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!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Clearly stating your main idea

Backing your main idea up with specific supporting statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

I always thought the RAW for focii was pretty straightforward.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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



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

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


What exactly would he have been trying to refute with that statement? Go ahead, point me at it. I stand by it: It was not an ad hominem fallacy


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


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


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

The proper useage would be "Rules as Intended"

as Intended by whom?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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...

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

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?

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!)

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 =/

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.

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

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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

Including give you their very life force, Mooncrow.

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

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

Part I


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


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



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



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



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


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


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

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

Part II


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



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

To put that into a more readbale format:

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Part I


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Reply to Part II


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

...

Ok, thanks, found it...

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the background for it is here:

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