"Cars are available in four colors: red, green, blue, and white." Does that means that they don't come in black, yellow, purple, etc.? Well, that depends on if you give it a strong reading or a weak reading. In either case, the wording is ambiguous and fails to clarify the matter.

Let me also point out that this passage is referring specifically to both cyberware AND bioware. Within that understanding, the statement is perfectly true. It is no different than page 64, which says that there are "grades of cyberware AND bioware known as alphaware, betaware, and deltaware." It then goes on to describe an "additional" grade (cultured) which applies only to bioware (but not also cyberware).

If you would have paid more attention, you would have realized that I never said they excluded anything. What I did say is that "cultured" is described under the heading "Implant Grades," that it is explicitly called a "grade of bioware" (in addition to alpha, beta, and delta), that cost and Essence adjustments are not applied to cultured bioware, and that all of this is consistent with the precedent set by previous editions. In the absence of a definitive rule saying otherwise, this is enough information to come to an informed interpretation.

Yep, I knew that you would find a way to take that out of context. Again, the book essentially says that the prices for cultured bioware are "not standard." By "standard" it means "not upgraded"--whether by alphaware, betaware, deltaware, or otherwise. IOW, cultured = upgraded. You do not dispute this, you just dispute the nature of the upgrade. The question is, does "upgraded" mean one thing when discussing standard bioware and another thing when discussing cultured bioware? I say no. What does Occam's razor say?

With the use of 'available', they usually don't. With the use of 'come', they usually could.
But either guarantees that there are cars in red, green, blue, and white - which you are trying to dispute...

Yes you do:

So you say it excludes the game effects of those terms... just, those terms are game terms, thus carrying the effect.
Yet, Cultured does not carry any specified game effect.

Indeed I do - as you are mixing terms.

Occams razor says - make the least assumptions.
You assume replacement varibles you are assigning to totally different terms.
If you don't, the theory of the least assumption simply is that every bioware is graded four-times first, then two-folded into categories.

If you read further into that paragraph, you'll see that while cultured is listed as a "higher" grade, it's only higher in comparison to standard bioware, and not alpha/beta/delta. In fact, the entire section you're referring to simply states that higher grades are merely better than standard. So, the assumption you made that cultured is somehow higher than delta is erroneous; at best, it's higher than standard.

Now, page 303 says that the modifiers are applied "When purchasing implants of other grades". You're making the assumption that cultured isn't "another grade" here, due to the fact that the preceding paragraph says that cultured costs are nonstandard. That is flawed; it is equally likely that the statement is just an editing problem, especially since on the page referenced there are no cost modifers listed. Also, the sentence in question only refers to cost, and makes no statement about essence, which would presumably be part of the bonus if cultured was a "higher grade".

Since there are no modifiers listed anywhere for cultured bioware, it cannot actually be a "higher grade" in anything but name-- if there are no mechanical benefits, then it's just a bit of descriptive fluff. With that in mind, since there are no mechanical differences between cultured and standard bioware, there's no mechanical harm in applying the alpha/beta/delta modifiers to it.

Now, you're making the assumption that the modifiers are already factored into the costs listed. However, if you look back at previous editions, you'll see that all neural bioware had to be cultured; and so, regardless of rather or not it was factored into the price, it all amounted to the same thing. It doesn't matter if it was modified to have a bio index of 0.5, or simply written that way; you would end up paying the exact same cost.

Since all the cultured SR$ bio is neural, and no modifiers are listed, we cannot tell if culturing is a requirement or just a bonus. However, since the cultured bioware can't be bought as anything other than cultured, it doesn't matter if modifers have been added or not. And since it doesn't matter, and there are no mechanical differences, there's no mechanical reason to not treat them the exact same way.

In conclusion, cultured bioware simply appears to be a confusing name, which happens to match a lot of what happened in SR4. There were a lot of pointless name changes made, and some names stayed the same while their entire concepts changed. The bottom line is, don't assume anything about things in SR4 based on their name alone: you have to examine the mechanical effects in detail.

You are simply relying on your own connotations for these terms, which are peculiar if not subjective.

