been playing the same character for several years - since 2k1. The community has in that time been happy with this character, and it has not led to any problems. If someone was to 'follow' that precedent there would still be material differences. These differences include, but are not limited to, that it is somewhat 'out of fashion' to have outlandish characters today, and they are actually discouraged. Players want to be involved with their kingdoms, and avoid RP histories that will only lead to conflicts within their kingdom.

I can also point out the specific flaws in your other arguments, but I barely even care to bother pointing these out to you. If you want to defend your murder analogy, perhaps comment on that, but I don't really see any point in this debate at all. Just don't post a series of pointless one liners, that gets pretty old pretty fast.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Perhaps it would help if you didn't use it in wrong places too?

I already told you that there's more than one (although possibly they're not existent outside of Livejournal). Did you know that adding an 's' to the end of a word denotes plurality?

This is an old game, I point out the flaws in your arguments based on what you say, then you parrot them

No. You make groundless assertions and accusations, expecting them to actually carry some weight, and I show that they work equally well in either direction.

Concept of precedent is that by allowing an action, you are sanctioning further similar acts on the grounds it was accepted originally.
Your comparisons however, intentially skew what can be considered an 'act' and following 'similar acts' in a case of precedent

If the nature of the law-making is included in the precedent, why isn't the nature of the roleplaying? Why are you allowed to be selective here?

In your case regarding the murder analogy, it was even more flawed. To sanction murder because a person was 'very very angry' is not even a case where something is acceptable in the original but can lead to a bad precedent

And once more you beg the question by assuming that Gryffon's actions are acceptable. You can't use it as the basis of your arguments or criticisms until you've shown it to be true.

there are other material factors involved. In the case of Gryffon, he has been playing the same character for several years - since 2k1. The community has in that time been happy with this character, and it has not led to any problems

Again, assertion.

1) I very much doubt that anybody would actually forbid a player from crafting a similar backstory.
2) You assume that it hasn't led to any problems. I ask again: Have you taken a survey?

I can also point out the specific flaws in your other arguments, but I barely even care to bother pointing these out to you

Hahaha.

[Sildae]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Sure, I could be tempted to point out that Godwin's Law applies to **** references, which I did not make, and unless there is some obscure corollary your invocation of it is completely in error. However, even though I could make a point of that, it doesn't matter - even if you were right and I am breaking Godwin's Law by saying "Perfect, then we can say 'alright you lost' and all get on with other topics." its entirely ancillary to the debate. Its deflective on your part, as are most of your 'points' that you make. I really don't care about Godwin's Law, its somewhat cute, but of little relevance.

Dude, Godwin's Law is not a judiciary one but more a formalization of an observation. Mentioning ****s in a discussion does not break it, but only confirm it.

You can only break Godwin's Law if you maintain an infinitely long thread in which no mention of ****s is made. And I really do not want to see you do that.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Sildae

Dude, Godwin's Law is not a judiciary one but more a formalization of an observation. Mentioning ****s in a discussion does not break it, but only confirm it.

You can only break Godwin's Law if you maintain an infinitely long thread in which no mention of ****s is made. And I really do not want to see you do that.

Kai used the 'break' term which was a missused one to describe 'loosing by' Godwin's Law.
If the law can be broken it would probably require resorting to **** comparisons and still manage to win the argument, though that would be unlikely to ever happen.

[Sildae]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

If the law can be broken it would probably require resorting to **** comparisons and still manage to win the argument, though that would be unlikely to ever happen.

The law has nothing to do with winning arguments.