If you truly believe this, then you really won't find a place for yourself here. You need to be open to people stating facts that contradict your beliefs, or you are not capable of participating in constructive discussions. And if you're not capable of participating in constructive discussions, then nobody here will tolerate you or even pay attention to you. For good reason.
His comment most certainly was offensive. To say "you have no idea what you are talking about" to someone is condescending and incites the very kind of off-topic discussions we are having right now. He even admits that he is "abrasive."
If he had merely said, "I disagree" and explained why, then we all could have been participating in the kind of constructive discussion that you claim to desire. Instead, we are here having an unproductive discussion on how to use these forums.
See, the disconnect here is that Era doesn't post opinions (nor do I) unless we label them as such. We aren't discussing opinions, but facts. So to say we know more facts then you do is absolutely true. As evidenced by your posting an opinion which is contrary to the facts. It isn't that a disagree with your opinion, it is that your opinion is objectively wrong.
And I said people think of me as abrasive. People don't like being told they are wrong and I make no effort to be anything but blunt when people are. What people think about my posting style and what I think about my posting style are not the same thing. Distinctions, they matter. Like the distinction between fact and opinion.
There is no constructive discussion that can be had when one person is operating in a context that is not based in reality. So... no, that wouldn't have happened.
Um, the analogy is very apt, actually. You didn't know that CS was useless. I knew that they were useless and why, down to which company they are.
LDB invented the term Low System Mastery. Which is an insult designed for this precise situation, actually. In general he is helpful and respectful. Of course, in general, so am I. So thanks for the comparison. I appreciate the compliment. People respect LDB because of all the work he put in, not because he is a particularly nice person when someone is being an idiot (he isn't, though he is funnier about it then I am). You can't separate me telling you your opinion is wrong becuase it contradicts facts from attacking you personally. That is your problem. But the reason your opinion is wrong is you have Low System Mastery. There, now I'm being rude.
Actually Ruinsfate is really the only person who is nice even when someone is being stupid, in basically all of CharOp.
No, your analogy is still inept, because it is based on a faulty premise. As I said before, you do not know more about, nor do you have any more authority on D&D than I or anyone else on these boards.
Also, I did not compare you to LDB. I contrasted you to him. You and he could not be more different. He earns respect. You crave it so badly you pretend that you alone know what is the correct interpretation of the rules of D&D and shout down anyone who disagrees with you.
By the way, it is rediculous to say that you can't separate the person from the opinion. That is the whole philosophy of "Shooting the messenger." If you get bad news, you don't get angry at the person delivering the bad news, you deal with the bad news.
So, it's up to you. If you want to engage in constructive dialog, be civil to the people who hold a different opinion than you.
Or, if instead you want to engage in never-ending, non-productive discussions like these, by all means, continue doing what you've been doing.
Just because you'd like the premise to be faulty doesn't make it so. I think you'll find that many people would be willing to say I know a great deal more about 4e then you do, up to and including developers who have asked me for feedback on errata. And, as it happens, knowing more about something does give you authority greater then people who know less. Fundamentally.
Um, so why are you shooting the messanger? I said you can't separate it. I can separate it just fine. ^.^ Reading is important.
See, I am civil to people who hold a different opinion then me. I am not civil to people who are wrong about facts are and either too stubborn or too stupid to admit it. Partly because they don't meet my definition of "people" because behavior of that kind is irrational and I'm with Socrates on this: true human beings are rational. But that is a philosophical digresssion.
See, the disconnect here is that Era doesn't post opinions (nor do I) unless we label them as such. We aren't discussing opinions, but facts. So to say we know more facts then you do is absolutely true. As evidenced by your posting an opinion which is contrary to the facts. It isn't that a disagree with your opinion, it is that your opinion is objectively wrong.
And I said people think of me as abrasive. People don't like being told they are wrong and I make no effort to be anything but blunt when people are. What people think about my posting style and what I think about my posting style are not the same thing. Distinctions, they matter. Like the distinction between fact and opinion.
There is no constructive discussion that can be had when one person is operating in a context that is not based in reality. So... no, that wouldn't have happened.
It is comical that you think you and Erachima only post facts. Your posts have been littered with opinions. I agree with you that distinctions matter. The problem is that you apparently do not have the ability to discern fact from opinion. You think your opinions can't be wrong and therefore must be fact. And, if it's a fact, then everyone else's opinion must be wrong.