I don't think you know what I'm saying. But to continue the analogy: I say that "cultured" is a color of car, you say that "cultured" is a type of car. I say that there is one type of car and that it comes in five different colors. You say that there are two types of cars, and that they each come in four different colors (for a total of eight car-color combinations). However, you also stipulate that car #2 is identical to car #1, so effectively there are only four car-color combinations.

At any rate, if counting the number of car-color combinations was your original impulse for invoking Occam's razor, then it is highly misguided. Occam's razor is about premises, not conclusions. And if you tell me that each "grade" is a premise, then you are simply begging the question.

I was simply saying that there is nothing that excludes your interpretation of the rules. I don't believe I have ever denied that your interpretation is possible, I just don't think that it is likely.

The terms are already mixed, if your interpretation is correct. You say that the meaning of the word "grade" changes drastically from one sentence to the next on page 64. (Incidentally, this unparsimoniousness of terms is one of the things that Occam's razor is meant to guard against.)

...that are required to explain all of the known data. If Theory A requires two assumptions and it explains four facts, and Theory B requires one assumption but it only explains three of those same facts (and the fourth is considered an anomaly), then the preference still goes to A.

It isn't "only" higher in comparison to standard, but it is certainly at least higher than standard. The statement is inconclusive because it doesn't say what it is lower than (if anything).

But even conceding the point, I don't think that one can draw your conclusion from it. As I have continually pointed out, cultured bioware is treated side-by-side with alpha-, beta-, and deltaware as "Implant Grades" (pg. 64). Therefore, there is good reason to suppose that they are related conceptually. I don't think that one can read "grade w, x, y" as meaning one thing, and then read "grade z" (one paragraph later) as being totally different. That is to say, even though rules for cultured bioware are missing in the BBB, it is still a "grade" in the full sense of the term. Grades do not stack (there is no rule that establishes this, however no one has disputed it). Ergo, one cannot delta-grade cultured bioware any more than one can delta-grade alphaware.

However, for the sake of argument I will even concede that point, and assume that "cultured bioware" is simply a descriptive category of bioware. In that case, it is still only mentioned after and apart from the discussion of the bioware grades. So by that reading, the text says "Standard bioware can be upgraded to alpha-, beta-, or delta-. However, there is also another category of bioware." It does not then say or imply that this second category of bioware can be upgraded just like the first. One is not obliged to assume that the two cateogies should be treated identically, especially since the BBB is being sensitive to distinguish between them.

I disagree. There is no reason to expect cost modifiers to be listed on page 339 if, as I maintain, the cost modifiers are already factored into the bioware. Same with Essence.

Either way you look at it, you run into trouble. Either cultured bioware is the highest grade, in which case there is an error of omission, or cultured bioware is simply a descriptive category, in which case there is an error of inclusion--an "editing problem." So this line of argument is deadlocked. Do you have criteria to decide the matter, or is it just a matter of personal choice? I suggested looking for precedent in earlier rulebooks, but that was met with violent opposition.

This is false. The mechanical differences are that (1) cultured bioware either can or cannot be bought at character creation, and (2) cultured bioware either can or cannot be upgraded.

Out of your four arguments, I would characterize two of them as inconclusive, and two of them as mistaken. Again, I invite anyone to propose independent criteria by which to decide the issue, but so far I'm the only one who has even tried.

That's fine, we can play the Socratic method on this one. The important point here is to realize that even if cultured is a "higher grade", that doesn't mean it's better than anything but standard-grade. You originally posited an S-A-B-D-C scale, which can be shown to be just an assumption-- a S-C-A-B-D scale fits the description just as well.

That doesn't matter in the slightest, with cultured-only bioware. It doesn't matter if it was written with a cost of 45,000 or was modified to reach that point due to some invisible formula. The mechanical effect is that you can't get it at any other price, which is identical to what happens with standard bioware. Since the effect is identical, the effect of further modifers is also identical.

This is a classic either-or fallacy. To demonstrate the fallacy, all I have to do is show that there are other possibilites that fit the facts. In this case, cultured bioware might not be the "highest" grade-- it could be just marginally better than standard grade. If that's the case, then cultured might be better in such miniscule terms as to have no game effect whatsoever.

