Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 08:00 AM

Why are there ever RAW discussions? As an abstract, fun exercise, to see how much you can abuse the game? Or something else?

Who cares what the "rules as written" are? Unless you want to say that the writers are infallible, you know there are going to be loopholes / errors throughout. Guaranteed there's not a sentence in the English language that can't be parsed 5 ways to Sunday. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is', is".

The books are just ways to learn what the RAI are.

Posted by: Thirty Second Artbomb Aug 27 2010, 08:02 AM

I see RAW as being a nice, firm foundation on which to build house rules, myself. Sure, you could go build your own foundation somewhere else, but if there's already one laying around...

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 08:09 AM

And on a forum, its the only foundation that we all have in common, so assumption is that RAW is used, unless the poster states othrwise.
After all its really really hard to have rules conversations if everyone isn't on the same page

Also there are games that you have to run RAW, missions for example(well, okey missions have some official house rules, but the point remains that you cant make up your own rulings)

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 08:15 AM

This. Most of us are playing variations of the same game, so it's important to have a basis for conversation.

Plus, posters like Neraph point us (with huge, flashing red arrows) to parts of the rules that are broken^^ Very useful, and entertaining too =)

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 09:07 AM

I think my point is, you can't ever really run "RAW". Everyone makes up their own rulings. When you sit down at a table, collectively, that's never RAW - it's what everyone (mostly the GM, sure) thinks the RAI are.

Maybe there are a very very few clear-cut rules, but for the most part, someone can parse a sentence or even a word to death, as has been seen here many times. It comes down to common sense and what everyone who is playing agrees, and that means everyone is playing RAI, not RAW.

This comes from seeing so many people say "Well, this is RAW. Your interpretation is a house rule.". No - everything is a house rule.

Think I've found my signature block for this account now...

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 09:15 AM

Not really, RAW is really clear on multiple topics.
You just dont see those hashed out in the forums as there's nothink to talk about, unless someone is planning to house rule that particular part of the rules and even then mostly the talk is about the planned/proposed house rule.

Posted by: Voran Aug 27 2010, 09:46 AM

RAW is also important as a baseline for discussion. If everyone is coming in with their own houserules and RAI ideas, then it takes awhile for people to figure out what the hell other people are talking about. Because not everything is a house rule. Are you running damage as written? then its not houserule is raw, likewise character creation or karma awards or whatever.

Posted by: Acme Aug 27 2010, 09:48 AM

Yeah, I disagree with your interpretation, phlap. Part of it is like Mäx said, you don't see arguments on most of the rules because, frankly, most people don't argue about things like most skill rolls or the general casting of spells or things like that. You see arguments on things that are vague, yes, but if you add up the bulk it's less than the total RAW. Also, some of that is questions on stuff where people pop their opinions on. And then, there are people who tweak stuff on their own but not trying to override the RAW.

I run all my games on RAW. Hell, I don't even really have that many house rules, unless we come into a situation where handwaving is necessary.

Posted by: IKerensky Aug 27 2010, 10:08 AM

Because some people want to play by RAW, or at least aim to play by RAW. And if not coming to discuss here how do they know if they understand things right ?

Sometimes correctly understanding RAW is hard, and sometimes there is several valid interpretation of RAW (wich indicate a badly written RAW and the need for an errata/rewrite).

If you dont care talking about RAW, you supposedly dont care either talking about background, setting or source. Afterall as soon as we sit down and play all that written material become obsolete.

BTW I want to indicate you,your gaming groups and all people playing character in Seattle area that all your characters are dead because my players team just fail to avoid detonation of a nuclear device and the whole area got blasted away. I will mention Catalyst too so they can pick up an update/erata for the Annual and Seattle 2072 book.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 10:24 AM

I guess there are some things that noone argues about - that doesn't make it RAW, that makes it something that everyone agrees is RAI. I think that any particular rule, there are a million ways to interpret it, if someone really really really took a mind to parse the written words apart. It's just that usually, "common sense" prevails - which is RAI.

A good example I saw on the boards, someone mentioned that per RAW, adepts can only be female. Why does everyone ignore this RAW? Because everyone pretty much agrees on the RAI. But if someone were to fight about it, say that it's by RAW only female adepts, noone can argue with the RAW interpretation.

I hear what you mean as far as "baselines" for the rules and all. I'm not saying the SR rules are worthless - I'm saying they're great guidelines, starting points, so you don't have to create a whole rule system yourself. But any specific application of the rules will be a derivation of the RAW, not the RAW itself. I think

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 10:30 AM

And now your just being obtuse.

Posted by: Acme Aug 27 2010, 11:14 AM

Ok... What the hell are you talking about? To begin with I want citing for your "example". Book, Page, Sentence.

Second off, I think you're off base. If you want to continue with this line of thought, then no rule system whatsoever can be taken as written. But then again your logic is flawed. How can you parse things like, say, the basic mechanics of using a skill?

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 11:22 AM

He's prefering to the fact that adept entry uses a she not he, but with that logic if it was the other way around adepts could only be males.
But the fact is rpg rule books use she and he inter changeably(except those that only use one or the other) and always have done so, would you rather that they used hir or some other gender neutral word(that noone uses) made up by linguist.

Edit: Actually now that i checked the book quite nicely uses "Character" in all the quality descriptions.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 11:30 AM

SR uses feminine singular pronouns almost exclusively. That has nothing to do with the "RAW" of choosing a gender in-game, and everything to do with conscious grammatical device.

edit: looking closer, it just seems to vary from chapter to chapter. It just happens that the chapters I read the most often use the feminine. In any case, phalp, you're confused on what RAW means.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Aug 27 2010, 11:33 AM

I try to use 'they' as gender neutral. That's generally how folk do it these days.

People talk about RAW like they talk about Newtonian physics.
RAW works in all but the few outlier cases. In those cases, you apply GM relativity.
Meanwhile, relativity doesn't mean that we can't predict normal shizz like the path of a bullet.

Posted by: Wasabi Aug 27 2010, 11:36 AM

RAW works increasingly well with players who care increasingly about the whole table having fun.

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 12:28 PM

Sometimes "they" just doesn't work in a sentence like she or he does.
I always find it little intresting that english doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun and on the other hand my native language finnish only has a gender neutral one.
It's just hilarious that when I'm using english i curse the lack of gender neutral term and when i'm writing in finnish i curse the lack of gender specific ones

Posted by: Saint Sithney Aug 27 2010, 12:31 PM

At least every noun doesn't need a gender, like in the romance languages.

Posted by: Laodicea Aug 27 2010, 12:35 PM

For the same reason that when people discuss God, they use the Bible.

There's loads of ways to interpret it. But it's the rough rulebook they all at least try to play by.

Posted by: Doc Byte Aug 27 2010, 12:36 PM

I do, 'cause I'm playing about 80% at conventions and it's plain impossible to play with (sometimes) total strangers without a common basis.

Posted by: StealthSigma Aug 27 2010, 12:51 PM

Phew, thank god my character is in New York City right now.

--



It?

Posted by: Blade Aug 27 2010, 12:55 PM

Well, there's RAW and RAW.
There's RAW "Grunts don't have language skills so they can't speak", RAW "according to the running speeds, people in the Shadowrun universe run faster than in ours", RAW "there's no modifier for 'cuteness' so you don't have any modifier to shoot this happy little girl with the kitten" and RAW "You can't have more than 4IP in the meat world, 5 in the Matrix". Each one of these are different from one another.

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 12:55 PM

Not really good when talking about persons.

Posted by: ZeroPoint Aug 27 2010, 12:59 PM

Houserules are RAW

I have played several game systems now, and none of them have gone unmolested by me (except Rifts...but thats due to a distinct antipathy towards the system). I've written at least 2 different systems and modified one beyond the point of recognition. Any campaign i run now has something distinctly NOT RAW. Current shadowrun game is no magic. Have done a short modern day Zombie apocalypse game with shadowrun (of course no magic/matrix or any other stuff). The system and fluff is great for a backdrop and foundation. But an experienced GM should be able to take that and use it to create unique playing experiences for his/her (hir?) players.

Posted by: Dwight Aug 27 2010, 01:16 PM

The ugly truth is that Homer's Wonder Bat is a piece of crap.

Personally I pay attention to them because [several] someone(s) put thousands of hours of work, collectively, into smoothing out the crinkles. That makes RAW solid baseline to work from. Most people couldn't 'game design' their way out of a wet paper bag (yes, that means you, dear reader) muchless 'simply' make deep changes without screwing things up royally. At least to start with, and usually it continues downhill. I cringe every time I see people dive into changing around rules they haven't even yet played, I cringe for the unspecting people that don't know they are going to be lab rats for a mad, bumbling scientist. Reading the rules doesn't equate to understanding how they move in play.

Posted by: StealthSigma Aug 27 2010, 01:37 PM

Well, it and one are two singular gender neutral pronouns.

Posted by: Faradon Aug 27 2010, 02:06 PM

Long ago in a game system far, far away we used to try to make house rules to make games more realistic. At first the house rules made sense, made the game more fun for everyone, and they were good. Then came the game suppliments/expansions...

As the system expanded and more "RAW" rules were added / amended, many of the house rules became over or underpowered. As a result many of the house rules needed to be changed. Additionally some house rules required other new house rules to be functional... and the house of cards grew.

Eventually the house rules were starting to approach the number of RAW... and was deemed to no longer be good.

In the end I've found that playing with RAW tends to keep your game better prepared for future suppliments / expansions for the game. The more house rules you make the more you have to change (or discard) as future books are released. Optional rules generally should be your friend though... since at least those will be kept in the developers minds when writing the new stuff.

Posted by: DireRadiant Aug 27 2010, 02:12 PM

Personal attacks....
just say no

Posted by: deek Aug 27 2010, 02:13 PM

I care about RAW because my assumption is that the time and effort that went into making a cohesive set of rules, playtesting, editing et cetera, is a hell of a lot more time than I am going to put forth, so makes a very solid base to start from.

I agree, once the rules hit the game table, I don't have issue changing anything written (or not written) in my games to make them fun for my players and me.

But, I have had plenty of times that I have come here asking about a rule and after someone explained it, as written, it made a lot more sense and I found that I just misinterpreted or missed something.

Plenty of other times I've come here with some vague ruling and getting a group of people to share how they do it in their games (or how they would plan to do it), based on other rules, is helpful to making a ruling in my game.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 27 2010, 02:23 PM

I agree with… several people. RAW is the common, foundational system. It's also that we assume they tried to balance RAW, so you learn them first and give them a chance, *then* tweak.

And 'they' *is* English's gender-neutral pronoun; has been for centuries. This 'she' stuff is annoying, and 'hir/sie' doesn't bear thinking about.

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 02:26 PM

'They' is gender neutral allright, but it's not singular.

Posted by: Faradon Aug 27 2010, 02:27 PM

MMMmmm.. but me likey Hershey chocolate!

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 27 2010, 02:29 PM

I think you'll find that 'they' *is* singular. It's also plural. That happens sometimes.

Posted by: Laodicea Aug 27 2010, 02:33 PM

mmmMMMmmmm, hershies.......

Posted by: pbangarth Aug 27 2010, 02:33 PM

Yes, but it's plural.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 27 2010, 02:34 PM

And singular. I didn't point it out the first time because I had faith in context. Alas.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 02:39 PM

First off, I'd like to say, I'm definitely not trying to attack anyone for playing RAW. Mostly I was just curious, and trying to have a discussion (a polite argument?)

I don't have the PDF with me at the moment, I'll come back and edit in page number for the he / she adept when I can. <page number here>

But that doesn't matter (I don't think). The very fact that people look at the he/she language, and INTERPRET what the author means - that's RAI. How do you know the author didn't intend to have adepts be only female? Because you find that ludicrous? Me too - so we've interpreted the rules the same way together. Glad you're playing RAI with me instead of RAW

Yes, yes, I'm saying there is never any thing such as "RAW". What are words, anyway? Squiggly lines, bunched together on paper. Do words have intrinsic meaning, or only meaning when someone reads them and interprets them? I would hope people are willing to admit, there are a few mistakes in the books. How do you know that's not RAW too? Do you play the game even with the mistaken rules?