It is comical that you think you and Erachima only post facts. Your posts have been littered with opinions. I agree with you that distinctions matter. The problem is that you apparently do not have the ability to discern fact from opinion. You think your opinions can't be wrong and therefore must be fact. And, if it's a fact, then everyone else's opinion must be wrong.
No, I said we distinguish between the two. Do try and keep up. The issue is that your opinion is in contradiction to actual facts. My opinions can be wrong (though rarely are, that is true), but that isn't relevant in this case. You are objectively wrong because your opinion disagrees with facts. Facts carry more weight. The issue is you can't tell that CS being useless is a fact and not an opinion. You can't tell that this forum operates on RAW, or why, and that it is not a matter of opinion. It is almost tautological to state that if people disagree with me I am going to think they are wrong. I mean... you think I'm wrong based solely on the fact that I am disagreeing with you. Your position is either irrational or hypocritical, you pick.
Disagreeing with facts is just irrational, in either case.
I think you need a quick reality check Andrakin, in all honesty.
I'll state as a premise that I agree on considering that a good deal of CharOP regular contributors could use a moment to ponder the concept of "diplomacy". Alcestis made no attempt to conceal that he's usually flatly blunt about things, and as a human being I commend him for being honest about that. Not that, with the same honesty, I wouldn't recommend him to try and be a little less blunt. But I digress.
The problem here is that you are taking a wrong assumption as a fundamental truth. Alcestis, Erachima, as LDB and others, do in fact have a more intimate knowledge of D&D than the majority of people that lurks or even posts in this forum. A Higher System Mastery, if we want to go by that term (which I find funny). I, for one, consider myself a prime example of a poster with less insight on D&D than them. I like to think I have a nearly limitless knowledge in other things, including other gaming communities, but that doesn't make me better at D&D than people who actually have explored this system through and through. I don't know about you, but I consider it imprudent at the very least, if not flat out rude, claiming that you hold the same authority on these matters as people who have been recognized by the community and, in some cases, by the developers themselves, as reliable sources, bitches or not they may be or appear to be. I could ask a couple dozens random players and I'm pretty sure the majority of them would recognize LDB or Era by name, and not a single one would know who you are. Or me, for that matter.
Said that, you indeed are mistaking opinions for facts. That CharOP operates by RAW it is a fact. Such is this board very premise, and assuming that RAI matters in a CharOP discussion is like saying "but my DM can change the rules". Of course he can. That doesn't mean the rules aren't what's in the books. Besides, RAI is limited by interpretation by its fundamental meaning, which is another reason why CharOP doesn't operate upon it. What Alcestis says about CS being unreliable is another straight fact. It is not considered a rule source, noone ever said it should be (not even Wizards) and stating that anyone could end a RAW argument by asking CS is simply and flat-out wrong. Same stuff goes for the CB. Even the core of the discussion, assuming whether PMC allows you to acquire level-less powers or not, it's a RAW argument governed by straight facts. Facts, in that case, are that the rules text, as printed do allow a player to obtain stuff like DWA, despite being a power without a level. That's what the text says. You can argue all you want about RAI, I may even concede that out of common sense, it shouldn't permit such trade-offs. But *those* are opinions. *Facts* are what's written in the books. I could even trick you by saying the fact that PMC states the levels of your gained Encounter, Utility and Daily powers, but says nothing about the At-Will, could be considered proof by itself that such trade-offs are intended, despite what you and me may think. This is why RAI isn't reliable in these cases.
What happened here is that you argued RAI, and got answered by RAW, as it should be in CharOP. Cited CS as a reliable source, and be dismissed about it -as it should be because of CS nature. And instead of moving on, you kept going about how unfair some posters appear to you. Honestly dude: reality check and move on.
It is comical that you think you and Erachima only post facts. Your posts have been littered with opinions. I agree with you that distinctions matter. The problem is that you apparently do not have the ability to discern fact from opinion. You think your opinions can't be wrong and therefore must be fact. And, if it's a fact, then everyone else's opinion must be wrong.
No, I said we distinguish between the two. Do try and keep up. The issue is that your opinion is in contradiction to actual facts. My opinions can be wrong (though rarely are, that is true), but that isn't relevant in this case. You are objectively wrong because your opinion disagrees with facts. Facts carry more weight. The issue is you can't tell that CS being useless is a fact and not an opinion. You can't tell that this forum operates on RAW, or why, and that it is not a matter of opinion. It is almost tautological to state that if people disagree with me I am going to think they are wrong. I mean... you think I'm wrong based solely on the fact that I am disagreeing with you. Your position is either irrational or hypocritical, you pick.