So, we cannot assume that cultured is a significantly superior grade of 'ware, in absence of supporting details. We can, however, assume that descriptive details aren't always reflected in the rules-- this is common enough in RPGs as to be axiomatic. So, there may not be an "error of inclusion", since this sort of thing happens all the time. As the saying goes, if it's documented, it's not a bug-- it's a standard feature.

Based on that, your first statement relies on there being an error made in the rules. The remaining statements do not.

Incorrect. First, character creation limitations =! game mechanics. Just because starting gear ratings are capped at 6, that does not mean that higher ratings don't exist. What you're describing is a restriction to control starting power levels, and not something inherent to the rules. A mechanical limitation would prohibit it from going any higher, like the modified attribute caps.

Second, after quickly rereading the gear chapter, I can't see anything indicating that any form of cyber or bio can be upgraded. According to the RAW, once it's implanted, that's all she wrote. The question of upgrading has nothing to do with rather or not higher grades exist.

At any event, the criterion I always use is game mechanics and effects. If something is treated a certain way as something else in the rules, and acts in a certain way, it is effectively the same thing, regardless of description. Now, we see that despite several hints the direction of specialness, cultured bioware is treated exactly the same as standard in the RAW. There are *no* explicit mechanical differences listed anywhere in the BBB, according to all the arguments mentioned; only descriptive ones. Because it is treated the same, and acts the same, it effectively is the same, regardless of description. Since it is effectively the same, it can thus be modified in the same way, without damaging the game system.

Conceded, however it is not relevant. The argument is over whether or not "cultured" is a grade of bioware or merely a descriptive category. Where it fits in relation to other grades of bioware doesn't matter, since whether it's lower than alpha or higher than delta, I still say that it should be treated as a "grade," and therefore it does not stack with other grades.

It most certainly does matter. If cultured bioware is already modified, then it cannot be modified again. Standard bioware is unmodified, so it can be upgraded.

No, it is simply a "me vs. you" argument. My interpretation commits one to assume an error of omission. Your interpretation commits one to assume an error of inclusion.

I have already given my reasons for believing it to be a higher grade--it is described as being tailor-made--and in my understanding, tailor-made is nearer to the high end of quality rather than the low end. But again, where it fits qualitatively on a scale is still beside the point of what it is substantially.

Whether you believe that it was accidentally copy-and-pasted, or you believe that it was intentionally put there as flavor text, or somethign else, doesn't much matter from my perspective. In the former case, the text should never have been put there. In the latter case, the text just didn't need to be put there. But my argument is that the text needed to be put there, because it is a rule, not a flavorful description. To avoid confusion, you would probably pare down the text; I would probably supplement it.

I don't see your point. All I was saying is that one's interpretation of the rules will have an impact on how the game is conducted, and I listed two specific examples. This was in response to your claim that "there's no mechanical reason to not treat them [cultured and standard] the exact same way." The truth of your claim is dependent on how one interprets page 64. But you are begging the question. You argue that we should interpret it your way (in which case the text has no mechanical effect), and that therefore (since it has no mechanical effect) we should interpret it your way.

I'm using "upgraded" as shorthand for "alpha-graded," "beta-graded," "delta-graded," and sometimes "cultured." I was not suggesting that one can upgrade an already-installed piece of ware.

Again, you are begging the question. If one assumes that the paragraph on page 64 is just a "description," then of course it will have no mechanical game effect. But if one assumes (as in my case) that the paragraph on page 64 is a "rule," then it will most certainly have mechanical game effects. I have listed two already.

What I'm asking for is criteria by which to decide if the paragraph on page 64 is a description or a rule. I tried telepathy, but I was unable to penetrate the minds of the authors. So my second option was to consult previous SR editions. Little did I know, my second option would prove to be more controversial than my first. I guess everyone here is a mind-reader except for me.

This is very sensible, but still problematic.

This example demonstrates that every rule doesn't need to be accompanied by a chart or a dice modifier: not all rules are quantitative. (In any case, "may" is not an imperative.)

Another example: if you look at the "Spirit Affinity," "Spirit Bane," and "Ork Posers" Qualities, you won't find anything resembling dice pool modifiers or quantitative game mechanics. But who in their right mind would say that therefore they have no effect on the game?

