With Lohakahn, of which we saw numerous logs of him flagrantly disregarding parity in order to gang on dios, and the imm comments in his PBF, that the village is far too lax with its standards?

We all saw the logs. Sure, a couple times you might say well you dont know the circumstances. When its numerous times, with a role that says lol I can gang as much as I want cause its in my role and still be a rager, and imms (specifically thror) are still fans of his character, and are using words like "a bit" and "probably" regarding egregious breaches of parity, can we finally admit theres a problem?

The standards are too lax, or else the enforcement is.

nt

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

Pro wasn't the only one to agree with you, but I see what you did here.

People must think you are amazing now.

The same people complaining about the same things over and over and over. It never seems to stop. I just believe both people need a reality check.

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

I never, EVER, personally saw Lohakahn break parity or the rules of the tablet. However, I did see immortal histories and logs of him doing so. Personally, I like to see things first hand.

It's like firing an employee over the perspective of another Department Head. I listen to both sides of the story and look for consistency in what I see.

I think you and other players are over-reacting about how 'lax' we are. In fact, there's a string of bitching that took place over reducing skill points on village powers with Pyrox.

You can't have it all folks!

If you like to see things first hand, but your experiences aren't jiving up with people who are online more than you are, and people are complaining about a chronic problem in a thing you're supposed to be watching, you should consider playing more. Or play an Iunna mort so she'll play more.

I'll do my part.

Splntrd

I'll bite.

You should consider making a heroimm and fixing it. I don't play well with sideline critics.

It's enforced as well as it can be considering the number of Battle Immortals that are around. If you're asking me to give more of my life to this game, you're going to be disappointed every-single-time.

I've been around long enough to understand what "doing my part" consists of, but I appreciate your honesty, considering that's exactly what I meant.

Part of applying to the staff is having enough well-played mortals to know you have a useful perspective - and not just one built from extensive forum-lurking. So that's what I've been doing lately.

Which, I think, gives me a right to poke at people when I want to.

My point was - you have a preferred method. It's obvious from the results that it's not the best (even though, were you extremely active, it would be a great method), and you have limited time. Adapting a little (like offline temp-booting, as some have suggested) isn't an unreasonable suggestion from anyone, "sideline critics" or otherwise.

Edited to add: And from the way you responded to the other guy - it sounds like you think my position is pretty reasonable, so. We should leave it at that.

As an aside, RE: Sideline Critics

No one who plays CF seriously enough to have an informed opinion on the subject is on the sidelines, really. We all contribute, don't we? CF is a living story, and there's an administrative side, and there's the CF interior. Every time we log on we're contributing to the CF interior, and I for one certainly don't feel like that's the "sidelines". So let's not use contradictory, divisive rhetoric to describe essentially the same group of people - contributors to the thing that is CF. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Splntrd

I agree with your points and absolutely think that we all contribute to the story.

However;

My reference to sideline critics are those that think an Administrator should "narrate" the story differently.

I let the players use creativity, grow, adapt, influence change. Because my comments and observations aren't within your expectations I find it insulting that you'd expect me to make decisions on limited information (which players happen to do all the time).

I stated in a thread that I never saw a single incident regarding Loh's breaking parity. Even if I did, I'm not going to boot unless it's extreme. I choose to administrate this way. You choose to play a character a specific way. Why stifle either approach?

But saying you don't want to fire someone before you hear both sides is one thing. That's someone's career/life.

Saying you don't want to remove a guy temporarily from the village on a text based game is another.

It needs to be heavily enforced, no questions asked and let them RP their way back into the village. It happens so much because they know they can get away with it with a slap on the wrist.

No but in some cases it does tend to be a significant number of hours of their lives.

This happens with EVERY cabal. Let's not paint this to be a significant BATTLE problem because that's complete distortion.

Like I said, mortals (IE you) have EVERY opportunity to enforce this themselves. We want to be nostalgic about Woldrun/Borkahd days? Guess what, that is mortal participation. You're only going to get so many hours a day from an Imm. If it's significant enough that another Imp/Immortal feels someone should be booted from a cabal I manage, I'm not going to shed tears over it.

You could have the greatest Immortal oversight in the world, and if you have ####ty players it isn't going to make one lick of difference.

nt

How many Battle Imms are there? What was done? Nothing except an "I almost smote upon this one, boy I tell you, I was so close for real....but I didn't. That'll teach him."