Disagreeing with facts is just irrational, in either case.
The one having trouble keeping up is you. Your intense dislike for CS makes you think I based my argument on CS and not all of the related facts. Re-read my initial posts before you derailed this thread and you will see. I based my argument on all of the related factors with regard to the ambiguity in PMC to determine what is the most-likely correct answer. CS was just one tiny part of that. Since then, you have based all of your posts on your hatred for CS, not fact, which is irrational and hypocritical.
I think you need a quick reality check Andrakin, in all honesty.
I'll state as a premise that I agree on considering that a good deal of CharOP regular contributors could use a moment to ponder the concept of "diplomacy". Alcestis made no attempt to conceal that he's usually flatly blunt about things, and as a human being I commend him for being honest about that. Not that, with the same honesty, I wouldn't recommend him to try and be a little less blunt. But I digress.
The problem here is that you are taking a wrong assumption as a fundamental truth. Alcestis, Erachima, as LDB and others, do in fact have a more intimate knowledge of D&D than the majority of people that lurks or even posts in this forum. A Higher System Mastery, if we want to go by that term (which I find funny). I, for one, consider myself a prime example of a poster with less insight on D&D than them. I like to think I have a nearly limitless knowledge in other things, including other gaming communities, but that doesn't make me better at D&D than people who actually have explored this system through and through. I don't know about you, but I consider it imprudent at the very least, if not flat out rude, claiming that you hold the same authority on these matters as people who have been recognized by the community and, in some cases, by the developers themselves, as reliable sources, bitches or not they may be or appear to be. I could ask a couple dozens random players and I'm pretty sure the majority of them would recognize LDB or Era by name, and not a single one would know who you are. Or me, for that matter.
Said that, you indeed are mistaking opinions for facts. That CharOP operates by RAW it is a fact. Such is this board very premise, and assuming that RAI matters in a CharOP discussion is like saying "but my DM can change the rules". Of course he can. That doesn't mean the rules aren't what's in the books. Besides, RAI is limited by interpretation by its fundamental meaning, which is another reason why CharOP doesn't operate upon it. What Alcestis says about CS being unreliable is another straight fact. It is not considered a rule source, noone ever said it should be (not even Wizards) and stating that anyone could end a RAW argument by asking CS is simply and flat-out wrong. Same stuff goes for the CB. Even the core of the discussion, assuming whether PMC allows you to acquire level-less powers or not, it's a RAW argument governed by straight facts. Facts, in that case, are that the rules text, as printed do allow a player to obtain stuff like DWA, despite being a power without a level. That's what the text says. You can argue all you want about RAI, I may even concede that out of common sense, it shouldn't permit such trade-offs. But *those* are opinions. *Facts* are what's written in the books. I could even trick you by saying the fact that PMC states the levels of your gained Encounter, Utility and Daily powers, but says nothing about the At-Will, could be considered proof by itself that such trade-offs are intended, despite what you and me may think. This is why RAI isn't reliable in these cases.
What happened here is that you argued RAI, and got answered by RAW, as it should be in CharOP. Cited CS as a reliable source, and be dismissed about it -as it should be because of CS nature. And instead of moving on, you kept going about how unfair some posters appear to you. Honestly dude: reality check and move on.
I appreciate what your are trying to do. I believe that you and I could have a discussion without it ever devolving into what is going on with Alcestis.
However, if you re-read my original posts, you will see that I actually agreed with Dzance, that by RAW, it appeared that he could do exactly what he said he could do. So, I disagree with you that I made an RAI vs RAW argument. I agree with you that I used RAI to support my argument, but I also supported it with other related RAW and CB. I mentioned CS, but did not cite it as a reliable resource and clearly said that none of these were the final arbiter on the subject. I did say that they added to the body of evidence to suggest that maybe PMC couldn't be used that way. There was also a post by Thespaceinvader which accurately summed up my position. We were having a very positive, constructive discussion of our differing viewpoints until Alcestis jumped in and derailed the whole conversation. Apparently the mere mention of CS makes him go apes**t.
"Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in it's place."