More to the point, sometimes just describing a thing is all that is necessary. The description for the Shiawase Kanmushi says "This quad-leg micro-drone 'bug' crawler is ideal for penetrating closely confined areas and is capable of crawling on walls and ceilings." What about this is fluff? Is it that it's capable of crawling on walls and ceilings? No. That it's small? No. That it has four legs? No, since that is necessary in case someone has the Quadruped specialization of Pilot Anthroform. The point is simple enough: how a thing is described largely determines how it will be treated and what rules are applicable to it.

I say that if something is explicitly called a "grade," then it should be treated like one. Just because the rules for taking a random piece of bioware and culture-grading it are missing, that doesn't mean that one should reject the whole idea of a grade called "cultured." It doesn't have to be all or nothing. (Speaking of an "either-or" fallacy...)

It is necessary precisely because the line between a rule and a description is ambiguous. When it comes right down to it, even a description has to be implemented in-game.

Obviously I disagree, for reasons already cited. In fact the rules don't say anything at all about how cultured bioware is to be treated. What it says is that higher grades can be purchased for cyberware and bioware. The section on cultured bioware--which is handled in a separate paragraph--makes no mention of those grades at all. This indicates a difference in their treatment, not a similarity.

If, with 'reasons' you mean whining 'it's always been that way', yeah.

Really? Let's see what you are saying yourself:

Ah, here it is.

Unlucky for you, the set 'cultured bioware' is a partial set of the set 'bioware', thus inheriting the basic capabilities of it.
So, the rules in fact do say how cultured bioware is to be treated.
(that' a part of logic, too, don't miss it.)

So, coming from both common sense and logic - trying to dispute a major rule change away is a bit absurd... just house rule it if you don't like it.

Actually, Spirit Bane and Ork Poser have an explicit game effect listed; just take a look under the Noteriety rules. Spirit Affinity, however, is worthless if it depends on GM fiat-- in one game, it might be the be-all and end-all; in another, it might be worse than wasted points. It affects roleplay, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Similarily, the 5-pont SINner flaw isn't actually a flaw at all-- it's a roleplay device, since there's no in-game difference between a real SIN and an unnoticed fake.

Most of the things you mention have direct in-game mechanical effects, backed up in the hard descriptions. For example, the size of a drone is reflected in its Body. However, saying that it's "ideal for penetrating closely confied areas" is fluff-- what makes it "ideal"? More "ideal" than what? Would you give it a bonus over an IBall, simply because the description says the Kanmushi is "ideal" and the IBall doesn't?

If you carefully read the preceeding paragraph, you'll note that the Alphaware description only applies to cyberware. The Cultured description is otherwise identical to it. So, it appears that alpha and cultured are the same thing. That means that the cultured-only bioware can indeed be raised to beta and delta level; it's just that cultured-only can't be bought at anything less than alpha-equivalent.

Um...has anyone just asked FanPro for a ruling on this?

Or was that stated elsewhere in this oversized thread and I missed?

But if we got that, then we'd have to stop beating the dead horse. And that horse deserves everything it gets. Stupid horse.

Speaking of which, how does everyone like their steak? Hate to see all that go to waste.

Problem is - previously, Alphaware is declared available for bioware.
That enables both Alpha Basic Bioware and Alpha Cultured Bioware.

Aside from it still doesn't beside C&P wording, that would open up the nice can of worms called reverse calculation when purchasing cultured ware of beta/delta... given the setup of SR4, this seems highly unlikely.

Since the flesh now must be so soft it should collapse... no, thanks.

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that "cultured bioware" is a subset of bioware in the same sense that "alpha-graded cyberware" is a subset of cyberware. To sum up page 64:

"Alphaware is more Essence friendly and more costly."
"Betaware is more Essence friendly and more costly."
"Deltaware is more Essence friendly and more costly."
"Cultured bioware is more Essence friendly and more costly."

But hey, if the rules for grading literally apply to all cyberware and bioware, then that must mean that alphaware can be delta-graded, right?