I think you've got a case where a bunch of people are witnessing someone in trouble but noone helps because "Some one else probably will."

I'm more than a little pissed off about this whole incident because the players are telling you guys something and you're making excuses.


Edit: Fjarn seems to have heard as per his posts below. That's at least something possitive.

On one hand, based on the imm comments, maybe something should've been done with him (IE knock down deathblow to 75% or something).

On the other hand, I sympathize with Thror. I apparently had the same problem with Rupen (people were saying that he was shady as hell), but I didn't see that AT ALL. So I didn't act on it.

There's only to a certain extent that you can enforce stuff, and although IMMS have a better chance/venue of enforcement, I think it's unfair to expect that they will put more of this life into this game that the players.

Imagine if you HAD nuked Rupen, basing it off of a hunch and logs and the things a bunch of enemies (maybe respected enemies, but enemies nonetheless) had said.

There'd be a forum blowup about that, too.

I think it's more the inconsistency. A single attack and then a flee on a an enemy who wasn't currently fighting someone else for loss of 25% of DB on someone who never broke parity besides that one time versus someone with a career of blatant ganging and no punishment at all even with Imms witnessing it and tons of logs.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

"I have nothing to do with it", eh?

They can gang, gang, gang, gang, gang, gang, but if YOU don't see it - nothing would change. And how sad... you NEVER see it.

Logs? Who cares. Must be fake!
Other imms comments? Who cares. Must be jokes!
Innumerous angry posts on officials? Who cares. Whiners!

Immland is sinking in excuses. And less and less players are eathing this rotting food. Think aobut it.

PS: I have nothing against you - you are good imm. But it's time to find your (probably lost) balls. Run a quest, or something... I dare to suggest a good name: "The Iron Lost Balls of HammerSong".

For #### that goes directly against his cabal and behavior that is known to put 99% of the player base in a tif.

I don't get it.

No extra legacy, no extra spec. I mean, FFS if you're counting the edges and IMM xp I don't know what to tell you.

And unless I'm missing something, the edges were for a general warrior contest run -- they weren't a reward for his performance in the cabal per se.

Correct.

Because seriously, he got almost nothing that you couldn't just earn by default. If your RP is really as good as you think it is, maybe you should stick with your characters long enough for it to be noticed...

Even so, that he was allowed to remain is my biggest bone of contention.

Artificial you bitch 24/7 about villagers without ever having played one.

How are you in any way qualified to comment on how a villager should be played?

Help battle rager
Search forums (Thror's thread for instance)
Read lyceum
Common sense

There, now I know everything I need to know about villager RP and what is expected of them.

Have you ever been president of the United States? Then how can you pass judgement on his/her actions?

Have you ever been a doctor? Then how you can you pass judgement on their malpractice?

Have you ever been a soldier? Then how can you pass judgement on his treatment of enemy civilians?

...but this one is pretty far off base IMO.

I'm a huge advocate of people stepping out of their comfort zones when they think something is overpowered or out of whack, and trying it themselves.

To equate A (suggesting that someone who complains about how one cabal works should actually play a character in that cabal) to B (passing judgment on an elected official) is silly to the point of me saying it's beneath you.

It would be easy for me to stick with giant sword specs and assume that any invoker and necromancer (and bard) is just blatantly overpowered, but it would also be silly.

...but this one is pretty far off base IMO, Twist.

>
>I'm a huge advocate of people stepping out of their comfort
>zones when they think something is overpowered or out of
>whack, and trying it themselves.

Not related to the issue at hand.


>To equate A (suggesting that someone who complains about how
>one cabal works should actually play a character in that
>cabal) to B (passing judgment on an elected official) is silly
>to the point of me saying it's beneath you.

Except his comparison is completely valid because Commander Oldril did not say "you should try this and see for yourself" he said essentially "you have not the slightest clue how a rager should behave because you haven't been one, and therefore you cannot say anything about it even in obvious circumstances." You are the one who is falsely interpreting what he said, Twist.

Telling you that you aren't qualified to talk about how a rager should act because you've never played one is way more reasonable than telling you that you're not qualified to talk about how the President should make policy because you've never been one.

nt

No, really.

sdfvsdf

...it's that anyone with a brain can see you're talking out of your ass.