I'm definitely not "knocking" the devs of SR or any other devs. Game balance is a hard job, I'm sure. Sometimes they write good words, make it easy for people to understand the true spirit of the rules. Sometimes the meaning isn't so clear. Hard to interpret. Both cases, the words are getting passed through your brain-filter and coming out the other end changed to the way you see things.

Dang, I should've started this thread at the beginning of the week, I def. want to make sure to reply to everyone's point...

Posted by: Doc Chase Aug 27 2010, 02:57 PM

Eh. The he/she issue isn't even qualified as 'all adepts are female' as it's an accepted 'gender neutral' pronoun as 'he' is. Blame the political correctness movement.

Posted by: Neraph Aug 27 2010, 03:01 PM

Vindication!

For my part, I will post some quotes about/for/by me that I've kept because I like them so much.







Also, for the language discussion going on, what's interesting is that Japanese (to my understanding) is even worse with gender identification - women and men have completely different words that they use in conversation. As in, the two genders have completely different words that mean the exact same thing, but women use one and men use the other.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 03:20 PM

<Backs away slowly, hands in the air>Hey, that's cool. I'm not saying you're playing it wrong, or not playing SR at all. I'm saying that when people say "I'm playing RAW", they are actually playing RAI, they just don't realize it. I mean, your post - several valid interpretations of RAW - this means there is no RAW, it's all interpreted by the players, so it's RAI. I'm not saying throw away the books of SR, they're great! I'm just saying that EVERYTHING in them is RAI.



I think I'm saying that no rule system is ever free from the limitation of human language, and so everything written about a rule system is subjective, not objective. I know, some of the language games I'd have to play to show that some rules are subjective would be pretty wacky. But they don't seem any wackier than some of the other parsing that people are doing, reading the threads on "this is RAW".

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 27 2010, 03:23 PM

Technically, no.

But only because your houserules are not "written" in the book as published.



They are definitely RAI, though.




-karma

Posted by: deek Aug 27 2010, 03:26 PM

Its been a while since I've studied my Japanese, think that is true. Japanese is very contextual and since the language is roughly limited to 100 different sounds (or is it just around 50? in comparison, English has a couple thousand, IIRC), there are a lot of homonyms. I also thought I remembered enjoying learning Japanese because, unlike Latin-based languages, there was no gender identification.

But, that was years ago, so I could not remember (and I didn't take the time to back that up with any sources).

Posted by: tete Aug 27 2010, 03:26 PM

Missions, I don't remember the discussion of RAW being as heated before Missions. Once you have an organized form of play people start expecting you to play by the book. The thing that pisses me off is Missions doesn't allow the optional rules in the book. Why even bother printing the options then?

Posted by: deek Aug 27 2010, 03:28 PM

Just for the sake of being picky, technically, the books are RAW and everything in them is RAW. Its not until you read and implement any of the RAW that they become RAI.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 03:29 PM

We can't even agree on the real meaning of "They"! This is the best argument for RAI instead of RAW that I've seen yet

Posted by: Neraph Aug 27 2010, 03:29 PM

This is dangerously close to claiming that there are no absolutes. When you see the stats for a weapon damage code, is that RAI? When you see a price value for a weapon, is that RAI? When there's a skill roll that needs doing, is that RAI?

There are absolutely Rules As Written with no room for interpretation. Now you can argue that if you use the RAW and it works perfectly that it's also being used as Intended, therefore also being RAI, but that's an additional logic step that is not neccessary for standard discussions.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 03:32 PM

Yeah - this is pretty much my point. Thanks deek, this is much clearer

So you can't play "RAW". There are the books, with rules in them, with RAW. Once you pick them up and play, you start interpreting those rules. Sometimes they get interpreted the same way, sometimes not. In any case, you're in RAI territory.

Posted by: Mäx Aug 27 2010, 03:44 PM

Except that if you interreb the rules wrong then its not RAI(Rules As Intended)

Posted by: ZeroPoint Aug 27 2010, 04:14 PM

and really, there is no such thing as RAW, its all Rules As Interpreted.

Posted by: deek Aug 27 2010, 04:34 PM

I wonder if lawyers have forums like this, where they sit around talking about the latest published cases or codes of their jurisdiction?

At least they get paid to argue for and against LAW (cool, LAW is Law As Written)...

Posted by: Critias Aug 27 2010, 04:37 PM

I think some of you guys are overdoing it with statements like this.

Are you genuinely trying to say that there are no instances where the rules are so cut-and-dried, clear, and well written, that you're able to handle the situation without having to interpret something? What is there to "interpret" about the base damage code of a weapon, the rolling of a few dice to determine initiative, or how to count hits?

Posted by: Dwight Aug 27 2010, 04:43 PM

Shhhh Critias, he's trying to amaze and delight the audience with his verbal prestidigitation by making the rules disappear in a dime store philosophical flash.

Do we really know anything?

Posted by: tete Aug 27 2010, 04:46 PM

That sounds like some GNU not Unix hooey

Posted by: Neraph Aug 27 2010, 05:26 PM

As I've said, he's dangerously close to claiming (absolutely, I might add) that there are no absolutes. I think we should have picked up on his philosophy by the title of the thread and opening statement - the OP does not apparently believe that RAW can actually exist in reality but only in a text that has not yet been read.

For example, I imagine one argument from him being "You assume that the 'P' that follows the damage code refers to Physical Damage. It may refer to Partial Damage or Paralysis. You read the Rule As Intended that it means Physical."

Posted by: ZeroPoint Aug 27 2010, 05:29 PM

No, there are some instances where its pretty clear what the rules are...but every session you will have some rules that is an interpretation of the rules.
What's the base AP of the Remington Roomsweeper with flechette? is it +2 (before errata) or +5 (post errata) or +4(what it should be)....because if its +4 somehow it loses a point of AP? I can go by RAW and go by the chart...or I can go by RAW and go from the text...so in the end its my interpretation.

and how about damage and net hits since you brought it up.

if i get 1 net hit (the required amount to deal damage at all) is my DV with my Ares Predator 5 or 6? cuz i got 1 net hit. So I can't ever actually have a DV of 5? or perhaps I need to interpret that Net Hits are hits in excess of what's needed to succeed.

and for initiative how do we interpret what applies as an initiative modifier? Synaptic boosters says doesn't stack with other initiative boosters. but reaction enhancers just boosts reaction (and initiative is a derived stat so its kosher)....but wired reflexes says the same thing except that it lists reaction enhancers as an exception...but we just interpreted according to RAW that reactions doesn't really boost initiative...


My point? We could all be playing RAW and be playing different rules.

But it doesn't matter. Its the GMs job to make sure his table plays by the same set of rules, make sure that those rules make since to his players and are enjoyable for everyone. Whether its RAW, RAI, or houserule.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 27 2010, 05:29 PM

We all play the game by RAI.

However, we debate the RAI of the RAW.*

Note the subtle difference.






-karma

* - unless we specifically state we're discussing house rules

Posted by: Kruger Aug 27 2010, 06:09 PM

No it doesn't. Don't be silly now.

Posted by: deek Aug 27 2010, 06:48 PM

A simple poll on DSF asking if the sky is blue with a Yes and a No, could start a flame war, on the right/wrong day. When it comes to sense, DSF has no common:)

Posted by: Dwight Aug 27 2010, 06:53 PM

I blame the Azure Sky purists, though the Vanilla Sky freaks aren't much better.

Posted by: Acme Aug 27 2010, 07:29 PM

Hey, depending on where you live the sky is grey several months out of the year.

Posted by: Laodicea Aug 27 2010, 07:44 PM

RAI is what we play by. RAW is what is in the books. RAI is what we argue about on dumpshock. You have to interpret everything you read. It doesn't have any meaning or reference anything else if you don't. I know that intellectually. But it's all semantics.

When I say "RAW" I'm implying a fairly strict interpretation of the rules as written. I'm aware that there are looser interpretations of rules as written, particularly when you start involving the fluff and trying to make different parts of the system harmonize well with one another.

I think most of us are implying a strict interpretation of the rules when we say "RAW". It's the connotation here that's important. We're almost never literally talking about Rules As Written.

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 27 2010, 08:47 PM

last time i looked into it, japanese have multiple gender identifications; via their honorifics. And then some that do not specify any gender. The latter being something that anime shows seems to have much fun with, to the agitation of some translators...

At least one show seems to have driven fansubbers into nerd-rage relating to the shifting use of male and female honorifics related to a character yet to show up on screen. Its a kind of word play that i suspect is impossible to translate, in much the same way as various puns in english loose all humor when one attempt to translate. One reason why automated translation is still a dream, tho google translate seems to do somewhat better then babblefish did. But try running the same sentence between two languages and wait for it to stabilize. Its almost guaranteed to not be the same as when you started with.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 27 2010, 08:49 PM

English does not, strictly speaking, have 'a couple thousand' sounds, btw. Even if you're counting many disparate English dialects.

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 27 2010, 08:54 PM

all human languages are basically built up by the same set of sounds, no?

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 08:57 PM

It's been more than a few years, but if I remember my linguistics class, English is basically built from less than 50 sounds. (48, I think?)

Posted by: Acme Aug 27 2010, 08:58 PM

Focus, people.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 09:01 PM

I figured I might as well add something worthwhile to the thread^^

Posted by: hobgoblin Aug 27 2010, 09:05 PM

dumpshock threads are like trees, branches shows up all over.

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Aug 27 2010, 09:08 PM

The only correct sky colour for shadowrun is the colour of television tuned to a dead channel.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 27 2010, 09:19 PM

That depends on the TV. Mine's purple, I think; blue is common, as is black or grey.

Posted by: Voran Aug 27 2010, 10:19 PM

Why you're thinking about bears and horses, I don't want to know.

Well....maybe a bit.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 10:52 PM

I mean, that's silly to say that "P" means "Paralysis" rather than "Physical". I agree. It would be like saying that spells like Armor can be stacked, Shapechange into a cheetah only gets you one IP...it's all how we parse the language and intentions of the devs

Posted by: Blastula Aug 27 2010, 10:54 PM

I only care about RAW because it's way better than Smackdown! could ever be. I'm only looking at the thread title and disregarding the previous 3 pages worth of posts.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 10:57 PM

Epistemology is a boring subject, but a class or two in it may be of help here.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 10:57 PM

Yeah, I take your meaning. I AM being a bit of a "absolutist" here, to try to make my point.

Now I know how RAW'ers feel, when they're trying to advance their viewpoint.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 11:00 PM

Forget the class - I even had to look the word up !

Posted by: Acme Aug 27 2010, 11:01 PM

What, are you saying this is some sort of political argument now? I think that yes, this is all about interpretation, but the ones that you've given so far sound like you mean that no rule system can be used because it's all up in the air, that everyone is literally playing their own game and we're just lucky that our versions match with one another or we can come to some compromise.

Now, see, the whole thing can go two ways. We can start dissecting how we interpret your posts, parsing the words, because hey, they can be interpreted a million ways, right?

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 11:04 PM

That is one of the coolest recursive acronyms! I need to find some more...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 27 2010, 11:09 PM

I think you're replying to me? Sorry if you weren't...

I've said in a previous post, I def. don't mean there can be no rule systems, I don't mean everything is up in the air. Yes, the rules are important for playing the game, for having a "baseline". My point is just that, like Missions, Missions isn't just playing SR RAW rules. It's playing "SR-Missions" rules. Those rules might be very very close to "SR-Acme's table" rules.

Your last sentence - that's exactly my point. I think you were trying to prove a point against me, but you hit the nail on the head of my argument very soundly.

Posted by: Acme Aug 27 2010, 11:17 PM

Ah, so now anything anyone says in the history of the universe is up in the air according to how you're saying it. And I actually DO interpret it as you saying that rule systems are up in the air, phlap. That's how I'm reading it. If that's not how you're intending it, well hey... It's up for interpretation, right?

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 11:25 PM

Seriously, this thread is capturing the first few months of my sophomore epistemology class perfectly

Posted by: Dwight Aug 27 2010, 11:47 PM

That's just your recollection.

Posted by: Dwight Aug 27 2010, 11:47 PM

That's just your recollection.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 27 2010, 11:50 PM

True, I could simply be believing it to be true without having real knowledge of the memory

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 28 2010, 01:22 PM

*edit* yeah, sorry - was replaying my reply in my head, and it came off kind of smarmy. Didn't mean it that way, so it's changed...

