|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:25PM
#341
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2007
|
Baron... come on man, the Sidious thread has even more outlandish and ridiculous statements than that in every way, shape, and form. While I agree with much of what you said, I don't see how saying "you weren't paying attention" is akin to anything in that thread. That thread was ridiculous and completely excessive. :P
Search your feelings, S1AL. In which way has the thread been "ridiculous" and "completely excessive"? I believe you feel that way because a group of folk have stated that we believe a specific design decision was poorly made.
Another group disagrees with that and responds.
The original group responds in turn. Further arguing and discussion ensue. So what’s the problem?
Some names may have been called on this thread, and there may have been some accusations of being “stupid” or “not knowing how the game works”, but I don’t think that’s why you feel the discussion has been ridiculous. I could be wrong, but I suspect the primary reason you feel the discussion is ridiculous, is because it exists and has existed for so long… and you never agreed with its premise in the first place.
If that is the case, then such things do not ridiculous and completely excessive make.
EDIT: The reason I empathized a little with rleader is because I've often encountered the mindframe of, "I think this because I pay attention to things; you think this because you don't." Or, "If you knew as much information as me, you would obviously feel the same way." It's an internal assumption that most people make in everyday life, including me, but it's awfully patronizing in it's own little way. Granted, people usually don't MEAN it to be patronizing or offensive, so...  But it's also dismissive. And dismissive is more wont to bring errors.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:33PM
#342
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
How did neither of us notice that we're talking about this in the very thread we mentioned... wow, just wow. LOL
Search your feelings, S1AL. In which way has the thread been "ridiculous" and "completely excessive"? I believe you feel that way because a group of folk have stated that we believe a specific design decision was poorly made.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who go on for ridiculous lengths about how stupid it was to make it Sith, how much better it would be in the Separatists, or the opposite arguments, without ever answering any critique of their statements. Could it have been Sep? Sure, cool... it's NOT. Rob has clearly and publicly stated the reasons from two different angles, and people are still on about what a big mistake it was. Refusal to see the other side of the argument is the main problem.
Another group disagrees with that and responds.
The original group responds in turn. Further arguing and discussion ensue. So what’s the problem?
The problem is when people start taking refutation personally, even though they fail to answer the critique and simply continue to rant, repeating themselves to excess without making a logical rebuttal. We've been over this in a half-dozen threads. That is the reason that elitist comments keep arising... people don't like to answer challenges to their statements but think that they have this indelible "right to their opinions" without understandign the right of others to say that they are wrong.
Some names may have been called on this thread, and there may have been some accusations of being “stupid” or “not knowing how the game works”, but I don’t think that’s why you feel the discussion has been ridiculous. I could be wrong, but I suspect the primary reason you feel the discussion is ridiculous, is because it exists and has existed for so long… and you never agreed with its premise in the first place.
I completely agree with the premise. Sidious could have been a Separatist piece... I have no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with people who refuse to "drop it" even after being told that they are wrong and being unable to respond with a logical argument. At the risk of being a hypocrite, I will say this again: Repetition of an argument without a rebuttal to disagreements is like being a mindless parrot. If you cannot answer critiques or your arguments without using circular or repetitive logic, you should simply accept that you are wrong.
If that is the case, then such things do not ridiculous and completely excessive make.
Come on, we don't need any more inverse-English fortune cookies around here :P.
My blog (everyone else is doing it...): http://ideas-abounding.blogspot.com/ "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors, they all have their pros and cons." - Relient K DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nice person. MOTL Sale List: http://www.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/087367.html#0  Sig by the modest, yet talented, zpikduM.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:36PM
#343
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
EDIT: The reason I empathized a little with rleader is because I've often encountered the mindframe of, "I think this because I pay attention to things; you think this because you don't." Or, "If you knew as much information as me, you would obviously feel the same way." It's an internal assumption that most people make in everyday life, including me, but it's awfully patronizing in it's own little way. Granted, people usually don't MEAN it to be patronizing or offensive, so...
Did you ever stop to think that it's not patronizing or offensive, but is simply a facet of life? I have yet to meet a person who has never changed his mind after being presented with new evidence from someone with a superior knowledge of the subject. People don't like to be wrong, so they choose to be "offended" because their "opinions" hold no water and have been challenged by someone who knows the subject well. That's a sign of immaturity with which everyone struggles from time to time, or perhaps more often than that  .
My blog (everyone else is doing it...): http://ideas-abounding.blogspot.com/ "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors, they all have their pros and cons." - Relient K DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nice person. MOTL Sale List: http://www.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/087367.html#0 Sig by the modest, yet talented, zpikduM.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:49PM
#344
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2007
|
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who go on for ridiculous lengths about how stupid it was to make it Sith, how much better it would be in the Separatists, or the opposite arguments, without ever answering any critique of their statements.
Ah, okay. I can see that as personal attacks against Rob and Wizards development, as if none of them would be reading the thread. I admit it's easier to avoid personal attacks against users, than it is to avoid personal attacks against the people who develop a subject you are critiquing. I admit to not often thinking about it, unfortunately.
Rob has clearly and publicly stated the reasons from two different angles, and people are still on about what a big mistake it was. Refusal to see the other side of the argument is the main problem.
But you can see the other side of the argument, yet you still take your position. People can make different value judgments on what a "mistake" is. And by "mistake", I'm referring to an unfortunate choice.
