A Comedy of Species

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

You can derail a topic while being on topic - if you are talking about the quality of bullet trains you can always compare them to purple hats...its on topic but it doesn't contribute anything to the topic

Well, nor do your pathetic attempts at rebuttals.

Its a series of hyperbolic emotionally charged inheirently flawed analogies

No, your arguments are "inheirently" flawed! HAH.

when he claims something is damaging the roleplaying community here

When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? My argument is that Gryffon's backstory:

1. Indicates an egocentric attitude to roleplaying, which (even you must agree) is something to be avoided.
2. Encourages other people to adopt or develop similar attitudes, especially since he commands a kingdom.

For all I know, we might've been lucky up to now. Maybe you're right, maybe he hasn't had much of a negative influence. But I do not think that luck is a good reason to sanction disruptive behaviour.

I have a hard time believing someone as intelligent as Kai would be so handicapped by tunnel vision to persist in his insistance that his fallacies are sound

Right back atcha', buddy. Except without the pseudo-compliment.


Now, it would be awesome if you could offer more in this debate than "KAI IS WRONG KAI IS DUMB KAI IS THE SATAN". Like, maybe rational arguments in place of all your insults and assertions?

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

lalala

I wasn't talking to you.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

I wasn't talking to you.

Did that stop you when I was talking to Gryffon?

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Did that stop you when I was talking to Gryffon?

There was hope for you then.


But since you've given me such a painfully easy example here, one more time just for you:

You contend you are making points effectively, I contend you are stating what sounds decent to you but has no actual factual or logical basis other than leaning in bias towards supporting your opinions.

Case in point:

I say: when he claims something is damaging the roleplaying community here
You reply: When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? My argument is that Gryffon's backstory:

1. Indicates an egocentric attitude to roleplaying, which (even you must agree) is something to be avoided.
2. Encourages other people to adopt or develop similar attitudes, especially since he commands a kingdom.

However, not only does (2) of your own list mention clearly damaging factors happening to the community, you had stated in previous posts that:

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.

At that point, you want me to prove that Gryf's actions are acceptable and not harming/damaging the RP community. Okay, then we have this quote of yours in regards to the harm Gryf is doing to the community:

Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't such much what has happened, but what might. If kingdom leaders are doing something, it kind of sets the message that it's okay.

So we are back again to what? That Gryf isn't doing something that is a problem, but it could lead to other people doing the same thing and resulting in problems...even though there is no history of that happening in the last several years because of the checks and balances that you still suspect can't exist.

And of course, you have used this argument a lot Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.

You have said that Gryf is damaging GK by adding a race that affects all the players, and when that is challanged you argue that you are actually arguing that its a dangerous precedent, and not about gryf specifically, but about a lack of regulation. Then its about Gryf being a bad example, then him damaging GK some more and the whole while you like to tell everyone else that their arguments are flawed because they can't keep up with your stance-of-the-moment.

You are all over the place Kai. Gryf and characters like him hurt the GK world by forcing new races on other players, then its just a bad precedent then a bad example and precedent then its just about the lack of regulation and not about Gryf's race specifically....can you see why you are lacking in the debate department yet?

You play the fence, when you get cornered you'll ask for people to pretty much provide evidence that they are not figments of your imaginiation before you'll accept anything they say, you flip, flop, you choose to relegate anything of relevance as irrelevent if it doesn't suit you, requiring grand proofs yet never offer any for your own arguments, you make the worst analogies in the world, then when cornered on them backpedal and claim they were 'parodies' of your opponents. You are a great arguer, and a poor debator.

You can post all the one liners and say 'NO-U-DEWS' you want but at some point in the future when people are reminded of that Kai person who posted on those graal forums, it will be your childish 'mannerisms' and annoying habits that will stand out in memory, if anything does.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

There was hope for you then

And, what, I shouldn't have talked to you because the same isn't true here? Because there's no hope for you?

You contend you are making points effectively, I contend you are stating what sounds decent to you but has no actual factual or logical basis

Yes. And I contend that, although you say that in pretty much every post, you do not (and evidently cannot) show that it is the case.