Yeah, it's def. up for interpretation. That's why saying something like "It's obviously RAW, I'm right and you're wrong" is so silly. I'm right about this...whoops!

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 28 2010, 01:23 PM

So is this thread....sophomoric? <YEAHHHHHHH>

Man I wish I had taken that class you're talking about. I took symbolic logic and some basic philosophy, but never any kind of epistemology stuff.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 28 2010, 02:55 PM

Recursive acronyms are lame and evil.

Outside of said class/late night stoner session, it's a trivial statement to say that all language is interpreted. While true, it's useless. We use a standard body of experience to interpret the RAW, which can yield 'obvious' (that is, commonly irrefutable) readings. It's only the more vague and poorly-written rules where such interpretation is stopped by ambiguity.

So… what did we gain here? Nothing. It's *exactly* like philosophy classes…

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 28 2010, 05:02 PM

I think the triviality of that statement is lost on some of those who argue their point by claiming RAW, and discounting counter-arguments by claiming it's not RAW.

Hopefully we gained, at the very least, some entertainment? A little mental diversion? Gained nothing ?!?! Have you SEEN some of the threads on Dumpshock

Posted by: Critias Aug 28 2010, 05:35 PM

There are times, though, when those arguments and counter-arguments are clearly either in line with RAW, or not.

If I say that according to SR4(a) RAW, a Smartlink gives +2 extra dice on the to-hit roll...if you come back with "No they don't, they let you fly and makes your breath smell like strawberries," obviously your "interpretation" of the RAW is pretty meaningless and without substance. Your "RAI," in such an extreme instance, is easily discountable.

Just because everything we read (or say) is open to interpretation doesn't mean that interpretation doesn't come in grades, getting shadier and shadier as it moves further and further away from what's actually written on the page in front of us.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 02:11 AM

I fully agree with you, in that there are some rules so well written that the interpretation of them is pretty much universally agreed upon.

Except I don't see people arguing smartlink bonuses. What's written on the page for some is important information, what's written on the page for others is fluff or a topic sentence

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 29 2010, 02:25 AM

Always ignore fluff. It only misleads you.

Posted by: Acme Aug 29 2010, 02:26 AM

You know the biggest problem I also have with this, phalp? It smacks of rules lawyering, to the extreme where you look for loopholes by interpreting a rule different from the general "accepted"... I think I'd have a trouble playing with such a player or under a GM who felt the rules were so flexible that they could get away with anything.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 29 2010, 02:30 AM

Psh. It's hard enough with players who think the rules are so *rigid* they can get away with anything. But that's another discussion (I think?), because we know that the answer is to not have people trying to get away with things.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 02:55 AM

No, you're right, I hear ya. I'm really against rules lawyering. I'm not advocating this kind of behavior.

But don't you see arguing RAW as rules lawyering? Picking apart sentences, words, whatever, to try to find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is?

If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say. It's anti-rules-lawyering !

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 29 2010, 03:28 AM

Arguing RAW here is a fun exercise. Seeing where the holes are, where the strong places are, what makes sense, what doesn't. But in the end, it's just an exercise in game theory, nothing more.

As for RAI - when it comes to actually playing the game, I don't actually care about dev intent or anything like that. I'll take what works and toss out what doesn't.

If that offends you, sorry, I guess. I'll leave you to your oracle to the devs mind - since I'm without psychic powers, all I have is what's written.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 29 2010, 03:33 AM

Oh Mooncrow, you're so edgy and transgressive! I agree that the dev intent isn't important, per se. That is, 'Joe Bob wanted armor to work like *this*.'

But that's not what people mean when they say RAI, anyway. We mean that we assume the rules are supposed to be (intended to be) balanced and functional; "what works", as you say. RAI means just what you're talking about, because the 'intent' there is 'fun'.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 29 2010, 03:39 AM

Is that what Phlap means? Man, I wouldn't have gotten that from his posts in a million years.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 29 2010, 03:42 AM

I wasn't speaking for him particularly, but since you ask… From his posts, I think it *is* what he means. I could be wrong, and I'll admit that it doesn't matter much.

Posted by: Acme Aug 29 2010, 03:53 AM

No, Phlap, I see what you're talking about as "picking apart sentences, words, whatever to try and find the interpretation that most closely fits whatever your agenda is".

Maybe I'm just not getting what you're talking about. But then again I'm not about to toss out the rule books, and I actually enjoy the conversations here.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 03:54 AM

That last sentence sounds like I've offended you somehow - my apologies

Yes, by all means, take what works and toss out the rest. It's your game, play the way you want.

Of course, to you, arguing RAW is a fun exercise. That's cool. Do you think it's "just a fun exercise" for others? Look back over various RAW threads.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 04:01 AM

That's cool. It very well could be that I'm not so good about getting my message across, especially online like this. Or that my message sucks, as some people keep saying

You don't see the semantic games people are playing with the rulebooks and claiming "RAW" as the above idea?

(I'm not not not saying toss out conversations or rule books)

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 04:03 AM

Yeah, it's pretty plain to me what my intention is. Why can't others see it?



Ouch

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 29 2010, 04:06 AM

Haha. Doesn't matter much if I'm wrong or not.

Posted by: Acme Aug 29 2010, 04:10 AM

Then, to be blunt, what the hell ARE you saying, phlap? I just find it funny that you're basically trying to defend your intention against my interpretation of what you're saying when you're talking about it being ok to interpret the rules however you want.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 04:20 AM

Wow, I had to read that sentence multiple times

Is it ok to interpret the rules however you want, within your group and everyone agrees and is having fun? Yes! *

Is it ok to use an overall view of the rules, mixed with a little common sense, to come up with something you and your friends have fun playing? Yes! *

Is it ok to pick apart the written word, twist it to fit what you think is RAW, even when it goes against common sense? No! *

(* I think so, anyway)

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 04:22 AM

Sorry, should've had a smiley on my "Ouch" too

It's cool - hopefully at the very least people had some fun

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 29 2010, 04:32 AM

Nah, not offended, but epistemological arguments happen to irritate the crap out of me And appealing to the devs intent, when it's pretty clear that they spent a bunch of time arguing over this stuff is... less than compelling for me (It's ironic, I actually spent a bunch of time reading "unofficial" Q&A sessions with some of the writers in response to the Shapeshifter thread - it was interesting, but kind of depressing in the end, it was clear they couldn't agree and left some of the stuff intentionally vague =/)

As for other people's intent in arguing RAW; well that's between them and their GM/players. I mean, I feel sorry for their table if they try to get some of this stuff through, but everyone learns by experience in the end. That's why, even when I find the rules to be broken, I still try to qualify my statements - "This is RAW, it's broken and unbalanced, but RAW".

Posted by: Acme Aug 29 2010, 04:32 AM

Ok... So most people would agree with that. What's your point of posting this? What does it matter if it's called RAW then? Since the deal is most people are just arguing their interpretation of a rule, not twisting it to fit their own world...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 05:20 AM

Gotcha

I'm not appealing to the devs intent (well, at least I'm not meaning to sound like I am). I'm appealing to what a group's common sense ideas about what the devs intent could be. (uh oh, epistemological argument happening here...I'll just cut myself off now)

Instead of appealing to words on a page, taken with no / very little context.

Maybe I'll need to be better about reading people's posts, and inserting "I think" before their statements about "This is RAW"

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 05:26 AM

Shiiiittttt....I had to have a point ?

Seriously, my only point was that I had read several RAW threads, and the idea started banging around in my brain about how all these people were going back and forth "This is RAW, I'm right" "NO this is RAW, I'M right!!!"

It wasn't sounding to me like they realized it was just their interpretation.

Posted by: Redcrow Aug 29 2010, 05:36 AM

IMO there are more than a few areas of the RAW that are relatively clear as written yet don't always make good common sense. As for the RAI, well sometimes when you have too many cooks in the kitchen you can end up with a dish that tastes a bit garbled as each cook attempts to season the pot to their individual tastes.

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Aug 29 2010, 06:36 AM

For a large chunk of the rules, it is not silly to refer to the RAW as absolute, as plenty of it is totally unambiguous.

If somebody asks "What sensors come as standard on the Rover Model 2068?" why is it silly to reply:

"By the RAW, an off-the-shelf vehicle has a Sensor package with a capacity of 12, with a signal rating of 5, containing:

• Atmosphere Sensor (taking up 1 Capacity)
• 2 Cameras (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• 2 Laser Range Finders (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• 2 Motion Sensors (front and back, taking up 2 Capacity)
• Radar (taking up 5 Capacity)"

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 06:49 AM

From the Shapechange thread...

SR4A, page 80:
"Characters for a typical Shadowrun campaign should be built with 400 BP total."

That's not really a rule, that's a suggestion. "Should be", rather than "have to be". Later on in the same paragraph the book says you can use any number of BP you want, including examples of 300 and 500 point games. So the first part is not plainly RAW (I think)

Posted by: Emy Aug 29 2010, 07:36 AM

To read a text, you must interpret it, but some interpretations have stronger support than others. The purpose of RAW arguments is to determine which of these interpretations is more valid, and in doing so, increase the general level of RAW knowledge.

This is done because of the answer to your original question in the thread title. You should care about RAW because it's a useful starting point for discussions about the game. In fact, it's the only starting point for discussions about the game. We can use an exception-based model, where we begin with RAW as a starting point, and let posters note how their games differ from RAW. By caring about RAW, we ensure that everyone is talking about the same game.



Feel free, if that helps you. Your perception that people's arguments need "I think" added to them doesn't stop RAW from being useful, though.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 10:53 AM

Really? Do you think the RAW arguments are really to determine which of these interpretations is most valid? Do you find that the people who argue, do they usually change their position, or do they find new and "interesting" ways to advance their position? Do they admit that the other side ever has a valid point?

I don't know what you mean by the last sentence - can you clarify? Are you saying that people aren't really just positing their opinions when they try to quote "RAW" ? Because that sounds like your first sentences and your last are contradictory. Or am I misunderstanding your meaning ?

(btw, I def. added "I think" to your post in my head as I read it )

Posted by: suoq Aug 29 2010, 11:54 AM

Just so I understand, is your problem with the term "RAW" or is your problem with the level of overstatement common on these (and many other forums)?

Yes, people overuse "RAW", using it as if it's a magical word to make their argument right, instead of realizing it's a misuse that makes their argument even more incorrect. If you think that's a rare behavior, only happening with the term "RAW", go visit the NAN thread where you can read all sorts of interesting beliefs about how humans, Americans, and Midwesterners behave and think.

It may be that using incredible exaggerations is simply the spirit of the age. (MSNBC, Fox News, Huffington Post, and the Daily Show might all be considered as evidence to this theory.) If so, using RAW as an exaggeration of "rules at my table", seems to me to just be part of the overall tendency to fluff up an argument with claims, that when actually looked at, aren't true.

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Aug 29 2010, 11:59 AM

Unless - as most do - you refer to the book as "The Rules" in which case the Rules as Written do say that characters for a typical Shadowrun campaign should be built with 400 BP total.

Posted by: suoq Aug 29 2010, 12:13 PM

nevermind. I should gave just typed it in, gotten it out of my system, and never posted it. I hit the wrong button.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 12:52 PM

My problem was the second thing, the level of overstatement. Thanks for your post, it all seems very well-thought out, much better than my attempts at explaining my viewpoint

Hehehe, I was JUST skimming that thread - I see what you mean.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 01:02 PM

The book isn't totally composed of rules, is it? Yes, many rules are found in SR rulebooks, but also many other things. Fluff, stories, helpful hints, notes, topic sentences...

So here, this text from SR4A p80, it's not a rule. Just a suggestion, a starting point, a preferred option for running a campaign. The text even goes on to talk about using other point values, as you see fit. So using 400 BP isn't RAW. Maybe it's SAW?

Quick note here - I'm arguing now only because I've paid for an argument

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 29 2010, 02:11 PM

Maybe you should get your money back...

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Aug 29 2010, 02:50 PM

And yet people still refer to the book as the rules or the rulebook. The fact that the term is inaccurate doesn't make that any less untrue.



Sure it is. For a typical campaign, the rule is they should be 400bp. The subsequent examples are atypical.

