A Comedy of Species

[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.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Sildae

The law has nothing to do with winning arguments.

Actually your right, the law as it is written in a matter that the only way to break it would be to continue a converstation infititely, without mentioning ****s.

The general use of the law is to say if you make a **** comparison you have all but lost your argument, which is what I meant when I said that winning an arugment after mentioning ****s would do it, but that was inaccurate.

My comments on my breaking of godwin's law was in reponse to Kai's claim that I broke it, and that he was inaccurate to state such.