However, not only does (2) of your own list mention clearly damaging factors happening to the community

Do you understand the difference between encouraging somebody to do something and forcing them to do it? In fact, there are many differences! One particularly relevant one is that, in the former case, negative consequences are not always immediately obvious. Whether or not Gryffon's actions have any direct, immediate effect on the community is impossible to say. But I can certainly argue that they increase the probability of bad things happening.

At that point, you want me to prove that Gryf's actions are acceptable and not harming/damaging the RP community

That would be nice. Although, as explained above, the latter would not be the same as the former.

Okay, then we have this quote of yours in regards to the harm Gryf is doing to the community:

Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't so much what has happened, but what might

What exactly are you trying to argue here? That irresponsible behaviour is only bad if it yields immediate negative results? Let's say I load a bullet into a revolver, spin the barrel and then attempt to shoot somebody. Fortunately for them, the current chamber is not the one with the bullet, so they remain unharmed. By your logic, is my behaviour acceptable?

there is no history of that happening in the last several years

Except if you include the "I AM DEMON RAR" story that was posted just a week ago.

Yes, there's no way for me to link that directly to Gryffon, but I don't really need to. If a kingdom leader is using a glamorous character to make him feel special then he is automatically encouraging everybody else to do the same. He's contributing to a disruptive tendency.

Not to mention that the very use of that backstory implies a distinct lack of RP humility. Anybody that wants to be the protagonist of an MMORPG needs to reexamine his motivation before he gets involved in a roleplaying event, let alone tries to lead anybody else.

And of course, you have used this argument a lot Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.

You have said that Gryf is damaging GK by adding a race that affects all the players, and when that is challanged you argue that you are actually arguing that its a dangerous precedent, and not about gryf specifically, but about a lack of regulation

Uh, actually I'm arguing against them all. Like, at the same time. Yeah. One of my many talents is that I can hold more than one opinion at once!

As I said, I'm not against new races per se. That doesn't mean I'm not against Gryffon's race or the fox guy's race or whatever. It means that, if done properly, the introduction of new races could be something I support. There is no contradiction here at all.

The lack of regulation is a bad thing. It lets people get carried away with disruptive, egocentric roleplaying.

And Gryffon is setting a precedent. The dudes that want to be the Dark LizardMen of Al'Grat'Khur can point at him and say "hey, if he's allowed..."

You play the fence, when you get cornered you'll ask for people to pretty much provide evidence that they are not figments of your imaginiation before you'll accept anything they say, you flip, flop, you choose to relegate anything of relevance as irrelevent if it doesn't suit you, requiring grand proofs yet never offer any for your own arguments, you make the worst analogies in the world, then when cornered on them backpedal and claim they were 'parodies' of your opponents. You are a great arguer

You stalwartly march into threads with pomp and pride and not the slightest idea about what your opponent is saying. When he refutes your claims you resort to attacking him on unrelated matters such as the color of his hat. You make crafted assertions to support your case but refuse to back them up. You dismiss arguments, examples and analogies without even trying to prove them invalid. In the end, when everything is going wrong, you break out the psychoanalysis and attempt to blame the whole thing on the traumatising events of your opponent's ninth birthday. By this point, you've given up on debating and every post you make is a frantic, groundless insistence that you are right and your opponent is wrong. You are a terrible arguer.

[busyrobot]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

And, what, I shouldn't have talked to you because the same isn't true here? Because there's no hope for you?

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Am I the fellow that starting whining about Gryf baselessly?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yes. And I contend that, although you say that in pretty much every post, you do not (and evidently cannot) show that it is the case.

Not to your satisfaction, and since you like to play both debator and moderator I suppose that means I am always wrong.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Do you understand the difference between encouraging somebody to do something and forcing them to do it? In fact, there are many differences! One particularly relevant one is that, in the former case, negative consequences are not always immediately obvious.
Whether or not Gryffon's actions have any direct, immediate effect on the community is impossible to say. But I can certainly argue that they increase the probability of bad things happening.