Posted by: Emy Aug 29 2010, 07:47 PM

I wonder why they would refer to a book that says "20TH ANNIVERSARY CORE RULEBOOK"* on the front as a rulebook. Strange.

* "CORE MATRIX RULEBOOK" for Unwired, "CORE GEAR RULEBOOK" for Arsenal, and so forth.


Even in those cases where it is unproductive for the individuals arguing, bystanders can learn a lot from a good argument.


They're not, but to simplify, you could pretend that my entire post was "Why care about RAW? Because it is useful for discussion."


Hahaha.


No, you aren't and you haven't.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 29 2010, 11:55 PM

People are free to refer to the book as the rules or the rulebook. That doesn't make everything in the book a rule.

For a typical campaign, the suggested starting BP should be 400. Again, not a rule, just a guideline. I think.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 12:00 AM

Yeah, it's called a rulebook. Rules are inside. Not sure why you keep pointing this out. But you know what else is inside the rulebook? Lots of other things that aren't rules!

You do have a good point about bystanders learning from a good argument.

*edit* yes I have

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 04:42 AM

Sorry, but your entire argumentation is borderline solipsism.

The reason we argue about "RAW" on here, is because it is the ONLY common base for all of us. Arguing about house rules is retarded. Also, "RAI" means "Rules as Intended" not "Rules as Interpreted". Unless you have a magic 8-ball that allows you to see into the Devs' minds you have no clue what the RAI truly are. You can form interpolations based on the RAW but that's about it.

And just like solipsism, your argumentation is ultimately futile, as it will NEVER come to a proper conclusion. You can keep throwing wrenches into the works, but you'll never actually achieve anything by that. Why? Because your standpoint has no inherent argument. You are arguing "you are all wrong as you can't ever be absolutely 100% certain", but you lack a solution.

So, let me rephrase, why we use RAW as the base of our discussions:

-RAW is the only common ground available.
-RAW is the base from which we all derive our house rules, if any
-RAW can be verified and quantified by every single one, independantly
-RAW provide a factual basis for argumentation

What we do NOT argue here, is how you play your game at home. Fel free to make up whatever house rule you feel comfortable with and play with it. The arguments on this forum are not an absolute truth for all gaming groups, nor do they claim to be the best solution to all rules questions. Hell sometimes the RAW are vastly inferior to house rules or just plain unrealistic. What you use in such a case depends largely on what you prefer: simplicity or realism. That's by definition a subjective choice and as such can never (productively) be the subject of a forum debate.

Your recurring argument that the moment we read rules, we start interpreting them, is mood as well. The point of debate on here, whenever RAW is concerned is not the individual users interpretation, but the written black and white text as well as sound logic. Without RAW, all arguments are effectively pointless and as such serve no purpose whatsoever.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 06:10 AM

Another big word I had to look up

I think your post is neither true, nor valid. That's ok - could be my fault with my not-so-clear postings.

I'm not trying to come to a "proper conclusion". Having a discussion doesn't always entail having a perceived goal, other than having the discussion itself.

"You are arguing 'you are all wrong as you can't ever be absolutely 100% certain', but you lack a solution."
Please go back and read my posts in this thread. In 3 places your sentence mischaracterizes what I've said. This is explicitly what I'm arguing against, not for.

"-RAW can be verified and quantified by every single one, independantly"
Do you believe this point? Every....single....one?

"That's by definition a subjective choice and as such can never (productively) be the subject of a forum debate."
Again, go back and reread the thread please. This sounds like you're deciding what should and shouldn't be debated. Did I misinterpret you?

"The point of debate on here, whenever RAW is concerned is not the individual users interpretation, but the written black and white text as well as sound logic."
Hehehe - "not the individual users interpretation"....."sound logic"

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 06:35 AM

This is where you are wrong. A discussion is about point of views, but mostly about finding out, which one is more beneficial, so al participating parties can come out of the discussion with benefits. Overly simplified that measn there is and shoud always be a "winner" at the end of the debate. Essentially, all participants become a "winner" in a ore colloquial sense, once the most meritious point of view is established.

To have a discussion just to test out your typing skills is pointless. There is no gain from it, no merit to it and thus no sense pursuing it. If you want social chit chat, you should seek a topic other than game rules. There's plenty room for that, even here on DS, but not when it comes to rules discussions.


Then you need to express yourself differently. Your main argument against "RAW" discussions was the subjectivity or rule interpretations, after all.


Absolutely. Notice that the "single one" refers to the individual, not the rule. As an individual, all you need to do is to open up the rulebook and read for yourself. Voilá, verified. Quantification needs logic and reading comprehension, two skills we are all endowed with.


A debate needs a goal. A debate without a goal is without merit and as such pointless. Are you really arguing that pointless debates should waste server space on the Dumpshock forums for whatever reason? If so, how about arguing which color of the rainbow is the prettiest?
The problem of "subjective" debates (read: debates without a goal; debates about opinions) is the very problem of opinions hemselves. They are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.


Mind sharing what you find so funny about that? I'd like to laugh as well.
If you think that you cannot explore the RAW without individual interpretation, then I am pretty certain you're not working in a scientific field. ANY scientific field. You may want to look up "scientific method" and "occam's razor". Also, you might want to look up "logic", since you seem tp think that "sound logic" does not exist, despite it's daily use.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 06:50 AM

The whole point of this thread, is that people go around claiming "You are wrong, I know the TRUTH". Do you see how your whole post here is nothing but that? Thank you for validating my conclusions so very well

Posted by: Whipstitch Aug 30 2010, 06:51 AM

Thanks to this thread I now know what it would look like if someone left a big ol' steaming turd in the middle of Dumpshock.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 06:54 AM

Really? Worse than the hemipene thread?

Posted by: Acme Aug 30 2010, 07:04 AM

I have to agree, because theoretically, phlap, you're trying to advance that YOUR viewpoint is the right one.

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 07:04 AM

Here is what you fail to see: I provide substantiated arguments as to why you are wrong. You can either try to refute them or you can't. If you can't, then for all intents and purposes you are wrong. Do you know how a debate works?

That all aside, though: your initial question was "Why care about RAW" and the answer was "because they are the only common ground for discussion". If you disagree with that (and apparently you do), where is alternative? If not using the RAW as common ground for everyone involved in the rules debate then what are we supposed to use?

If you can't answer that question, then you don't really have a point and all you say is completely irrelevant.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 07:08 AM

Yes. While that type of thing may be silly, at least there's a genuine attempt to communicate.

This thread is just an attempt to pontificate.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 07:31 AM

Yeah, I'm def. trying to advance my viewpoint. But hopefully in a friendly way, not a "you're wrong" kind of way.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 07:41 AM

Epistemological solipstical sophistry-style pontification, apparently

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 07:53 AM

I would normally try to lighten the mood with humor, here. I think you're not really going to go for that.

So...in my honest attempt to engage you in debate.

The RAW is the only common ground for discussion? I disagree - I propose that another common ground for discussion is to read all of the rules, form an impression of RAI, then have a discussion on what you think the RAI are.

Look, I'm not saying don't read the rulebook. I'm not saying don't have a "common ground" for discussion. I'm suggesting maybe the common ground doesn't have to exist in the minutiae of individual words and sentences. Words and sentences, that don't intrinsically have meaning except what we assign to them, and the meanings are (many times) mutable.

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Aug 30 2010, 07:54 AM

If it is in a document that common consensus agrees is called "Rules", then it is valid to refer to anything in the book as RAW, even fluff. That's self evident.



I already explained why this can still be referred to as the RAW. Merely repeating yourself does not magically increase the validity of your statement.




That's your argument? In which case flargle petunia wombat flooble cantankerous tweak. Which, as any fool can see, is an utterly irrefutable argument. I win!

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 07:58 AM

Maybe this is a disagreement on the use of certain terms - RAW means Rules As Written, right? So you would refer to fluff in the book as RAW, even though they're not really rules? Honestly asking here.

And I don't feel that I'm off base here - many RAW arguments try to discount other arguments as "not rules, just fluff" or something similar.

Ah, you edited your post - my response is.....um.....yeah.....ok.......

Posted by: Acme Aug 30 2010, 07:58 AM

Phlap, I swear your argument is not making sense to me. You're both saying that we should follow the rulebook and try to come to an agreed consensus, but at the same time not to. What, in your opinion, SHOULD be "common ground" if not for the rules that everyone owns?

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 08:10 AM

Sorry for missing this part - I meant to go back to it.

Scientific method? You can't apply the scientific method to rules discussions on a internet messageboard. Testability? Nope. Repeatability? Nope.
Occam's razor? This is a overused tactic that many times doesn't apply. What would you apply Occam's razor to?

I think

p.s. I read an interesting article about the whole "Correlation doesn't imply causation" idea. Guy was saying that it's usually pretty safe to say that yes, correlation does in many many cases imply causation. Wish I could find that link again...

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 08:11 AM

What exactly do you think you're saying then? Polite language aside, you are saying, "It is wrong to discuss the rules as written", with your rationale being, "Language is too malleable to ever know anything for certain."


edit: edited for politeness (somewhat)

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 08:19 AM

Wow, looking back over the thread, it HAS kind of wandered, hasn't it?

And yeah, def. everything here I say, is in my opinion - not trying to tell anybody else WHAT they have to do. No preaching, here

So anyway...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 08:28 AM

"Cavalier dismissal of others opinions"
Hmmmm. This is laden with hyperbole. I'm pretty sure I didn't "cavalierly" dismiss anyone's opinion. If you can point it out, I'd def. be interested. I do try not to do that, but I'm not perfect.

"Not knowing how to debate"
Ad hominem coming at me...

"Came to attack a point of view"
You're seeing this thread as an attack, rather than a (attempted) discussion? If so, I apologize. But honestly, in your opinion, is it possible to have a discussion, where you have an idea you're attempting to explain, and not "attack" the other view, where you think you see your idea makes more sense?

My rationale is ridiculous in this place, and go to another forum? Yeah, there I think you might be crossing the line just a tad....

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 08:28 AM

I'll clarify this, since it could be confusing to someone not familiar with the terminology.

Most of the time, everything that's written is considered RAW, however, sometimes there are descriptions given that simply do not match the mechanics. In those cases, the mechanics take precedence. Those cases are when you hear the phrase "just fluff". Skill descriptions and loyalty descriptions are two of the big offenders - the difference of dice rolled just doesn't match with the variance in the description.

It can still make for a decent roleplaying basis though.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 08:37 AM

Ok, I'll go by your interpretation that everything written in a rulebook is RAW.

If someone can say "that's RAW" and someone else can say "No, that's fluff" and the first person says "nuh uh"....isn't that really sub-optimal? Wouldn't a better way be to look at all of the writing, and say overall, what the rule is / should be? No distinctions need or can be made as to fluff / actual rules / whatever.

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 08:39 AM

There are several flaws with that:
1. Reading all the rules, as a baseline prerequisite IS using RAW as the common ground. The very thing you said was not possible.
2. Even if you used the RAW as base for a discussion as to what the intended rules should be, you would still not reach point anyhere in the foreseeable future unless you employ logic. You know, the very thing you belittled just a few posts back.
3. What would be the point of discussing what MY opinions on the possible intent of the rules are? Personal opinions are irrelevant in debates. Arguments are what counts.
4. Even assuming you delay the entry of the discussion until afvter forming a peronal interpretation of the rules, where exactly would there be your common ground? Does everyone having his own opinion sound anything like common ground to you?

What you are proposing is a paradox: Personal interpretations as common ground for a debate. How is that you can't see that?


And where do you think would be the difference in your proposal? If you used personal interpretations as common ground, which themselves (by your own declaration) have their foundation within the RAW, what do you think people would use to substantiate their arguments with?

How can you not see that what you are proposing is quite frankly impossible?



I did not mean to imply that we should use the scientific method for a forum debate. I pointed out the scientific debate as a means to find objective answers, using subjective material. Mainly the checks and balances part of it.

As far as occam's razor: It is the best and easiest counter to solipsism.


I would like to point out, that even if he WERE attacking you in person, it would STILL not constitute as an ad hominem fallacy, as he did not try to refute any of your arguments by it.

I really wish people would stop crying "ad hominem" without understanding the ad hominem fallacy in the first place...