On the other hand, if Fanpro wanted to exempt cultured bioware from the grading rules (thereby restricting the scope of the first paragraph), then one option is to add a second paragraph stipulating the exception. Which, from my perspective, is what they did. It's not that different from someone who says "I like all music, except for country." You can't just ignore the second half of the statement in order to insist that "it logically follows" that the person likes country music.

To you it is the only logical possibility merely because you are blind to other logical possibilities.

Straw man. I'm perfectly fine with leaving the rule as it is. I'm also perfectly fine with the fact that that annoys you to no end.

It only "opens up a nice can of worms" if one assumes that cultured bioware can be upgraded.

Or it could be a legacy issue, where they wanted different names for the same thing, and never got around to fixing it. Given the number of pointless name changes in SR4, I think this is entirely possible. However, in the actual RAW, you're right-- there's nothing hard saying anything either way.

Out of curiosity, why? The setup of SR4 seems to be loaded with cans of worms and easily-abused loopholes. The whole system hasn't given more than lip service to simplicity.

Except that's not what it says at all. The way you're describing things, alphaware must be excluded from the bioware grading rules, since it's said to only apply to cyberware. All we have is that, possibly, cultured and alpha describe the exact same mechanic, only for different applications. This sort of name-changed cut-and-paste job is also prevalent in SR4; just compare the Magic and Technomancer rules.

As you pointed out, alphaware can't be upgraded either. However, you can buy the exact same thing in a higher grade. Since, by your arguments, cultured must be effectively the same thing as alphaware, there's nothing preventing a character from having a delta synaptic accellerator; the computations are just a bit more complicated.

The point is that the difference between a "rule" and a "description" is not clear-cut. Another example: the rules for composure tests (page 130). A character rolls Willpower + Charisma. A failed roll means the character "temporarily freezes with shock, or trembles and pisses herself." It doesn't say anything about dice modifiers, or tables to consult, etc. And although there is leeway in how the situation is roleplayed, that doesn't mean that there are no rules for it.

That's kind of my point. If a piece of equipment is described as a "gun," then that means the rules for ranged combat apply to it. You can't simply say that there is a hard-and-fast line between descriptions and rules, because they effect each other.

At the very least the rules are supposed to reflect the descriptions. Sometimes (e.g., ammunition types) they clearly don't. That violates the sensibilities of a lot of people, prompting them to rewrite the rules in favor of the descriptions, rather than the other way around. Of course, I am not advocating that any rules be re-written in the case of 'ware grades, I'm just saying that the description provides a paradigm for understanding how the rules are in fact implemented.

I would say that the word "ideal" is a flourish, of course, however it communicates the point that the drone is small and limber, which is necessary information for the GM and players alike.

I suppose that view could be defended. However, I consider it even more speculative than the current discussion. Nevertheless, you seem to be conceding that cultured bioware is a "grade" just like the others. Confirm?

Well, if there was a small table of "alphaware" in the book, I probably would think that being alpha was a fixed property of those wares, not that it could be upgraded to beta or delta (although that is debatable).

Then what? How much?
Where does it says Cultured Bioware is the equivalent of Alphaware?

Which, indeed, both they are... well, not in the same sense, but they are both subsets:
The one is a defined grade specified with rules, yet the other is an undefined grade without any further rules... then used as a category.

No. Read again.

You are right, it isn't specified additionally that the four grades are mutually exclusive.
Just, to pick up you colored cars example/straw man again - under normal language usage, that is deemed unneccessary.

Thanks - that you finally accept that all theories on that matter have to bow the initial rule "Cyberware and bioware is available in four grades: standard, alphaware, betaware, and deltaware."

It certainly is annoying that it took you so long.

That's no assumption, thats the word of the rules:
"Cyberware and bioware is available in four grades: standard, alphaware, betaware, and deltaware."
As Bioware is two-folded into Basic and Cultured, that makes any listed Bioware the equivalent of standard grade... while leaving open the possibility for upcoming rules allowing to upgrade Basic to Cultured.

Well, it certainly looks like a legacy issue.

Hm, mostly for the hassle of computing the exact essence cost - there isn't much abuse possibility in it.