Yet, his character was started way back on 2k1. Are we worried the sky will fall...one day in the distant future on graal 3D?

That is an example of a totally deflective statement that is still on topic. It has already been established that Gryffon has had his current character for a very long time - perhaps one of the longest consistently played characters in graal.
You bring up a good fact that impacts are not always immediate, yet it is entirely irrelevant to this topic, as we are talking about a very very old character.

Do you have have some special insight to share on how it is actually relevant or will you just choose not to quote and respond to this part?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

That would be nice. Although, as explained above, the latter would not be the same as the former.

Interesting, what would you consider to be within the realm of possibility that would result in you loosing a debate?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

What exactly are you trying to argue here? That irresponsible behaviour is only bad if it yields immediate negative results? Let's say I load a bullet into a revolver, spin the barrel and then attempt to shoot somebody. Fortunately for them, the current chamber is not the one with the bullet, so they remain unharmed. By your logic, is my behaviour acceptable?

That is a great example of irresponsible behavior, and I would be greviously in error if I was to endorse that sort of conduct, however you could not have selected a more extreeme and poor example, unless your goal is to show something very stupid to do with very bad results. If you are looking at analogies solely for their emotional impact it would take ****s to top that one.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Except if you include the "I AM DEMON RAR" story that was posted just a week ago.

I wouldn't doubt it if he's rethinking the quality of that story, but regardless I am sure the subsequent posts to that story would not encourage the 'rampant' use of obscure races. It supports exactly what I am saying here, and erodes the validity of your claim that such an event would likely lead to the uberdemonification of gk. Those sorts of stories will not make someone popular, and people fill find stories that allow them to play more happily with the rest of the community, since that is what they are after.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yes, there's no way for me to link that directly to Gryffon, but I don't really need to. If a kingdom leader is using a glamorous character to make him feel special then he is automatically encouraging everybody else to do the same. He's contributing to a disruptive tendency.

Right, he's damaging the community. Didn't you just jump down my throat a few posts ago for daring to allege that you said he was damaging the community?
You said When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? if I recall. Still having trouble keeping your story straight Kai?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Not to mention that the very use of that backstory implies a distinct lack of RP humility. Anybody that wants to be the protagonist of an MMORPG needs to reexamine his motivation before he gets involved in a roleplaying event, let alone tries to lead anybody else.

Whereas antagonists don't? I don't think anyone wants to be 'the' protagonist, *a* protagonist generally suffices. I think you are mistaking an attempt to be creative for a lack of humility. Its not like he made a race just for himself, he was part of a race on 2k1 that was recognized by other RPers.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Uh, actually I'm arguing against them all. Like, at the same time. Yeah. One of my many talents is that I can hold more than one opinion at once!

I never doubted your capacity to be opinionated, and I never said as such. However when you say are not arguing that gryffon is damaging the community when you are arguing just that among other opinons you hold, that is where I have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

As I said, I'm not against new races per se. That doesn't mean I'm not against Gryffon's race or the fox guy's race or whatever. It means that, if done properly, the introduction of new races could be something I support. There is no contradiction here at all.

The contradictions are in that you flip flop around on the effects it has and whether Gryffon and Shawn are causing any problems or just the potential problems which just by 'random convergence' has not, depending on what you can and cannot defend any given moment.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

The lack of regulation is a bad thing. It lets people get carried away with disruptive, egocentric roleplaying.

Certianly. However, it has never been an issue with player created races. Its worth noting that Shawn and Gryf have both contributed to roleplaying greatly on GK. Having roleplayed with Shawn quite a lot, he is definately not lacking in humility nor an attention seeker, and his character race has enriched the roleplaying community greatly. You are being uptight over a non-problem. And yes, you can say it 'could' have a non-immediate effect but man, how many years have to pass before you consider it demonstrated that it is harmless?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

And Gryffon is setting a precedent. The dudes that want to be the Dark LizardMen of Al'Grat'Khur can point at him and say "hey, if he's allowed..."