In his case, it would not have been an ad hominem attack, even IF he tried to refute your argument that way, as you cleary are unfamiliar with the proper proceedings of a debate. Don't take that as demeaning, please, as that is not my intention. I don't expect everyone to understand the proceedings of a debate. Hell, I'd expect most NOT to understand them.
What you're doing right now, though is walling yourself in. You have your own set point of view and you dismiss all evidence to the contrary.


It's actually quite simple:
Mechanics take precedence. There's really no point of confusion there.

Posted by: Acme Aug 30 2010, 08:43 AM

I disagree. The point you've been trying to make is that we shouldn't follow RAW, which in effect is trying to tell everyone else because we've been trying to argue WHY we use it and WHY we prefer it, but you keep going 'Nuh-uh.' It's starting to get way beyond "this is just my opinion".

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 08:46 AM

Ok - well, sorry it came off so adversarily-ly

I'm out

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 08:51 AM

I respect your post D2F, but in the interests of not sounding all "nuh uh", I don't think I should respond...

If you really want to keep discussing(?) send me a PM, please

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 09:57 AM

There's nothing wrong with being adversarial. Honestly, my biggest problem with your posts is that you've casually been tossing out serious philosophical semantic puzzles as defense for your point of view, when this isn't really the place for that.

In my interpretation, you have been saying, "It is wrong to discuss the rules as written", with your rationale being, "Language is too malleable to ever know anything for certain."

I've read philosophy dissertations on subjects less complex. In fact, dissertations have to be less complex in order to cover enough ground to say something meaningful. You object that I say take your argument elsewhere, but honestly, it's really only a relevant subject for philosophers. Everyone else has to make certain assumptions to get by in life; one of those assumptions is "When people use words, they mean something, and we have the ability to decipher those words' meaning"

Really, I would suggest reading D2F's posts again, carefully. He's done a really nice job of cutting to the heart of the argument here.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 10:16 AM

Thanks for the clarification - 'preciate it!

Dang, I promised I wasn't posting in this thread anymore, so I didn't come off (more so) as "nuh uh".

Well, finally, I do apologize to you and everyone if I came across as "It's wrong". I meant to suggest a different way, what I see as would be a more productive way, not demand it.

I actually read several times and wrote up what I thought was a reasonable response to his post, and PM'ed him to see if he wants me to drop the issue, or send the response to him.

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 10:25 AM

This.
Personally, I don't think that tone carries any weight. If personal attacks and insults are used purely as a means to rile up your opponent, then it's too far, even for me, but we weren't even close to that, or anywhere near that in this thread.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 10:41 AM

Ok, I have D2F's go-ahead on posting this:

"1. Reading all the rules, as a baseline prerequisite IS using RAW as the common ground. The very thing you said was not possible."

I never said that it's not possible - did I? I don't see it in the posts? I'm proposing a DIFFERENT common ground than RAW. This new common ground won't be the same, but it's not disjoint, either.

"2. Even if you used the RAW as base for a discussion as to what the intended rules should be, you would still not reach point anyhere in the foreseeable future unless you employ logic. You know, the very thing you belittled just a few posts back."

I didn't mean to sound like I was belittling logic - I thought the smiley would make it clear(er). I was not sure that there was always "sound logic" in the arguments for RAW in other threads (shit, and in my own, I'm willing to admit). You seem to hold yourself to a high level of logical consistency. Maybe it's not true for everyone?

"3. What would be the point of discussing what MY opinions on the possible intent of the rules are? Personal opinions are irrelevant in debates. Arguments are what counts."

Your personal opinion is entirely important! We're not arguing the atomic mass of gold or the speed of light. If we share our personal opinions/interpretations on the rules, that can achieve the same results that others have touted for RAW - greater understanding for outside observers.

"4. Even assuming you delay the entry of the discussion until afvter forming a peronal interpretation of the rules, where exactly would there be your common ground? Does everyone having his own opinion sound anything like common ground to you?"

There would be common ground in everyone having read the same rules. If the rules are well-written, everyone hopefully arrives at similar conclusions. If the rules are poorly written, people arrive at different destinations. Only taking a step back and looking at the big picture (RAI) would help to move everyone back to a more common ground. In my opinion.

"What you are proposing is a paradox: Personal interpretations as common ground for a debate. How is that you can't see that?"

These personal opinions haven't been made up whole cloth, out of thin air. Everyone has these opinions after reading and interpreting the rulebooks. Therefore, everyone will more or less be discussing the same thing, which are the SR rules (or RAI, as I think).

"And where do you think would be the difference in your proposal? If you used personal interpretations as common ground, which themselves (by your own declaration) have their foundation within the RAW, what do you think people would use to substantiate their arguments with?"

Yes, by all means, do use the rules as a means to find common ground. Means, not an end. Also use other means - common sense, belief of the dev intent, etc. Use all of your senses and faculties available. Which is what I mean by arriving at RAI.

"I would like to point out, that even if he WERE attacking you in person, it would STILL not constitute as an ad hominem fallacy, as he did not try to refute any of your arguments by it."

I disagree - it was definitely trying to refute my argument, by saying that the argument was no good because I don't know how to debate. The whole quote was "you certainly dance around terminology like a Sophist, though I would chalk that up to not knowing how to debate rather than intending to deceive." Sounds ad hominen-y to me. Not really the worst kind that could be done, I realize, but...

"I really wish people would stop crying "ad hominem" without understanding the ad hominem fallacy in the first place...In his case, it would not have been an ad hominem attack, even IF he tried to refute your argument that way, as you cleary are unfamiliar with the proper proceedings of a debate. Don't take that as demeaning, please, as that is not my intention. I don't expect everyone to understand the proceedings of a debate."

Ok, two things here. First off, I didn't start this thread with a Rigid Debate (capital 'D' debate) in mind. It was supposed to be an informal discussion. Not everything has to be a Rigid Debate that adheres to all the rules you ascribe to a debate, agreed? You want a Rigid Debate, that's cool, just don't try to call me out for it when that wasn't the intention in the first place. Please I certainly never claimed it.

Second, I'm not demeaned, thanks for the kind words actually. I think you're starting from a false premise, which is that I intended to have a proper Rigid Debate in the first place, but ok.

"It's actually quite simple: Mechanics take precedence. There's really no point of confusion there."

This is my whole point. Arguing RAW, people can argue what the MECHANICS actually are. Are they fluff? Are they actual rules? It's subjective. If you argue RAW, it's a gray area, but people can say it's black and white. And people can claim they're right and wrong if they believe they're arguing some objective "mechanics". If everyone found common ground on a RAI-approach, it would take the wind out of the sails of anyone who says "I'm right, you're wrong".

"What you're doing right now, though is walling yourself in. You have your own set point of view and you dismiss all evidence to the contrary."

That door swings both ways, here. Although I would be willing to admit that the large number of people telling me I'm wrong would be a point in your favor...

Well, hopefully this can be done in a civil manner, respecting the other sides view, even when it's not in agreement. I think that an idea can be explored without needing a clear goal. I would say, don't get hung up on the term "argument" or "debate". Let's call it a "discussion", shall we?

I've definitely been trying to stay away from making a comparison between literal Bible interpretation here. Do you think that would be appropriate?

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 10:59 AM

How so? In the example you're talking about, the descriptions of the skills say that someone with a skill of 7 is the "greatest who ever lived", the mechanics say "seven dice added to the pool", so the difference of someone with a skill of 1 and someone with a skill of 7 is an average of 2 successes. That's the difference between "fluff" and mechanics.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 11:19 AM

I strive for precision in my wording, because it means something to me. I attacked your arguments with the statement "dances around terminology like a Sophist"; and then gave my belief for the reason for your dancing around terminology as your lack of knowledge about debate. The two things are quite separate.

Secondly, when talking about debating, I was not referring to the procedures for a Debate, but the methods behind discussing two differing views, such as:

Clearly stating your main idea

Backing your main idea up with specific supporting statements

Directing rebuttal at the opponent's main idea, etc.

It's harder than it sounds I'm actually quite bad at it - I tend to get wrapped up in side arguments more often than I should. But in order to have meaningful dialogue, every participant needs to be striving for that, or there's no real discussion; just skirting of the issues.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 30 2010, 02:16 PM

Yeah, good post. Stop making it hard to refute you

I'm sorry, I don't remember - the example I'm talking about?

I think, in your example, it's very easy for everyone to arrive at the same interpretation of what's intended. 7 dice, greatest. 1 die, not so great. But there are many areas where it's not so clear what the mechanics are. Adhering to the idea that the mechanics are black and white, that they are objectively verifiable, is a losing proposition. I think.

I don't even really have a point now, just discussing because it's interesting...

Posted by: Warlordtheft Aug 30 2010, 06:23 PM

I always thought the RAW for focii was pretty straightforward.

BTW:
RAI:Rules as intended or Rules as interpreted?

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 08:10 PM

But it's NOT different. You'd still be using RAW as the common ground. "Reading the rules to form your own interpretation" to then meet and discuss your nterpretation still uses RAW as common ground. Individual interpretations cannot, by definition, be common ground, as they are exclusive to you. In a subsequent discussion you would need to justify your position. How, other than by the RAW would you justify your position? For your justification to work, it would need to be verifiable for all participants of the discussion. The natural result of that is that all your justifications need to be objective, rather than subjective, as subjective justifications are easily refuted. Subjective justifications are by definition fallacious.


Not every argument in a RAW thread will be based on sound logic. However, such arguments are usually refuted by arguments that are. Thus, "sound logic" is one of the main tools to establish the merit of an argument.


This is where I completely disagree. Personal opinions bear no merit for discussion. They are often unfounded, seldom concise and rarely justified. You cannot "discuss" personal opinions. Personal opinions are either the most meritious position or they are not. Unfortunately people will kick and scream rather than abandon their position, when confronted with a more meritious position.

What would, in your eyes, be the merit of "discussing" individual opinions? Woud there be, for excemple, any merit in discussing the following proposition?:

"In my opinion, the melee rules are an inadequate representation of physical combat and should use a direct comparison of strength, agility and body of each participant rather than dice rolls"

Would there be a point in discussing that opinion? What outcome of the discussion would you envision? And what benefit would the outcome provide to forum visitors looking for a rule clarification in preparation for a convention game?


That is still using the RAW as common ground, though. I am baffled that you would think otherwise. I bolded the relevant part above for you to check for yourself.


Even then, they wouldn't have the same opinions. How exactly would that constitute a common ground?



You are introducing a completely useless step, while dismissing the first one. By your own admission, the RAW discussion is the baseline. How you then use the outcome of the RAW discussion to arrive at your individual interpretation is neither relevant nor can it be the purpose of a DS forum discussion. The reason we stop at "these are the RAW" is because that is the LAST common ground everyone will have. Every newcomer can chime in and read up, how the rules of his rulebook work. They can then decide whether to abide by them or to change them according to their own preferances.

Of course you can provide your own interpretation (read: house rule) for other to see, as long as you make sure that they are not RAW, but house rules, to avoid the confusion of newcomers.


What exactly would he have been trying to refute with that statement? Go ahead, point me at it. I stand by it: It was not an http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html


There isn't such a thing as an "informal discussion". People may want to believe that but the nature of opinions will turn ANY discussion into a debate. Usually, "informal discussion" simply degrade into poorly structured, poorly argumented and poorly executed debates, though.


"Mechanics" are defined by mechanical proceedings (read: dice rolls) or specified limitations (like the availability or skill rating maximums during character generation). Everything else is fluff.


While comparable, I would not use it, as it is too ladden with emotions. Both are rulebooks, I think SR4 is better written, though.

Posted by: D2F Aug 30 2010, 08:13 PM

The proper useage would be "Rules as Intended"

Posted by: sabs Aug 30 2010, 08:28 PM

as Intended by whom?

Posted by: Critias Aug 30 2010, 08:38 PM

By the writers, who obviously intended something when they wrote it.

Posted by: sabs Aug 30 2010, 08:39 PM

How do we know what they intended? Unless like AH they actually tell us?

Seems to be RAI is really Rules as Interpreted
we're interpreting what we think was intended by the rule based on our biases and predispositions.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 08:43 PM

That doesn't change that RAI stands for Rules as Intended; which I believe was your question.

