[X] My Assistant

[D2F]

Shiiiittttt....I had to have a point ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

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.

[phlapjack77]

Sorry, but your entire argumentation is borderline solipsism.
...

Another big word I had to look up (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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

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

[D2F]

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

"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?

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.

"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".....

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.

[phlapjack77]

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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Whipstitch]

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.

[phlapjack77]

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.

Really? Worse than the hemipene thread? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Acme]

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

[D2F]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

[Mooncrow]

Really? Worse than the hemipene thread? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

[phlapjack77]

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

Yeah, I'm def. trying to advance my viewpoint. But hopefully in a friendly way, not a "you're wrong" kind of way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[phlapjack77]

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.

Epistemological solipstical sophistry-style pontification, apparently

[phlapjack77]

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.

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.

[Mayhem_2006]

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

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.

For a typical campaign, the suggested starting BP should be 400. Again, not a rule, just a guideline. I think. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

Words and sentences, that don't intrinsically have meaning except what we assign to them, and the meanings are (many times) mutable.

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!

[phlapjack77]

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.

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.......

[Acme]

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?

[phlapjack77]

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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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...

[Mooncrow]

Yeah, I'm def. trying to advance my viewpoint. But hopefully in a friendly way, not a "you're wrong" kind of way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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)

[phlapjack77]

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?

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So anyway...

[phlapjack77]

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."




Hmm.

Epistemological - the study of knowledge and the processes by which we gain knowledge. Yep, seems pretty appropriate

Solipsistic - a specific epistemological view that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unjustified. Probably not quite appropriate, though your cavalier dismissal of others opinions, taken far enough could lead to that route I suppose. I would have chosen the term "Skeptic" instead.

Sophistry - in Plato's terminology, the use of rhetoric and argument to deceive someone. Well, 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.

But the bottom line here is that you're not out to have a dialogue; you came to attack a point of view. You've been mostly polite and indirect about it, but that's all your arguments amount to. Quite frankly, your rationale is ridiculous in this place; if you want to argue over the mutability of language and ability of the human mind to know anything for certain, there are plenty of philosophy forums for that.

"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....

[Mooncrow]

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.

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.

[phlapjack77]

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.

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.

[D2F]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

[Acme]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So anyway...

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".

[phlapjack77]

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".

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

I'm out

[phlapjack77]

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 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