Right, and we are powerless to say 'you know that really doesn't work' - as if some judge will rule that if gryf did something now we have to let dumb things happen too because they both involved a new race.

If the Lizard Men contribute, then it may be a good thing to add. If they are not, then no one will want to play with them and they can either leave when they get bored, RP outside the main community, or find something that integrates better. Relax already.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You stalwartly march into threads with pomp and pride and not the slightest idea about what your opponent is saying.

I always consider the other side of an argument, care to demonstrate where I don't?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

When he refutes your claims you resort to attacking him on unrelated matters such as the color of his hat.

Again, example?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You make crafted assertions to support your case but refuse to back them up. You dismiss arguments, examples and analogies without even trying to prove them invalid.

I break down your arguments and refute them regularily, what arguments do you consider 'dismissed' in this case?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

In the end, when everything is going wrong, you break out the psychoanalysis and attempt to blame the whole thing on the traumatising events of your opponent's ninth birthday.

I have made observations regarding your behavior, based on observations of your behavior. I never said you had to take any of my advice or tried to debate them until you accept them. Its your own loss if you can't benefit from some well thought out observations.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

By this point, you've given up on debating and every post you make is a frantic, groundless insistence that you are right and your opponent is wrong. You are a terrible arguer.

And that is why I continue to make a series of points you still can't refute, and why I still point out where you are inconsistent in your arguments and flipflop around? Or where I make the case even clearer so you can actually understand it?


I know Gryf is a good roleplayer, and I have a lot of experience with shawn about his race and can attest, as can all of Dustari and most of the RP community I am sure, that his race and character have greatly improved GK and been a great compliment to roleplaying in kingdoms. If anyone was to 'deny' him the right to play that race on the basis that it was not done with 'formal sanctions' and risks causing future harm, I can assure you that the immediate harm done by reducing the quality that he brings to GK would be far far higher than anything that will ever come about by not having your preferred regulations in place.
What is worse, is you don't even play with these people, all you can do is state your claim that it is 'bad in theory' and that you have enough experience RPing in different situations for your opinions to be sound here too.

When I point out you have no idea how this specific community self regulates on issues like this, or how much shawn and gryf have added to GK, you feel totally justified in claiming that we are all so generic that the differences between our community and the ones you do frequent are no larger than if you do or do not roleplay in a purple hat.

If you cannot see that, you are not going to, and its only because you don't want to.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Am I the fellow that starting whining about Gryf baselessly?

You would be the hypocrite that started whining about me baselessly, and then espoused a philosophy of non-intervention that you clearly don't follow.

since you like to play both debator and moderator I suppose that means I am always wrong

Haha, man, do you even read your own posts?

Yet, his character was started way back on 2k1

Yes. So? I'm expected to forgive him because he's been doing this for a while?

Neither of us can measure the effect that a single person has. It's utterly impossible. How can you realistically say that Gryffon's poor roleplaying practices haven't had a negative influence on other people?

Do you have have some special insight to share on how it is actually relevant or will you just choose not to quote and respond to this part?

Pretty interesting accusation, coming from you. You've made posts in this threads that don't quote anything I've written, or quote only a single paragraph. I don't think you can suggest that I do the same without giving us an example, especially since I have kind of a reputation for doing the opposite.

Interesting, what would you consider to be within the realm of possibility that would result in you loosing a debate?

Huh? Where did this come from?

That is a great example of irresponsible behavior, and I would be greviously in error if I was to endorse that sort of conduct, however you could not have selected a more extreeme and poor example

And, true to form, that's all you say. No explanation of how the two situations are incongruent, no logical analyses, no highlighted errors. Just a hefty "YOUR EXAMPLE SUCKS".

I wouldn't doubt it if he's rethinking the quality of that story

Well, he hasn't posted anything new. If he'd designed a new backstory, wouldn't he have amended his thread by now?

Was he ever forced to change it? That's the kind of regulation I'm talking about.

but regardless I am sure the subsequent posts to that story would not encourage the 'rampant' use of obscure races

Precisely three people objected to his story. Only one of them actually plays GK on a regular basis. I do not think this supports your point.