Posted by: Dwight Aug 30 2010, 08:53 PM

... unless they tell us. Like FAQs and posts here and stuff like that.

They are [purportedly] real people after all. All the more reason "how can we know" is a silly stance. Yes, once people have died and gone that route becomes harder and more fraught with peril (exhibit; Glenn Beck's ramblings and faux academic historical reasoning regarding the US Constitution). But in the meantime it has practical use.

Posted by: Critias Aug 30 2010, 08:55 PM

We don't. That's why people cite RAW and argue over RAI.

Regardless of your own thoughts on the matter, "RAI" has long been an acronym for Rules as Intended. You're free to think it's a poor abbreviation, but that doesn't change that that's what it is.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 30 2010, 09:00 PM

Well, to be nit-picky, once they write a FAQ/errata, etc it does become RAW^^

Unofficial posts are a little different though; I think the only thing I've really learned from reading them is that there was a ton of disagreement among the writers (Yeah, FT, I'm looking at you) Not that they can't be useful, of course, AH has given some excellent house rules for karmagen, for example, but honestly it lacks the authority of an official source.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 12:38 AM

But that would be 6 extra dice ON TOP OF (or IN SPITE OF) all other modifiers; so everything being equal and reduced to 0, a person with a Skill 7 is FAR Superior to a person with a Skill 1...

Max successes (Barring Edge Dice) Skill 1 guy could ever have is..... 1
Max Successes (Barring Edge Dice) Skill 7 Guy could ever have is..... 7

A difference of 6 Successes...
Now the reality is the Guy with 1 Dice will rarely succeed (33%), and likely Critically Glitch 1/6 of the time...
The Guy with 7 Dice will generally always succeed with 2 Successes and rarely ever glitch...

We will not even get into Extended Tests, as that needs no explanation... 1 Dice vs. 49 (MAximum) or 28 (Minimum), all other modifiers reduced to 0.

Seems like a world of difference to me...

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 12:52 AM

It's quite a difference, yes. The difference between a "little league player" and "Babe Ruth"? That I'm not buying so much. (or at all, really)

Of course, your example assumes that everyone has an attribute of 0, which isn't possible. The higher the total dice pool, the less difference that skill makes.

In any case, I think the rating description is not grounded enough in the mechanics to base any type of RAW interpretation off of. You would really argue otherwise?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 01:36 AM

Indeed I would... you have a possible skill variation of 8 (Rank 0 Skill to Rank 7 Skill)... more than enough in my opinion... where the comparisons break down begins is when you start attaining very high dice pools... anything above 20 becomes completely ludicrous.

And with Stats at average 2 for common people, the numbers get even more dramatic for the Skill 7 vs. Skill 1 guy... Even with Max Human Stats (Unaugmented) of 6/7, you still have 7 Dice difference between best and worst. I will stand by that argument...

Typical operations with a skill are Yes/No operators... Did I succeed or fail... If you are a professional (Skill 3, Attribute 2) you will rarely fail, which is no different than the Best in the World, who will rarely fail (even less than the professional, but still really just rarely). Where that skill make a HUGE difference is in the Extended Rolls. Rolls where non-ordinary tasks become much more common. Lets take a look at some numbers here...

Unaugmented Comparison: (with no modifiers for Equipment, etc), Depending upon the Rules used.

Skill 1, Attribute 2 (Average Attribute): Range of 6 Dice to 9 Dice
Skill 7, Attribute 2 (Legendary Skill, Average Attribute): Range of 45 Dice to 81 Dice
Skill 7, Attribute 1 (Legendary Skill, Minimum Attribute): Range of 36 Dice to 64 Dice
Skill 7, Attribute 7 (Legendary Skill, Legendary Attribute): Range of 105 Dice to 196 Dice

That is so significant that nothing else need ever be said... Augmentation will change thses numbers, somtimes significantly, but it still shows that the person with the Higher Skill will routinely demolish the one with the lower skill (when attributes are otherwise the same) when it comes to non-routine matters. I am not sure how you can argue otherwise...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 31 2010, 01:47 AM

Don't many people argue that a FAQ is not RAW? There seems to be some debate on that...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 31 2010, 01:51 AM

I'll give you a point here - I definitely need to be better at clearly stating ideas, backing it up, etc. Like you said, it's hard.

This wasn't the point of the thread, but it's good practice, ain't it?

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 01:57 AM

Skill 1, attribute 7 would be Range of 36 Dice to 64 Dice. Assuming, of course, that you use that optional rule.

The point is, under this rule system, attributes are equally important to skill, if not more so, since they can generally be raised higher, making the whole "best in history" thing based solely off skill rather nonsensical.

But, setting that aside, it wasn't really my point. My point is, when descriptions conflict with mechanics, mechanics take precedence. If in this case they don't conflict, great =)

Next test - loyalty rating! (5 dice difference between barely knows you and would die for you - only capable of being added on to existing social tests - go!)

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 02:00 AM

The general rule is "the most recent writing is RAW"

SR4A has come out since the FAQ, so most of the conflicts you hear are due to that - particularly with mystic adepts and magic rating.

I mean, I wish the FAQ would disappear too, but sadly, it's official word from the official source =/

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 02:11 AM

Which is exactly what I said above...
And I have no problem with Skill and Attribute having equal weight within the realm of the unaugmented. Augmentation is there to break the mold and allow the less skilled to compete in a world where the vast majority are augmented. Those who choose to stay natural will eventually fall behind in a race like that. Thus the Dystopia...

I have no problems with the Loyalty Rating either... it is a social construct that adequately mimics a varied response from those that you may or may not know... So here we go...

0 - No Value whatsoever. The Average Joe on the street, you see a million of 'em in a week, in a big city.
1 - Just Business... Purely Mercenary... the typical relationship between you and any random merchant you would happen to name.
2 - Regular... Still Business, but you frequent the Restaurant a bit, the staff knows you, and are willing to make your experience with the retailer more plesant.
3 - Acquaintance... Friendly and courteous, but not a true Friendship.
4 - Buddy... Solid, Mutual Respect and Trust... this is where you start to develop True Friends.
5 - Got your Back... More than A Friend, will stand by you in times of trouble or need, likely not to sacrifice his life for yours however.
6 - Friend for Life... No Truer Friend, Will sacrifice himself so that you may live...

7 Ratings here, and all would fall into the categories that I use in Real Life... Not sure exactly what you see wrong here...

As for adding to existing Social Tests, Huh? What are you really asking here? I am not really sure.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 02:12 AM

But it is flawed... The FAQ was written for 4, not 4A, and you can tell by reading it... It directly contradicts text in 4A, so it is of no real use in my opinion.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 02:31 AM

Sigh, never mind, if you are not going to read what I'm actually saying.



So the parts that don't contradict aren't valid anymore either? I mean, that would be awesome, no more Shapechange - Human nonsense, etc. But I don't really think that's the case. Personally, I don't use any of it, but I think when it comes to RAW, for parts that aren't contradicted by 4A (the most recent writing), it still stands, particularly for rules that didn't change from 4 to 4A.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 02:37 AM

Actually, I read what you said, I just did not really understand it...
Specifically This:



What did you mean by the highlighted part... I am sure it is simple, but my mind went blank when I read that...



No, there could still be valid things in there, but because it has contradictions in the ruleset that I use (4A), I tend to ignore it completely... it did not clarify anything, that I did not already do, in the clear portions (and we used Shapechange (Human) already, as Humans are Normal Critters by strictest Definition), and all the contradictions did was piss me off because someone could not take the time to go through it and make sure that it was accurate... so if they did not proof it adequately, how much more is inaccurate?

Nothing irritates me more than a FAQ/Eratta that is meant to fix errors, that are themselves laden with Errors... really?

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 02:52 AM

My main point was that when text descriptions contradict the actual mechanics of the rules, the mechanics take precedence. For loyalty, mechanically, all it does is add a dice modifier equal to the rating to social tests. So, high loyalty means a lot to someone with a low charisma and low social skills, but means almost nothing to say, a pornomancer.

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree on how irritating that FAQ is Like I said, I don't use it personally, but in rules discussions here, I do have to accept what it says sometimes ><

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 03:00 AM

Sure... I can agree with the Value of the Dice relative to your Character Build (Stat+Skill)... But to me, that just means that the Pornomancer does not get as much bang for his buck, because he is so much more Manipulative/Charming by his very nature... Dropping names will be much less useful to someone like that than to someone with social problems... It is these people that benefit from the practice of dropping names...

Where the Loyalty rating really comes into its own, though, is the Favors section... I do not care how much of a Pornomancer you are, you will never convince Damien Knight to lend you his private yacht and security force for a leisurly cruise over the weekend, if he is a Rating 1 Loyalty Contact... On the other hand, the bum on the street who has a Loyalty Rating 6 with Damien Knight (improbable, yes , but go with it here) justs has to ask, and it is his for the weekend... no amount of dice are going to help you when it comes to what a Contact is willing to do for you based upon his Loyalty Rating...

Yeah... The FAQ is very irritating indeed... and you are right, you have to give it a nod from time to time.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 03:08 AM

Sure; I'm not saying there's no correlation, just that relatively it doesn't seem quantified by the dice^^

I mentioned above that I think it's a fine thing to base roleplay on, and that's where Favors would fall I think.

(perhaps I'm just a bit twitchy over a recent discussion where it was posited that loyalty 6 contacts automatically do anything you want them to)

Posted by: phlapjack77 Aug 31 2010, 03:13 AM

Individual interpretations are not disjoint. Individuals share common backgrounds, beliefs, interests (SR) which shape their interpretations. I can't believe you would think that individuals cannot have common ground with their own opinions. To say that, every opinion ever is not at all related to anyone's else's opinion on anything else.

I've said before - we're not trying to prove the speed of light, here. Justifications of the form "It seems like it would make sense that..." are just fine. Others can disagree with this justification, of course. It's just as subjective as quoting RAW, which I touch on more below.


Yes, sound logic is one of the tools. But it's not always applicable.


It seems we have different views on why to discuss things? In my opinion (oops ), discussions about personal opinions can be hugely useful. That opinions are not immutable things, but rather very fluid, and change over time, seems obvious. One of the ways of refining and learning about one's own opinions is to discuss them with others. As well as hearing others opinions and becoming more informed about the other person as well.

In your above example, I would say to your opinion as stated, "Yeah, possibly - how would we do such a comparison?" And thus a fun discussion would hopefully be started. The merit is obvious

You do have a point about someone asking about a rule clarification for a convention game.


Again, I've never said not to read the rules. I've never said anyone should ignore the text. Quote?


I think I've said the same above - it's not impossible or even implausible that people can have the same opinions after reading the same text(s).


I really don't see where I admit that the RAW discussion is the baseline, but I'll admit, it's been a long thread. Can you quote me please?

This is also another point I'd like to address. Both you and Mooncrow seem very adamant that this topic should not be on DS. I don't think you can reserve the right of gatekeepers for topics here. Mods strike me and this thread down, fine. But in the meanwhile, this thread is about SR (well, tangentially now, I guess ), it's sorta about the rules, and it's been far from useless (in my opinion). You and Mooncrow are coming very close to the "DS is serious business" meme, don't you think?


Ok, here it is:
"you certainly dance around terminology like a Sophist,"
The implication is that I'm not actually making a valid argument in anything I've said, just rearranging my terms and meanings. Nothing wrong, yet...

"though I would chalk that up to not knowing how to debate rather than intending to deceive"
Here's where I think it became a fallacy. Instead of pointing to specific instances to back up his claim, he decided that I must be at fault, not the argument. It's not offensive, but I felt like it was still a fallacy. I think I'd rather have been called deceitful than stupid, tho


What? I'm sorry, no such thing as an informal discussion? You've never "shot the shit" with your friends? Bounced an idea off of a colleague? These are classic examples of informal discussions. Not every single conversation between two people has to be as rigorous as you seem to think they ought to be. I think


Ok, cool, glad we're on the same page about what "mechanics" mean. I think your definition is a little too narrow, and leaves out things such as ratings and dice modifiers. Would you say that "When used with a smartlink, it provides a +2 bonus to the ranged attack test" is fluff? I wouldn't either

Now that we both agree what mechanics means, I can point to at least 2 recent discussions that have in fact argued mechanics (not trying to pick on anyone here, it's just the threads most recent in my memory). When multi-casting, do you add the modifier dice to a spellcasting pool then split, or split then add modifier dice? And do you get the extra IP of the animal when using Shapechange?