That is a separate issue. If I said that "red" was a color, but I was unable to tell you its wavelengths, that does not prove that red isn't a color. For showing that cultured bioware is a "color," the following pattern, taken from page 64, is quite meaningful:

"Alphaware is a grade that is more Essence friendly and more costly."
"Betaware is a grade that is more Essence friendly and more costly."
"Deltaware is a grade that is more Essence friendly and more costly."
"Cultured bioware is a grade that is more Essence friendly and more costly."

Never said that it was. I said that it was a grade, just like alphaware and the others.

Correct. But at no point in that journey has it ceased to be a grade.

I never said it was necessary. It is implicit. And therefore it is implicit that cultured bioware cannot be delta-graded, being that both of them are grades.

I hope that you are just joking and that this is not actually a reflection of your reading comprehension.

As far as I can tell, you've been annoyed all along.

Since you are trying to prove it has a relevant game effect (the exclusion of other game effects) - no.

So, back on topic:
Higher then what? How much costlier?

Unless you can name that, there is no base for your assumptions.
Even then, you would have to prove that those two grade systems are mutually exclusive.

If claiming that 'red' is a color, you have to show a color that you can name 'red'.

And still isn't interfering with the defined greek grade system, since the term 'grade' isn't capitalized and can be used twice...

Sorry, that's a different level of implication and thus, a straw man and a slippery slope in one:
The first is something implicit by usage, the second implicit only when using a reverse.

Fortunately, I am not claiming that we need to have this information, because I am not introducing rules for taking a random piece of bioware and culture-grading it.

Only if you also have to prove that alphaware and deltaware are mutually exclusive.

"Green is a color that has a higher wavelength."
"Yellow is a color that has a higher wavelength."
"Orange is a color that has a higher wavelength."
"Red is a color that has a higher wavelength."

And your argument is simply that "red" isn't further explicated in the book, and since "color" isn't capitalized, therefore you can assign any meaning you like to it.

A straw man is when one opposes a position by mischaracterizing it. A slippery slope is when one opposes something by claiming that it inevitably leads to something worse. The sentence you quoted is a proposition; it is not opposing anything. But I am not surprised that you continue to misappropriate well-defined logical terms.

EDIT:
"Socrates is a man." If it is implicit that all men are mortal, then it is implict that "Socrates is mortal." But you just called this line of reasoning a slippery slope, so perhaps trying to convince you with logical arguments is a mistake.

Once again, you've made an unwarranted assumption in the prioritizing. Alphaware states that it's more Essence-friendly and more costly than standard cyberware. Betaware and Deltaware state that they're even more essence friendly and costly than Alpha. Cultured, however, only states that it's more Essence Friendly and costly than standard bioware.

You're assuming the chart must go like this: S---A---B---D---C
However, the problem is that there are an infinite number of other possibilities. Let's convert the grades to intergers, for an example. In this case, we'll set S=0, A=1, etc. Now, we have something that looks like this:

0---1---2---3

Now, the formula we have for determining the value of C is that C>S. In other words, C>0. So, C could be equal to 0.00000000001; which thanks to a little convention called Significant Figures, means that it's effectively the same as 0.

Well, there *are* rules for composure tests; but in that section, there is only a description of what happens if you fail. Because of that, you can't fairly implement a penalty on a character who fails a composure test. Compare that to the Fear power, which lists specific in-game effects. The results of a failed Fear tests are rules, while the results of a failed composure test are roleplay guidelines.

Under the ranged combat section, it specifically mentions "guns". The rules don't apply because a descriptor is applied; the descriptor instead refers to a specific rule.

Why? "Small" is already covered under Body, so what difference does "limber" make when calculating bonuses or penalties? Would you give the Kanmushi a bonus over an IBall, just because the IBall's description *doesn't* list it as being limber?

If there's a game effect to being "limber", it'd already be reflected in the Handling rating.

Why? Your argument hinges on the assumption that cultured bioware has a bonus above standard, and entirely relies on the fact that the cultured description specifically excludes cyberware. By your own standards, the same thing must apply to alphaware. If we assume that the terms "alpha" and "cultured" are interchangeable, like the sprite/spirit rules, then we see that there can easily be delta-grade reflex recorders.

