You seriously can't see the difference in what you were saying? You can't clarify something by changing your argument. Now, you may have been correcting what you mistakenly said, but that's a different beast. By the way, feel free to not be coy; my comment about the oracle was 100% intended to be snarky, because this:

"If you always try to see the rules as RAI, you take an overall picture of how the game should be played - what the devs intended the rules to mean, rather than what the rules say"

is nonsense. Now, since "of course" we don't have an oracle into the dev's minds, the only source we have for their intent is the rules as written. Now, the rules threads on DS are generally broken into two groups:

1. Practical advice for actually playing - here is where your method would be fine (though dev intent is generally considered irrelevant next to good play, for the sake of argument I'll assume Yera is right about what you really mean by that)

2. Rules Lawyer threads - where we see if we can break the game. Bringing purposeful interpretation into those threads would be counter to the point, the point is to look at what was actually written. Not that interpretation isn't sometimes a part of that, but we keep it as strictly RAW as we can.

So which type of threads are you talking about? And how would your method be adding something that isn't there?

There is no changing of argument going on - I think that saying "dev intent" is very clearly using your own interpretation of dev intent. I think it's very obvious that noone has a crystal ball into the devs mind, and so doesn't need to be stated. You seemed to have misunderstood my meaning, so I attempted to clarify something I initially thought was obvious.


I was attempting to be polite and not call you out by name.


I feel you're focusing too narrowly on this "dev intent" point, making it into a bigger issue. In the multiple replies that I've made on this thread, I might not have reiterated my main point(s) in full excrutiating detail EVERY single time. This is actually really interestingly meta, as you're applying the same rules lawyering to my posts as I see being done with RAW. Yes, if you take that one single sentence, out of context of the whole 8 page thread, it might sound a bit wonky. If you've read everything else written here, and use that context (the phlap intent), this one single sentence won't seem so glaringly wrong, I think. Continuous, not discrete.


1. Yes, of course - I'm very sure that I've reiterated several times that good, fun play trumps everything yes.

2. Definitely adding "I think" to all of your posts, mentally

3. Well, at least this post was fairly on-topic. I'm going to have to end with a GOTO 10 statement here, as it seems we're right back at the beginning

Why don't you go ahead and re-iterate it again then, clearly? Or point me to where you did so. As I mentioned in my post, I'm going with the assumption that you means something along these lines:

Well, this topic HAS wandered quite a bit. My original point, that started it all, was the first post in the thread. People have responded with their answers, many of them good answers to my question. I'm well satisfied with the answers I've gotten. I may not see eye-to-eye with every answer given, but ok. The main point is dead, done, buried.

Now we're on to the meta-argument, about my arguing style / whether I should post these kinds of threads / etc. Which I'm only continuing because it's interesting to me, and it's good practice for helping me learn to be more accurate in my writings

And finally, after thinking about it, I do appreciate the time / effort you still seem to be putting in to this. I'll try not to look at it this way

http://xkcd.com/386/

Ok, fair enough I guess. In the interest of a continued good time then, I'll ask, why did you include the following:









Without statements like these, that detracted heavily from your point, this probably would have been a much more civil and enjoyable thread. While I don't particularly agree with your main point either, it was at least a valid point to raise.

I look at statements like these, and all I can say is "Squibbldy grobbly gork." if you know what I mean.

edit: yes, I have that xkcd printed out on my wall. I'm disabled, and an insomniac - aside from when I get out to game, arguing on the internet is pretty much my sum of human interaction these days.

I thought it would be clear what I was saying by "there are no informal discussions". Apparently I am wrong, so let me clarify:

Humans, as individuals tend to favor their own position, over other positions. As a result, they are reluctant to accept a different viewpoint and will try to defend their own viewpoint whenever it is challenged. Some more adamant than others, but noone will simply give up their position without at least an attempt to defend their own position.
Positions are attacked by refutations and as a prerequisite, argumentation and justification. The formality of the setting is irrelevant as far as that mechanics are concerned. As a result, even "informal discussions" will have a premise, arguments, refutations and a conclusion. The only thing that differs is the willingness to abandon one's own position, but not the means by which to defend or refute am argument.

My apologies for simply assuming everyone was on the same page about that.

Let's see...
Guaranteed there's not a sentence in the English language that can't be parsed 5 ways to Sunday. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is', is".
This was relevant to the main topic - why play RAW? Seemed not so useful or "fun" when the wording of the rules can be twisted so easily.
I think that any particular rule, there are a million ways to interpret it
Same thing

The last two? Yeah, they look pretty obtuse I'll respectfully retract them, maybe not my best writing. But if you had just ignored those or made a (polite) joke about those specifically or kindly suggested they weren't the best writing, maybe you wouldn't have gotten so annoyed.


It's funny you did this, another poster also already said the same thing. I think
Joking aside, I think this kind of thing is representative of the "slippery slope", but let's not get in to another "discussion" on this...


Thanks for that look into your life - it's interesting to see how people have the time to post on here. My current project ended at work, so I have some free time until the next one starts (keeping fingers crossed..)

Except your main topic was "why care about RAW" and why discuss it in the forums, thats wholly different think from playing with RAW.
Many who post on the RAW topics do use house rules, sometimes even for the RAW that is being arguet about in that topic.
Sometimes people even learn that their "House rules" are actually RAW once its being explained to them.