These are arguments about the mechanics of the game, which you said would not be a point of confusion, but which appear to be anyway.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 31 2010, 03:13 AM

Including give you their very life force, Mooncrow.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 03:14 AM

No worries...
Yeah... I remember the discussion... I about tore my eyes out...

Posted by: Mäx Aug 31 2010, 05:22 AM

When they do an errata it does, the FAQ is pretty much just a collection of different writers house rules that they try to impose on others and whole lot of it is not even following the rules in the books.

Posted by: D2F Aug 31 2010, 09:16 AM

Part I

I have to completely disagree here. We are talking about rules discussions here, not chit chat. Rules dicisussions need to have a definitive outcome to serve a purpose and not become a monumental waste of time for nearly everyone involved.
In such a discussion, not everyone will have the same opinion. If not everyone has the same opinion, then how could you possibly use it as common ground? Common ground means EVERYONE has the SAME ground to work from. The only available information we have to achieve that basis are the RAW. Personal opinions are unfit to suit that role.


Sound logic is ALWAYS applicable. Name me a single case in which it would not be.



The "merit" in this case would be limited to a select few participants. That is nnot good enough. What you are talking about are not discussions but chit chat. If you want to have a social chat, by all means have at it, but discussion forums are the wrong place for that. Especially a forum that involves itself heavily in rules discussions.



Please re-read, what I wrote. You bascially stated that YOU would use RAW as common ground in your counter-proposal. By your very own admission. I don't know how to tell you any other way. If you can't see that, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion.



Some, not all. That's not good enough.


It was the quote, that I even emphasized with the bolded text. Again, I urge you to re-read my previous post.


Neither Mooncow, nor I have asked to stop posting or told you that your thread has no right to exist. Quite the opposite, actually. I am a very big fan of the freedom of speech, after all.
What I am trying to tell you is why the kind of discussion you are proposing/advocating would serve no merit and simply result in a massive waste of time. Remember, that your initial question was "Why care about RAW" and our answer was: "beause it is the only common ground". Everything else we have been talking about have either been arguments for our individual positions towards that argument or explanations.

The key words are: "common ground" And no, individual opinions are not good enough, as they are not something all the forum visitors have in "common". They are subjective in nature and as a result disqualified as "common ground". A common ground can, by definition, not be subjective in nature.

Posted by: D2F Aug 31 2010, 09:16 AM

Part II

That sentence was referring to a statement of yours, not an argument. It cannot, by definition, be a logical fallacy.



Those are not "discussions". In neither case you really hold a position. The only exception would the "bouncing an idea off of a colleague". That is not "informal" either, though. You are just more willing to abandon your position, when confronted by evidence against it.

To put that into a more readbale format:

Joe: "Hey, what do you think? If we use bi-lingual questionaires, wouldn't we be able to reach abroader number of test subjects with our online survey?"
Colleague: "Probably, but it would be a nightmare to evaluate all the different questionaires!"
Joe: "Yeah, you're probably right. Well, it was worth a try."

That's still a formal discussion:
-premise
-refutation
-conclusion


I consider "dice modifiers" part of dice rolls and as such mechanics, or "mechanical proceedings" to remain with my previous terminology.


I said there would be no point of confusion between fluff and mechanics. That said, your exacmple is easily answered, by simply reading the rules: The modifiers are added after the split. They are not considered part of the dice pool, as "dice pool" is defined by "skill+attribute". Keep in mind, though, that cyberware or powers increasing the skill or attribute directly, would add to the dice pool itself and as such be split. I can list specific excamples, if you want me to.

Posted by: Mäx Aug 31 2010, 10:27 AM

Only reason there are confusion about that is becouse someone in their infinite wisdom allowod someone else to post house rules into the FAQ.
The book itself is really straight forward about the mechanics of splitting dicepools.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 31 2010, 03:28 PM

D2F, you're always crazy, buddy. You don't get to define 'formality' (or 'discussion') to support your pretty silly assertions. Every thread in the whole forum is pretty manifestly an informal discussion; I won't even bother correcting your definition of 'discussion'.

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 03:48 PM

Meh, he's actually quite correct; the only real difference between a formal and informal discussion is the language used. The concepts remain the same.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 31 2010, 04:13 PM

That's not true. There are numerous differences in many rules and expectations across a huge continuum of formality. However, I was saying he was wrong to declare these 'formal'. If you're saying the 'concepts' of basic communication remain the same, then that's hardly useful to point out, is it?

Posted by: Mooncrow Aug 31 2010, 04:44 PM

I'm pretty much done with this discussion, but I'll try one more time to clear a couple points up.

You are free to talk about whatever you want, just realize that your never going to get a real discussion on many of your points; they go beyond the scope of this forum. Assertions like "language means whatever we choose" can't be answered in the type of concise format required here. The best I could do would be to direct you to a reading list.

And on that note, while I realize that you've argued that language is infinitely malleable, realize that I write with the intention of accuracy. So, when I talk about dancing around terminology like a Sophist, I mean a specific thing; in this case your tendency to change the meaning of your words in order to protect your point. As an example, you talked at length about intent, specifically the devs' intent, and then when called on it, you shifted to "I'm not appealing to the devs' intent"

So, there is my attack, and yes, that was intended as an attack (in the debating sense) on what you've said. The second part of my statement, which was in direct response to your "Epistemological solipstical sophistry-style pontification, apparently " line, was a refutation of D2F's label of sophistry on you.

Now, you may choose to interpret it incorrectly, that's every person's right. Of course, it's just adds to argument that taking interpretation rather than what's written as the basis for discussion is less than optimal.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Aug 31 2010, 05:00 PM

To me the question is " To follow RAW or not to follow RAW" is often flip flopperish.

Three reasons I follow RAW:
1. Conistency for the players, both long time players and new ones.
2. It is already written down-I don't have to reference my notes or memory.
3. The rules/material 5 times out of six pretty straight forward.

Three reasons I sometimes don't follow RAW:
1. Contradictions or overly complex rules impede the the fun or momentum.
2. 5 core books, and I don't remember it/ want to waste time looking for a specific rule in a relatively unimportant situation.
3. A rule as written defies logic and/or reason.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 02:37 AM

Reply to Part I

I'm not being flip here, and I really say this respectfully - but if you feel it's a waste of your time, don't post. Don't read. You definitely don't get to decide what's a waste of time, for everyone.
And you also don't get to define what rules discussions need to have or not. If I want to have a rules discussion that doesn't have a definitive outcome, and the mods allow it, what leg do you have to stand on?


Not everyone having the same opinion is not the same as everyone having a different opinion. This seems like basic logic. There can be many overlaps in opinions. And as I said before, opinions are not set in stone. These opinions can be influenced by the words and opinions and whatever else is taken in.


Again, hold on a moment. You even admit there would be merit, just limited to a few participants, and then you say that's not good enough to have this discussion? This is really sounding very elitist, I hope my characterization is wrong ()
And you so easily dismiss this as "chit chat", a term laden with negative connotations. You seem to want to define this discussion in your terms, then tell me that it fails to meet your terms and so is meritless.
I propose that you just read it, choose to respond or not based on the ideas contained, and call it a day


I see you saying that I've "basically stated", then from that jumped to "by your very own admission". You went from paraphrasing me to claiming I admitted something, in one sentence. I touch on this more below, I think.


I'm sorry this discussion is not meeting your impossibly high standards.


AH! I see the quote now. "There would be common ground in everyone having read the same rules." You're making the mistake that I meant it's the ONLY common ground. I'm only saying
here that it's A legitimate common ground to have. This is starting to get a little tangled, so the above was in response to this from you:
"How you then use the outcome of the RAW discussion to arrive at your individual interpretation is neither relevant nor can it be the purpose of a DS forum discussion. The reason we stop at "these are the RAW" is because that is the LAST common ground everyone will have."
But it IS relevant, and CAN be the purpose of a DS forum discussion, unless we are forced to adhere to your singular view that only Rigid Debates have meaning on DS. And the thing I'm rejecting is the idea that RAW is the ONLY and LAST common ground people have. Common sense, appeal to fun,
belief of the devs intent...mix 'em all together. Again, this works (I think) unless we have to fit into your mold of what a discussion is. I'm not so sure why we have to fit into that mold, unless it's because you told us we had to.


You see, again, you're telling me it has no merit, when by the very fact that I posted it, I felt it has merit. Others have posted, they seem to see the merit of posting (or they're bored, or they want to tell me this is a steaming turd ). Mods haven't felt fit to close the thread yet (thanks!) so they must feel AT LEAST like it's not a frivolous thread.
In your example, you replied "because it is the only common ground". To continue the example, if I don't agree with your statement, I post (what I think is) a refutation. Discussion can proceed from there.


And my whole point is, RAW tends to be / can be subjective in nature as well. Yes, there is the literal RAW, words on a page. Obviously without anyone reading it, it's neither objective or subjective. Once the RAW is read, it is subjective and can lead to multiple
interpretations (in some cases, not all). I expound on this a little more in my reply to your part II.

Opinions are not automatically rejected as common ground. A trivial case: I think SR is a fun game, that's why I'm at these forums. I hope it's not mischaracterizing you to say, you are of the same opinion. Subjective? Yes, but you see, we have common ground.

I think our differences lie in what we expect from a discussion. You seem to feel that a discussion should (be able to) result in a definite conclusion. I feel that a discussion can be about exploring ideas, wandering a bit here and there,
so that the original idea(s) are explored. Would you feel that this is a fair characterization of our positions?

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 03:22 AM

Reply to Part II

I think you're splitting hairs, here. What is an argument, if not composed of statements? To be REALLY picky, he was referring to terminology I used, not statements.
But he didn't reference any particular statement or terminology, and so he's referring to my statements in general, and thus my argument. Thus, ad hominem.

Again, not a big deal. It's not as though he called this thread a steaming pile (ok, he sort of did later, but still...). I'm just really my defending my knowledge of ad hominem fallacy, which you've seen fit to impugn.


I again reject the idea that all discussions have to follow these rules as you present them. But to play along here, how does the original discussion not meet your standards? Just because there are some intermediate "refutation" steps along the way?

In our discussion, you're assuming the conclusion*, then saying I shouldn't be arguing because you know the conclusion and I'm wrong.
* I don't mean the conclusion of "Why to care about RAW", but why to have such a discussion in the first place. This is getting very meta, huh?


Fair enough - just trying to clarify to make sure we were both using the word the same way.


That's one interpretation, yes. There are others - there has been disagreement about it, that I've seen. <insert link here>.
The example you replied to is not the best one of the "what is fluff vs mechanics" idea (that I've seen recently, I think that would be the shapechange thread). The distinction seems to serve no purpose, since again, the distinction can be drawn subjectively.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 03:48 AM

Even if I agreed with you, I would reply with "You can't fault me for trying, can you?". But I guess that's already been answered


I know you're done with this thread, but I can't for the life of me find where I "shifted to 'I'm not appealing to the devs intent". I've noted that the devs intent should be one point (among many) of consideration when trying to understand the rules. I've never said the devs intent is the end-all-be-all arbitrator of rules disputes.

As to your writing style, I agree with you - I'm not saying don't try to write with accuracy. I've said before, some of the rules are so well written and "accurate", there's no point of debate on them. But to then go further and say ALL the written rules are accurate and infallible, well, that's why I started this whole mess.


Ok, thank you for the clarification. I'll retract my claim of ad hominem after this further clarification. Still though, the lack of knowledge on how to debate comment? Such a back-handed compliment.


Yeah, the irony isn't lost on me here. Although the last several pages seem intent on saying this discussion is the wrong format and shouldn't be had on DS, and not many arguments that the ideas contained in the discussion are wrong, per se.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 03:51 AM

Yeah, true. That brings us back to the argument of whether FAQ is RAW or not and...

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 1 2010, 03:55 AM

...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 04:54 AM

Ok, thanks, found it...

You're REALLY taking that statement out of context, I feel. Here's the whole quote:

"I'm not appealing to the devs intent (well, at least I'm not meaning to sound like I am). I'm appealing to what a group's common sense ideas about what the devs intent could be."

