[X] My Assistant

[Mooncrow]

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

I'm out

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.

[phlapjack77]

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.

Thanks for the clarification - 'preciate it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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.

[D2F]

There's nothing wrong with being adversarial.

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.

[phlapjack77]

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

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

[Mooncrow]

"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".

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.

[Mooncrow]

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

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

[phlapjack77]

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.

Yeah, good post. Stop making it hard to refute you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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...

[Warlordtheft]

Focus, people.

I always thought the RAW for focii was pretty straightforward. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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

[D2F]

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.

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.

"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?

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.

"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.

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?

"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.

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.

"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).

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

"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.

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.

"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...

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 ad hominem fallacy

"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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I certainly never claimed it.

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.

"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".

"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.

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

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

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

[D2F]

I always thought the RAW for focii was pretty straightforward. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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

The proper useage would be "Rules as Intended"

[sabs]

The proper useage would be "Rules as Intended"

as Intended by whom?

[Critias]

as Intended by whom?

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

[sabs]

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

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.

[Mooncrow]

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.

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

[Dwight]

How do we know what they intended?

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

They are [purportedly] real people after all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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.

[Critias]

How do we know what they intended?

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.

[Mooncrow]

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

They are [purportedly] real people after all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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.

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

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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.

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...

[Mooncrow]

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...

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?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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?

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

[phlapjack77]

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

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

[phlapjack77]

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

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

[Mooncrow]

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

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!)

[Mooncrow]

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

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 =/

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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!)

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.