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.

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.

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? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

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

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Like I said, I don't use it personally, but in rules discussions here, I do have to accept what it says sometimes ><

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

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)

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ), 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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ), 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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)


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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

Including give you their very life force, Mooncrow. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

No worries...
Yeah... I remember the discussion... I about tore my eyes out... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

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.

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.

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.

Only reason there are confusion about that is becouse someone in their infinite wisdom (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) allowod someone else to post house rules into the FAQ.
The book itself is really straight forward about the mechanics of splitting dicepools.

D2F, you're always crazy, buddy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) 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'.

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.

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'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If you're saying the 'concepts' of basic communication remain the same, then that's hardly useful to point out, is it?

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.

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.

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 ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )
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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ). 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?

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


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.

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

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

...

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...

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...in/photostream/

And the background for it is here:

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