The problem is when people start taking refutation personally, even though they fail to answer the critique and simply continue to rant, repeating themselves to excess without making a logical rebuttal. We've been over this in a half-dozen threads. That is the reason that elitist comments keep arising... people don't like to answer challenges to their statements but think that they have this indelible "right to their opinions" without understandign the right of others to say that they are wrong.
You and I and others have managed to avoid taking refutations personally. Both you and I, and others, have answered each others' critiques. It is circular because we fail to accept each others' answers as correct. The same reason people still give the same arguments about economy, politics, religion... even though minis is just a simple game.
A statement like, "Darth Sidious, Hologram should have been Separatist instead of Sith" cannot be proven correct or incorrect. It is not based on fact, nor is its inverse based on fact. It's also not based on any basic tenet of morality or social good. Like Star Wars itself, it's just a playful thing, and people will of course disagree on the nature of it.
I don't believe this means that either of those argument sets or circular, or that those arguments should stop happening.
However, I do have a problem with people who refuse to "drop it" even after being told that they are wrong and being unable to respond with a logical argument.
Told that they are wrong? The other end has been "told that they are wrong" several times over, and yet they continue. 
At the risk of being a hypocrite, I will say this again: Repetition of an argument without a rebuttal to disagreements is like being a mindless parrot. If you cannot answer critiques or your arguments without using circular or repetitive logic, you should simply accept that you are wrong.
You failed to accept our counterarguments as valid rebuttals, and perhaps we failed to recognize yours as valid either. I'm not saying that both sides are correct. I'm saying that dismissing an argument as "circular", when it is no more circular than the other one, would be a mistake.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 2:55PM
#345
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2007
|
Did you ever stop to think that it's not patronizing or offensive, but is simply a facet of life?
Often it is. I never argue with billiv about squad strengths or strategies (if I do, it's probably an accident). But I do not think you believe that, anytime someone claims to have more knowledge or more experience about a specific topic, and that is the basis for them having an opposing point of view... that this is always the case.
You may not have ever met someone who refused to change his mind after being introduced to new information, but I would wager you have met someone who claims to have more information and more experience but actually does not.
With the Thrawn and Revan Tactician examples, we weren't even talking about more experience. We were talking about superior interpretation. How can the other person have a different interpretation? He must not have paid attention.
EDIT: I don't believe there's any elitism here. I've seen too many of "the elite" argue with themselves far too often, as well as being receptive to ideas from those of us who aren't winning tournaments.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:22PM
#346
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2007
|
I completely agree with the premise. Sidious could have been a Separatist piece... I have no problem with that. However, I do have a problem with people who refuse to "drop it" even after being told that they are wrong and being unable to respond with a logical argument. At the risk of being a hypocrite, I will say this again: Repetition of an argument without a rebuttal to disagreements is like being a mindless parrot. If you cannot answer critiques or your arguments without using circular or repetitive logic, you should simply accept that you are wrong.
Well, something that strikes me about this is that you are equating not being able to rebut a point with being wrong. If someone makes a point against your argument and you can't figure out a way to refute this, it doesn't mean that there is no way. Nor does it mean you are wrong or they are right. It also seems to me that most of us, if not all of us, are arguing not what could have been but what should have been. Another problem is that some of the critiques were not recognized but merely dismissed. There seems to be a disturbing amount of dismissing points of view without any real justification. I can recall my position being referred to as indefensible, which I find puzzling since I was/am defending it. How is one to refute a blatant contradiction?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:27PM
#347
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2007
|
To be fair, this thread probably would've died sooner if it hadn't gone off-topic.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:34PM
#348
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2006
|
ORC_KiRin didn't delete that specific phrase from your post, since it's still there (unless you re-added it?). I have no idea what he did delete. I can only assume it was something rough.
He told billiv15 to shut up, and in no uncertian terms.
As for the cause of all this, certian characters are designed to work a certian way. "MT" is on two characters for a reason. "ITs a trap" was on one for a long time for the same reason.
I think there a plenty of ways to design a character, look at vader, all of them fit his resume. I'd perfer him to be Seperatist, that would help all thsoe fleshys in the SEP faction that need help, but the Sith faction is an even better fit for him in terms of what the game needs.
Best gaming community in the world. My collection is proof.
2009 SWM RAC member
795 Club member
Over 75 Good trades, Zero Negatives
You can check out my squads at Bloomilk, or share in more conversations at SWMGAMERS
"There is always a choice..."
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:35PM
#349
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2007
|
Probably, and I've been avoiding posting while not on the topic. But I think, considering the answer I got from Rob about my question, that perhaps we have differing opinions of fundamental aspects of the game. For example, I don't feel that accomplishments of a character are a sufficient condition for assigning faction. Nor do I believe that such a reason should override precedent. But this ties directly into what we feel is justifiable. While I do not feel that these decision are justified, others may. Once an argument gets to this point, we are no longer arguing about the circumstances of the game but rather we are arguing about epistemology.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:42PM
#350
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2007
|
I think there a plenty of ways to design a character, look at vader, all of them fit his resume. I'd perfer him to be Seperatist, that would help all thsoe fleshys in the SEP faction that need help, but the Sith faction is an even better fit for him in terms of what the game needs.
No argument against what the game needs. I have a feeling that more casual players would be more concerned about what they feel makes sense rather than areas in which the game could be improved. Players that are more competitive, I think, will focus more on what the game needs. I would still say that if their goal was to create such an effect, there are way to do it in which both parties would be more satisfied (like sith ghosts or holocrons). It seems very much to me like consistency has been sacrificed for effects that were wanted. It would seem that no matter how you look at it, there are other decisions that would appease both parties.
|
|
|