It's the same way, to use YOUR analogy, when I criticize the president for Obamacare. I don't know 1/100th of what went into making that bill, the pressures, etc. I can criticize the president and talk about how I could do a better job or someone else could, but anyone with a brain listening to me would probably think I'm a ####ing jackass.

The entire bill could be wrapped in gold foil and sunshine but if it has a fatal flaw it must go at least as far as you may be concerned.

This is the gist of this argument. This was a sub par rager in very specific and clear areas that was not disciplined and people didn't like it. The rest of it doesn't matter.

Edit: Your bill can be veto'ed and told to be rewritten. A cabaled character can be kicked out and told to redeem themselves. It didn't happen and it was obvious to all.

Even though I can't fly.

All people are quallified to make judgments even if they haven't walked a mile in someone elses shoes.

That's all Matrik was saying.

My favorite, Men can't be OB/GYN doctors because they don't have va-jay-jay's.

I don't think men can say:

"What?!?! Childbirth is SO EASY! You have doctors that give you meds for the pain and the baby really does all the work pushing its way out, you just lay there and everyone makes a huge fuss over you."

- you see a lot of complaining from folks who've never played a rager that talk about how easy ragers have it that sounds (at times) this ridiculous.

Moreover, a man telling a woman that she's giving birth in the wrong way "Look for milennia women have given birth without needing drugs for pain, honey, so I don't think we should spend the extra money to get you an epidural." is silly too. Again, to use your analogy.

Or even another woman (who has never given birth) talking about how the new mother should be breastfeeding because all sorts of websites say so and she's read all about the glories of breastfeeding.

You'll know it when you see it.

What ever though. More power to what ever anyone can get away with. It's mattering less and less.

>I don't think men can say:
>
>"What?!?! Childbirth is SO EASY! You have doctors that give
>you meds for the pain and the baby really does all the work
>pushing its way out, you just lay there and everyone makes a
>huge fuss over you."

This claim is incorrect. It's not incorrect because the man hasn't given birth. The man's expertise on the matter is irrelevant. Claims should be judged based on their merit, not on the merit of the person making the claim.


>- you see a lot of complaining from folks who've never played
>a rager that talk about how easy ragers have it that sounds
> at times) this ridiculous.

Remember when you said my analogies were unreasonable because they dealt with the president vs. a character in a game? You see why that doesn't change the logic of it?

>Moreover, a man telling a woman that she's giving birth in the
>wrong way "Look for milennia women have given birth without
>needing drugs for pain, honey, so I don't think we should
>spend the extra money to get you an epidural." is silly too.
>Again, to use your analogy.

Agreed. A man telling a woman that is also falling prey to a logical fallacy. Just because people have done it forever doesn't mean it is the right way to do it.

>Or even another woman (who has never given birth) talking
>about how the new mother should be breastfeeding because all
>sorts of websites say so and she's read all about the glories
>of breastfeeding.

The woman who has never given birth has every right to make that claim. Can the claim be wrong? Sure. Can the claim be right? Absolutely. We base this on the merit of the claim, not the person making the claim.

The level of importance of the president's actions vs. the actions of a battle rager has no influence. A fallacious claim is a fallacious claim whether the life of an ant is at stake or the life of the entire planet.

First, your title is a problem. I obviously need to step up the level of nonsense that I post here.

Second, like Artificial said, you can wrap it anyway you like but it is still a fallacy. Fallacies exist and are defined for a reason. My examples may be extreme, but I could have just as easily used: "Well, you've never used a whitening tooth paste, so you can't tell me it's bad for my enamel." This just isn't the case. I can quite easily research the matter and know without ever having used whitening tooth paste. Let's keep in mind the analogy doesn't matter. It's just a useful tool in describing why Oldril's argument/accusation is not a logical one.

Third, I agree with you. I do think everyone should try things before they pass judgement on how they should be played. However, that doesn't make Oldril's question/accusation any more valid.

Finally, this comes down to knowing in an OOC manner the restrictions, rules, and regulations of a cabal. I can certainly pass judgement on any villager I like for what I see as "poor ability to follow said restrictions, rules, and regulations." I know these things quite clearly, even without having played one. That being said, NOT following the rules is not necessarily bad roleplay.

All that being said. I'm perfectly aware that even IF Oldril provided a logical argument, Artificial would not have been satisfied. Much like his unfounded hatred for the religious, his hatred of battle ragers won't be changing any time soon.