Yeah, I get the feeling that they wanted to have three different kinds of advanced bioware, which would be equivalent to the alpha/beta/delta cyber ratings. Somebody probably politicked it to try and get the names standardized late in the game, but it was missed in the last few editing runs.

Considering that my last character attempt took me over four days to complete, I don't think ease-of-calculation fits anywhere in the SR4 mindview.

I agree with you. However, Rotbart doesn't see why my interpretation is at least as likely as his, so the argument is likely to continue.

They don't have to be. The rules very clearly state that higher grades of bioware and cyber exist. Just because something exists as alphaware doesn't mean that it can't also exist as deltaware. Does the fact that alpha wired reflexes are possible automatically mean that you can't have delta-wired?

Not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they don't stack. So you can't have a single piece of cyberware that is both alphaware AND deltaware.

Ah; well, carry on then.

Yet you are trying to claim that 'cultured' means 'higher than anything'.
Proof, please.

Now, please explain how you are computing a strong exclusion out of 'additionally'.

The theory of least assumptions still is four major grades first, then two additional grades for bioware.

I would, if trying to convince someone that he can't have two delta delta reflex boosters - the book doesn't exclude that possibility strongly.

Now that's a straw man.
'grade' describes the fact of setting a range, 'color' describes the range itself.

Which, no matter what you claim, you did.
Trying to opose something is intrinsic for arguments in a dispute.

Yet again, a straw man.
What you present is a conclusion through forward implication, your basic theory I criticise was a conclusion by reverse implication.

Sorry, but the one clearly lacking logical abilities is you.

Where does it say that?

By parsing the RAW it is - additionally after the fist four grades, yet undefined in game terms, which would be necessary converting basic into cultured.

No guesswork up until now.

We could always buy copies of the Spawn of Fashan and start argueing about that. Its slightly less confusing than SR4 but it still has plenty of goodness. Why, with its open-endedness we could even make an SR4-era Destiny Table for it.


Logica; analysis doesn't work here and shouldn't even be attempted. Logic has plenty of flaws and should be thrown out when it doesn''t work. Why, if Newton stuck to logic we still wouldn't understand gravity since logic says that you can't divide by zero. The Federation HQ isn't on Vulcan for a very good reason.

No, I am claiming that "cultured" is a type of "grade"--just like alpha-, beta-, and delta-grades--regardless of where it fits on that spectrum.

See below. Specifically, see what you call "reverse implication."

"The sky is blue" is a proposition. Just because someone might disagree doesn't mean that it is in any way a characterization of their belief.

"Socrates is a man." If it is implicit that all men are mortal, then it is implict that "Socrates is mortal."

"Cultured bioware is a grade." If it is implicit that grades do not stack, then it is implicit that "Cultured bioware does not stack."

I guess it's "forward implication" only when you happen to agree with the conclusion.

It doesn't. If you want to claim that a single piece of ware can be both alpha- and delta-graded, then be my guest. I don't think you'll get much support for that view (and you've already confessed that it's implicit in any case), but at least it's consistent. It also has the advantage of putting an end to our disagreement.

True - a grade.

There is the reverse:
It is only implicit that the normal four grades don't stack (as those are listed as choice.)
Your reverse is that 'grade' inherits that restriction, even if used out of that specific context.

So, that isn't a flawless conclusion.

Let's see.
"Bioware is available in four grades."
"Cultured Bioware is Bioware."
->
"Cultured Bioware is available in four grades."
Not implications, no reverse, directly true.



But, while it has been fun...

The usage of the pronoun "this" keeps things in the fuzzy, angry place.

Rob could be confirming either:

"It is possible to purchase bioware in alpha/beta/delta (including cultured) grades."

- or -

"It is possible to purchase bioware (including cultured) in alpha/beta/delta grades."

.... It's almost funny.

But that's definitely funny.

Would you guys find that sufficiently explicit? Or would you need something with even less wiggle room? Maybe a squad of angels glowing in the sky sending telepathic impetus in every language demanding that characters be allowed to purchase Alpha-grade Damage Compensators if they can afford it?

-Frank

I don't need that, but you have to admit it would be prett cool if it happened.