Right, he's damaging the community. Didn't you just jump down my throat a few posts ago for daring to allege that you said he was damaging the community?

Carefully consider the following strings of characters:

"contributing to a disruptive tendency"
"damaging the server"

The words are not the same. They are different words. It is prudent at this point to consider whether the meanings might be different, too!

To argue or deny that he is actively damaging the server would take statistics that neither of us can produce without travelling into parallel dimensions with comprehensive surveys. Special effects, wacky hijinks, I know. It'd be awesome. But it's beyond our means.

What I can say is that his actions have a distinct potential for breaking cohesion on the server. That's it. Is he harming it? Probably, yes. But I won't assert that he definitely is because I don't have the wormhole generator. Same as I won't assert that firing my revolver is the same as killing somebody.

Whereas antagonists don't? I don't think anyone wants to be 'the' protagonist

1. Do you think that those are the only two options? Protagonist and antagonist? This says more about you than it does about Gryffon.
2. Judging by the elaborate nature of his backstory - the brotherly conflicts, the torturous past, the redemption, the transformation, etc - it seems to me that he very much wants to be the protagonist. It's the kind of character you might write a book about. It's not the kind of character you should play in an MMORPG.

I never doubted your capacity to be opinionated, and I never said as such. However when you say are not arguing that gryffon is damaging the community when you are arguing just that among other opinons you hold, that is where I have a problem with it

I have already dismissed this misconception in this post (and my previous few, too). If you are still confused, ask a dictionary for the difference between 'potentiality' and 'actuality'.

The contradictions are in that you flip flop around on the effects it has and whether Gryffon and Shawn are causing any problems

No, you are merely twisting my words to make them seem disharmonious. But whatever, I've already covered that above.

Incidentally, I don't particularly object to Shawn's character concept and I don't think I ever said otherwise. He may have invented a new race, but he did it in a humble, reasonable manner. Being a fox-person isn't particularly glamorous.

Certianly. However, it has never been an issue with player created races

Assertion.

Right, and we are powerless to say 'you know that really doesn't work' - as if some judge will rule that if gryf did something now we have to let dumb things happen too because they both involved a new race

Well, yeah. Because there aren't any active judges and there isn't any real regulation. You make the insane assumption that kingdoms are led and populated by reasonable people. If that were the case, what would be the source of all those problems you earlier refused to name?

I always consider the other side of an argument, care to demonstrate where I don't?

The whole thread, basically. Even now you're missing the point, which just strengthens my accusation. You gave a tirade of unsupported insults and assertions about my actions in the thread. I immediately gave an equivalent, to demonstrate that such tactics don't prove anything; they work equally well for either party. Evidently this lesson flew straight over your head, for now you are back to demand that I provide proof where you did not!

I break down your arguments and refute them regularily

No! I break down your arguments and refute them super-regularly!!

PLEASE tell me you are learning!

I know Gryf is a good roleplayer, and I have a lot of experience with shawn about his race and can attest, as can all of Dustari and most of the RP community I am sure, that his race and character have greatly improved GK and been a great compliment to roleplaying in kingdoms

As was already said, I don't particularly oppose Shawn's choice of race. But that's all besides the point. Would Gryffon cease to be a "good roleplayer" if he made a less self-indulgent character?

you feel totally justified in claiming that we are all so generic that the differences between our community and the ones you do frequent are no larger than if you do or do not roleplay in a purple hat

Wow, maybe you have been listening! But here's the second half of that synopsis: You haven't yet shown that I'm wrong.

Humans are humans. There are universal factors - rules that apply regardless of the minute specifics of the group. The fact is that egocentric roleplaying is as bad in your world as it is in mine, and claiming refuge because of some irrelevant distinctions is no less ridiculous than dismissing somebody's opinion based on their preference of hat.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

I wasn't talking to you.

That doesn't exclude him from replying to it - that's what's so great about these message boards. If you didn't want anyone else to reply to it there are such great programs as AIM, and always the option of e-mail and private messages.