Let's pretend for a moment that it isn't a fallacy. Does this mean that you require an immortal to play a race/class/cabal combo before they leave a PBF comment? After all, if they haven't played it they shouldn't be allowed to comment about it, correct?

>Let's pretend for a moment that it isn't a fallacy. Does this
>mean that you require an immortal to play a race/class/cabal
>combo before they leave a PBF comment? After all, if they
>haven't played it they shouldn't be allowed to comment about
>it, correct?

I actually have privately pulled aside staff members before in response to PBF comments they've made and said things like, "Uh, you have really unrealistic ideas of what's possible as a paladin. Please scale that back until you play one a while."

That being said, your analogy only holds up so much because an immortal gets to watch players much more closely in realtime than a non-immortal player can with something they haven't played. This doesn't convey 100% of the value of playing something and feeling its blind spots and limitations, but it does get you farther than reading logs, which in turn gets you farther than doing nothing.

...and to take things a step further, I'll freely admit that when it comes to game balance or RP judgment, I'm way more likely to listen to/agree with an Imm who has actually played whatever they are complaining about, than one who hasn't.

Not that I know what everyone has played, but if an Imm posts something in a history that looks odd to me, one of the first things I'll ask is "Um, have you ever actually *played* X?" where X might be Empire, or a paladin, or whatever.

I'm really struggling to make this clear. Neither of your posts add to the validity of Oldril's "argument." You're both adding context that isn't there. Oldril says "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY IF YOU HAVENT PLAYED ONE."

Yet Daevryn himself gives an example of someone making judgements that HAVENT played one. Sure, that person can be wrong, Daevryn can correct them, and he can even suggest they play one. However, they aren't wrong simply because they haven't played one.

That person can also be correct can't they? How can they be correct if they haven't played one?

Doest that make more sense?

EDIT: I'm not in the least bit suggesting that defering to experts on a matter is not the smart thing to do. Only that NOT being an expert doesn't mean you are automatically wrong. Therefore dismissing an argument based only on the pretense that someone isn't an expert is automatically wrong.

I'm not a bird, but I know birds can fly through the use of their wings. I can study how they fly, why they fly, and I can make inferences based on the information I gather. Can someone else that has more information dispute my findings? Sure, but they can't use "I KNOW MORE THAN YOU" as an argument. They must provide their data as well. The bird itself can't even make that argument, since the bird could likely fly by instinct alone. The bird doesn't necessarily understand the intricacies of aerodynamics just because he can fly.

Would Artificial understand "the other side" better if he played it? Most likely. That does not mean he CAN'T know unless he has played it.

Is because there is a lot that factors into things that you just can't notice as an observer.

While your right we can make inferences about the experience of a bird through observation just like you can observe a storm paladin what yuo can't do IRL is be the bird. In CF you can be the paladin and get a much better handle on the experience.

Also in your example your talking about a lot of exhaustive study of a bird to come up with answers. For the most part people griping about things like DB are not doing serious qualitative analysis on their claims before making them.

Stop making this about whether or not Artificial is right/wrong. I only pointed out that Oldril's "argument" is ####.

"While your right we can make inferences about the experience of a bird through observation just like you can observe a storm paladin what yuo can't do IRL is be the bird. In CF you can be the paladin and get a much better handle on the experience."

Again, if this is required to make decisions/judgements/claims, then no immortal can say anything until they have played every possible race/class/cabal combo. That isn't the case. They CAN. Players can too, even if they have less information than the immortals.

"For the most part people griping about things like DB are not doing serious qualitative analysis on their claims before making them."

And? What if they had? Would their analysis be meaningless because they didn't actually HAVE deathblow? Of course not.

"You can't say #### until you have tried it" remains a non-argument.

...which was "Do you require imms to play a cabal before they make PBF comments?"

The answer was no but it plays a factor.

As to the rest, I'm not making it about whether Artificial is right or not. I'm saying that you equating Oldril's insistence that he has to before he can speak about it to someone criticizing the President without being President is a pretty silly comparison (it is a lot more likely that Artificial could roll and play a BattleRager than citizen X becoming President), and saying that instead I'd compare it to childrearing.

Before I had kids, when someone was in a restaurant an had a kid with them and the kid was acting up, it annoyed the hell out of me and I'd think "What idiot parent brings their crabby kid to T.G.I. Friday's for crying out loud?"