This statement is meant as clarification, not backpedaling or changing of terms. Certain people made snarky comments about not having an oracle into the devs mind. Just like you, I'm striving for greater accuracy, so I'm trying to clarify that OF COURSE we don't have an oracle into the devs mind - we just have to use our own interpretation on what the dev intent might be.

*edit* my last bit here came across as snarky to me, so I'm self-editing...

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 05:31 AM

As a final (hopefully?) mention about the rules for discussion and merit theme, I think this picture is very apropos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/3228218938/in/photostream/

And the background for it is here:

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1752

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 1 2010, 05:59 AM

You seriously can't see the difference in what you were saying? You can't clarify something by changing your argument. Now, you may have been correcting what you mistakenly said, but that's a different beast. By the way, feel free to not be coy; my comment about the oracle was 100% intended to be snarky, because this:

"If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say"

is nonsense. Now, since "of course" we don't have an oracle into the dev's minds, the only source we have for their intent is the rules as written. Now, the rules threads on DS are generally broken into two groups:

1. Practical advice for actually playing - here is where your method would be fine (though dev intent is generally considered irrelevant next to good play, for the sake of argument I'll assume Yera is right about what you really mean by that)

2. Rules Lawyer threads - where we see if we can break the game. Bringing purposeful interpretation into those threads would be counter to the point, the point is to look at what was actually written. Not that interpretation isn't sometimes a part of that, but we keep it as strictly RAW as we can.

So which type of threads are you talking about? And how would your method be adding something that isn't there?

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 06:35 AM

There is no changing of argument going on - I think that saying "dev intent" is very clearly using your own interpretation of dev intent. I think it's very obvious that noone has a crystal ball into the devs mind, and so doesn't need to be stated. You seemed to have misunderstood my meaning, so I attempted to clarify something I initially thought was obvious.


I was attempting to be polite and not call you out by name.


I feel you're focusing too narrowly on this "dev intent" point, making it into a bigger issue. In the multiple replies that I've made on this thread, I might not have reiterated my main point(s) in full excrutiating detail EVERY single time. This is actually really interestingly meta, as you're applying the same rules lawyering to my posts as I see being done with RAW. Yes, if you take that one single sentence, out of context of the whole 8 page thread, it might sound a bit wonky. If you've read everything else written here, and use that context (the phlap intent), this one single sentence won't seem so glaringly wrong, I think. Continuous, not discrete.


1. Yes, of course - I'm very sure that I've reiterated several times that good, fun play trumps everything yes.

2. Definitely adding "I think" to all of your posts, mentally

3. Well, at least this post was fairly on-topic. I'm going to have to end with a GOTO 10 statement here, as it seems we're right back at the beginning

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 1 2010, 06:39 AM

Why don't you go ahead and re-iterate it again then, clearly? Or point me to where you did so. As I mentioned in my post, I'm going with the assumption that you means something along these lines:

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 07:02 AM

Well, this topic HAS wandered quite a bit. My original point, that started it all, was the first post in the thread. People have responded with their answers, many of them good answers to my question. I'm well satisfied with the answers I've gotten. I may not see eye-to-eye with every answer given, but ok. The main point is dead, done, buried.

Now we're on to the meta-argument, about my arguing style / whether I should post these kinds of threads / etc. Which I'm only continuing because it's interesting to me, and it's good practice for helping me learn to be more accurate in my writings

And finally, after thinking about it, I do appreciate the time / effort you still seem to be putting in to this. I'll try not to look at it this way

http://xkcd.com/386/

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 1 2010, 07:37 AM

Ok, fair enough I guess. In the interest of a continued good time then, I'll ask, why did you include the following:









Without statements like these, that detracted heavily from your point, this probably would have been a much more civil and enjoyable thread. While I don't particularly agree with your main point either, it was at least a valid point to raise.

I look at statements like these, and all I can say is "Squibbldy grobbly gork." if you know what I mean.

edit: yes, I have that xkcd printed out on my wall. I'm disabled, and an insomniac - aside from when I get out to game, arguing on the internet is pretty much my sum of human interaction these days.

Posted by: D2F Sep 1 2010, 07:40 AM

I thought it would be clear what I was saying by "there are no informal discussions". Apparently I am wrong, so let me clarify:

Humans, as individuals tend to favor their own position, over other positions. As a result, they are reluctant to accept a different viewpoint and will try to defend their own viewpoint whenever it is challenged. Some more adamant than others, but noone will simply give up their position without at least an attempt to defend their own position.
Positions are attacked by refutations and as a prerequisite, argumentation and justification. The formality of the setting is irrelevant as far as that mechanics are concerned. As a result, even "informal discussions" will have a premise, arguments, refutations and a conclusion. The only thing that differs is the willingness to abandon one's own position, but not the means by which to defend or refute am argument.

My apologies for simply assuming everyone was on the same page about that.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 08:14 AM

Let's see...
Guaranteed there's not a sentence in the English language that can't be parsed 5 ways to Sunday. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is', is".
This was relevant to the main topic - why play RAW? Seemed not so useful or "fun" when the wording of the rules can be twisted so easily.
I think that any particular rule, there are a million ways to interpret it
Same thing

The last two? Yeah, they look pretty obtuse I'll respectfully retract them, maybe not my best writing. But if you had just ignored those or made a (polite) joke about those specifically or kindly suggested they weren't the best writing, maybe you wouldn't have gotten so annoyed.


It's funny you did this, another poster also already said the same thing. I think
Joking aside, I think this kind of thing is representative of the "slippery slope", but let's not get in to another "discussion" on this...


Thanks for that look into your life - it's interesting to see how people have the time to post on here. My current project ended at work, so I have some free time until the next one starts (keeping fingers crossed..)

Posted by: Mäx Sep 1 2010, 08:27 AM

Except your main topic was "why care about RAW" and why discuss it in the forums, thats wholly different think from playing with RAW.
Many who post on the RAW topics do use house rules, sometimes even for the RAW that is being arguet about in that topic.
Sometimes people even learn that their "House rules" are actually RAW once its being explained to them.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 08:34 AM

This is pretty DEEP in the terms of what you say a discussion is. To assume we're all on the same page about that? We'd all have to be Ph.D. philosophers / behaviorlists (?) / sociologists. Assuming I agree with this, of course

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 08:40 AM

Sorry, I had too much going on and you're right, I should have written "argue" instead of "play". I'll leave the post the way it is so it doesn't seem like I'm sneakily backtracking.

Your answer, in various forms, has been given to me, and I'm not "arguing" against those people now. It's all good

Posted by: suoq Sep 1 2010, 01:31 PM

Am I the only person thinking that if he took his own advice, this thread wouldn't exist?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 1 2010, 02:01 PM

My point is just that there's zero connection between 'formality' and 'having premise, arguments, refutations and a conclusion.' From someone so ostentatiously striving to use words carefully, I found it notable.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 1 2010, 11:54 PM

Judging by the crickets, I'd say yes, you are the only one.

Assuming you're actually interested instead of just trying to do a drive-by on me, I ask that you re-read the thread and note the many places where I attempt to keep this discussion light-hearted and civil. Then note the times when others aren't so polite. Then tell me that you stand by your above comment.

And really? Talking to "the crowd" instead of directly to me is kind of a jerk-move. I'm not sure why you'd want to cast yourself in such a negative light. Let me know if I've mischaracterized you.

Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 2 2010, 12:02 AM

lol

Posted by: tete Sep 2 2010, 12:05 AM

Classic I have that up on my office wall

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 2 2010, 12:14 AM

exactly

Posted by: Acme Sep 2 2010, 12:28 AM

I wouldn't figure that the lack of replies in less than a day immediately means that he doesn't have people who agree with him.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 2 2010, 12:32 AM

Yeah, that's a valid point.

Posted by: suoq Sep 2 2010, 01:05 AM

I stand by my comment. If you took your own advice, the advice I specifically quote, I believe this thread wouldn't exist. Your behavior in the rest of the thread has no bearing on that observation.

I believe that "if you had just ignored those or made a (polite) joke about those specifically or kindly suggested they weren't the best writing, maybe you wouldn't have gotten so annoyed.", for example you wouldn't have needed to start this thread.

But since you bring it up, you don't appear to me to be any more light hearted and civil than anyone else in this thread. (Mooncrow, to me does, but that's not what we're talking about.) Then again, you know what your intent and meaning is and all I have is your words to go by. Am I expected to understand the intent and meaning behind your words more than the intent and meaning behind anyone else's words?

I talked to you. You agreed with me that your problem was in people overstating their case and not speaking clearly. Since then it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that you're not making your case clearly. You've since kept on the conversation because you find it fun, ignoring the possibility that all the comments people made that influenced you to start this conversation in the first place were made because the people making them enjoyed making them.


It may be that you're holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. I'm really not that good of a person. Trust me on this.

Seriously, the only reason I'm reading this thread is for the irony value. I have some hopes that it will strike you how ironic this thread really is. An entire thread based on everyone else's inability to be clear, from the people who write the rules to the people who post in this forum, all by someone who expects everyone else to forgive his lack of clarity. I enjoy that level of irony. If you don't, I'm sorry, but since you felt free to point it out about everyone else, I figured a precedent was set. If I'm wrong, my bad and my apologies.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 2 2010, 01:54 AM

Fair enough - although I still maintain that the point of the thread wasn't annoyance or whatnot, but a genuine idea / question. Maybe I had a little bit of an agenda, as D2F is trying to show? Sure, I can roll with that. Not so unique to do that here, though, is it? Did you feel that I proposed my idea in an impolite or demeaning kind of way?


Sorry it doesn't appear that way to you. I def. think it stopped being so light-hearted after awhile, although having this thread called a steaming pile and not responding in kind is just one big example of many in my favor. Rather than go back and quote specific instances, I'll not belabor the point.


Yes, that previous posting of yours went very well, I thought. And it's not really true that I've ignored the possibility - again, if you'll go back and read the thread, I hope you can spot the several times that I concede someone else's idea and viewpoint. But at some point in this conversation, I was engaged in a Rigid Debate, which sort of moved the goal posts of the original discussion. At that point, we weren't arguing / discussing the main point, we were arguing about the argument.


Well, none of us are perfect, that's true. What you say is possible


As I said earlier in the thread, yes, the irony does strike me. Although it's not quite the irony I think you mean.

One thing - it sounds like you're saying I'm blaming people in my main post. "An entire thread based on everyone else's inability to be clear, from the people who write the rules to the people who post in this forum". Once again, I'd like to reiterate - this thread isn't about blaming anyone. More like trying to float the idea that it seems TO ME that only appealing to RAW causes more trouble than it should be, when it's relied upon as gospel. There've been several people posting here, about the main topic, and that all seemed to go ok.

My main problem with you "pointing it out" was that you weren't trying to point it out to me, you were trying to point out something about me to everyone else, while specifically not speaking to me. A little insulting, no?

Anyway, thanks for apologies. I'm glad you're enjoying this thread, at the least

Posted by: suoq Sep 2 2010, 02:06 AM

I don't believe it is. When you started this thread was it addressed to the people who inspired you to post it or was it addressed to everyone else? Were you insulting people who talk about RAW by starting this thread? I didn't assume so. When you started this thread "you were trying to point out something about me other people to everyone else, while specifically not speaking to me those people". Given that, I'm a little lost on why my post was insulting but the original post isn't. There must be some important difference I'm missing. I'm not socially smart.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Sep 2 2010, 04:32 AM

The difference here is that I was obviously(?) not speaking about one specific person, or even any identifiable group of people. Unless you think addressing a topic to "SR players / DS readers" is too targeted?

Whereas when you say "hey everybody, this guy here, isn't he wrong?" directly on this very thread you know I'm reading, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It smacks of not wanting to actually provide any input, just wanting to do a drive-by heckling.

In yet ANOTHER reiteration, yes, some might have taken offense at my post, even if I meant none. If you'd read the thread (!) you'll again notice I'm quick to apologize to them and attempt to clarify so as to not give offense.

Anyway, this argument is devolving even further than it's already done. Let's just leave it at mutual respectful disagreement, shall we?

Posted by: Voran Sep 4 2010, 11:28 PM

I read that as 'frigid' and now I am somewhat ashamed.