This is pretty DEEP in the terms of what you say a discussion is. To assume we're all on the same page about that? We'd all have to be Ph.D. philosophers / behaviorlists (?) / sociologists. Assuming I agree with this, of course

Sorry, I had too much going on and you're right, I should have written "argue" instead of "play". I'll leave the post the way it is so it doesn't seem like I'm sneakily backtracking.

Your answer, in various forms, has been given to me, and I'm not "arguing" against those people now. It's all good

Am I the only person thinking that if he took his own advice, this thread wouldn't exist?

My point is just that there's zero connection between 'formality' and 'having premise, arguments, refutations and a conclusion.' From someone so ostentatiously striving to use words carefully, I found it notable.

Judging by the crickets, I'd say yes, you are the only one.

Assuming you're actually interested instead of just trying to do a drive-by on me, I ask that you re-read the thread and note the many places where I attempt to keep this discussion light-hearted and civil. Then note the times when others aren't so polite. Then tell me that you stand by your above comment.

And really? Talking to "the crowd" instead of directly to me is kind of a jerk-move. I'm not sure why you'd want to cast yourself in such a negative light. Let me know if I've mischaracterized you.

lol

Classic I have that up on my office wall

exactly

I wouldn't figure that the lack of replies in less than a day immediately means that he doesn't have people who agree with him.

Yeah, that's a valid point.

I stand by my comment. If you took your own advice, the advice I specifically quote, I believe this thread wouldn't exist. Your behavior in the rest of the thread has no bearing on that observation.

I believe that "if you had just ignored those or made a (polite) joke about those specifically or kindly suggested they weren't the best writing, maybe you wouldn't have gotten so annoyed.", for example you wouldn't have needed to start this thread.

But since you bring it up, you don't appear to me to be any more light hearted and civil than anyone else in this thread. (Mooncrow, to me does, but that's not what we're talking about.) Then again, you know what your intent and meaning is and all I have is your words to go by. Am I expected to understand the intent and meaning behind your words more than the intent and meaning behind anyone else's words?

I talked to you. You agreed with me that your problem was in people overstating their case and not speaking clearly. Since then it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that you're not making your case clearly. You've since kept on the conversation because you find it fun, ignoring the possibility that all the comments people made that influenced you to start this conversation in the first place were made because the people making them enjoyed making them.


It may be that you're holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. I'm really not that good of a person. Trust me on this.

Seriously, the only reason I'm reading this thread is for the irony value. I have some hopes that it will strike you how ironic this thread really is. An entire thread based on everyone else's inability to be clear, from the people who write the rules to the people who post in this forum, all by someone who expects everyone else to forgive his lack of clarity. I enjoy that level of irony. If you don't, I'm sorry, but since you felt free to point it out about everyone else, I figured a precedent was set. If I'm wrong, my bad and my apologies.

Fair enough - although I still maintain that the point of the thread wasn't annoyance or whatnot, but a genuine idea / question. Maybe I had a little bit of an agenda, as D2F is trying to show? Sure, I can roll with that. Not so unique to do that here, though, is it? Did you feel that I proposed my idea in an impolite or demeaning kind of way?


Sorry it doesn't appear that way to you. I def. think it stopped being so light-hearted after awhile, although having this thread called a steaming pile and not responding in kind is just one big example of many in my favor. Rather than go back and quote specific instances, I'll not belabor the point.


Yes, that previous posting of yours went very well, I thought. And it's not really true that I've ignored the possibility - again, if you'll go back and read the thread, I hope you can spot the several times that I concede someone else's idea and viewpoint. But at some point in this conversation, I was engaged in a Rigid Debate, which sort of moved the goal posts of the original discussion. At that point, we weren't arguing / discussing the main point, we were arguing about the argument.


Well, none of us are perfect, that's true. What you say is possible


As I said earlier in the thread, yes, the irony does strike me. Although it's not quite the irony I think you mean.

One thing - it sounds like you're saying I'm blaming people in my main post. "An entire thread based on everyone else's inability to be clear, from the people who write the rules to the people who post in this forum". Once again, I'd like to reiterate - this thread isn't about blaming anyone. More like trying to float the idea that it seems TO ME that only appealing to RAW causes more trouble than it should be, when it's relied upon as gospel. There've been several people posting here, about the main topic, and that all seemed to go ok.

My main problem with you "pointing it out" was that you weren't trying to point it out to me, you were trying to point out something about me to everyone else, while specifically not speaking to me. A little insulting, no?

Anyway, thanks for apologies. I'm glad you're enjoying this thread, at the least

I don't believe it is. When you started this thread was it addressed to the people who inspired you to post it or was it addressed to everyone else? Were you insulting people who talk about RAW by starting this thread? I didn't assume so. When you started this thread "you were trying to point out something about me other people to everyone else, while specifically not speaking to me those people". Given that, I'm a little lost on why my post was insulting but the original post isn't. There must be some important difference I'm missing. I'm not socially smart.

The difference here is that I was obviously(?) not speaking about one specific person, or even any identifiable group of people. Unless you think addressing a topic to "SR players / DS readers" is too targeted?

Whereas when you say "hey everybody, this guy here, isn't he wrong?" directly on this very thread you know I'm reading, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It smacks of not wanting to actually provide any input, just wanting to do a drive-by heckling.

In yet ANOTHER reiteration, yes, some might have taken offense at my post, even if I meant none. If you'd read the thread (!) you'll again notice I'm quick to apologize to them and attempt to clarify so as to not give offense.

Anyway, this argument is devolving even further than it's already done. Let's just leave it at mutual respectful disagreement, shall we?

I read that as 'frigid' and now I am somewhat ashamed.