Now that I have a kid, who went through that phase of life, I have a lot more empathy. I was embarrassed when I was "That Parent" but I sure have a lot more tolerance when it happens with someone else's kid now.

At this point the discussion becomes bogged down and I have trouble keeping so many different threads/responses going.

I can certainly accept that empathy is useful for understanding someone else's view. No doubt about that. I just don't think you can dismiss someone based SOLELY on their lack of empathy, which is what Oldril did.

Would Artificial playing a rager help him understand ragerhood a bit better? Most likely. However, using ONLY the fact that he hasn't as a means to dismiss arguments he has about ragers doesn't make sense.

FWIW, I've learned a lot from the discussion on why the fallacy is a fallacy even though I'm the one that called it out in the first place.

If I read your response wrong or give a response that doesn't seem to address what was said, it's usually because of my lack of ability to distinguish the various sub-conversations.

EDIT: Missed a step -

I'm not so sure that citizen X becoming president is less likely than Artificial changing his mind once he plays a battle rager. What will Oldril's argument be when Artificial DOES play a rager and still stands by his previous assertions?

Your post title: "I generally like your posts, Tsunami..."

You generally like my posts. So, I assume you might even generally agree with them? Yet, here you are, disputing my claim. You didn't agree with me just because it was me and I generally write posts that you like. You weighed the claim and decided it was false. Agreeing with me SOLELY because it was me and you typically agree with me would be silly wouldn't it? You separated the person making the claim from the claim.

...and I think you know it, hence the title "Just for fun."

To reiterate, my only stake in this argument is that your comparison of the statement:
"A person isn't qualified to say how a BattleRager should act unless they've played a BattleRager."

To the statement:
"A person isn't qualified to criticize the policies of the President unless he's been President."

Was silly.

You think it's silly because you have personal bias interfering with your judgment.

Both of those stances are equally, not more or less wrong than each other.

The only difference is that the president comparison shows how deeply that kind of thinking can get out of hand.

I'd be terrified if people really thought like that, so I don't get why so many of you make an exception for this "you can't judge battle ragers without playing them" nonsense. I really do think if you would honestly stop and think it through without concerning yourself about how other players/imms/whoever feel on this topic, you'd see differently in regard purely to the bit about judging battleragers being based on personal merit.

What's silly is this prevalent case of selective logic, because you have the good sense to know not to think that way about the president, but you are choosing to ignore that logic when it comes to something you have a personal opinion invested in.

But that aside. I really feel like it's gotten out of hand because nobody makes this excuse for any other cabal. Probably because those cabals don't need it, they don't have this same growing record of abuse and enablement.

nt

Oldril's claim:

"You are not qualified to comment on how a villager should be played, BECAUSE you haven't played one"

Ways in which someone can be qualified to comment WITHOUT having played one:

1. Thorough research on the tenants of the Village.

2. Playing Carrion Fields and understanding how various factions interact, their tenants, and why they exist.

3. Interacting with well-played battle ragers.

4. Reading forum posts made by the person who regulates and determines what IS the proper way to play a battle rager (ie. Thror).

--------------------------------------------------

I'm not making the claim that playing a battle rager DOESN'T offer further insight. I'm making the claim that someone can make a claim without having played one and that claim can be valid. Don't get it confused.

>Oldril's claim:
>
>"You are not qualified to comment on how a villager should be
>played, BECAUSE you haven't played one"



Actually thats not what I said at all. In fact you are even getting the quote wrong. The actual quote was -

"How are you in any way qualified to comment on how a villager should be played?"

I made an assumption. Are you telling me my assumption was wrong? You DO agree that he can make his claim even though he hasn't played a battle rager?

I tried to simplify your claim to elucidate why it is fallacious. You can certainly save face by agreeing that his claims can have validity without having played one if you want though.

What I put in quotations is the exact same as what you said, provided you meant that he can't make claims until he has played a battle rager.

EDIT: In either case, my post still works as a direct answer to yours. I pointed out exactly how he can be qualified to comment on how a battle rager should be played.

How well would you take some asshole coming into your work who has never done that work a day in his life telling you how bad you suck and what you could do better?

I sell economy (manufactured in China) products for a constantly shifting market. People CONSTANTLY tell me why my products suck and what could be better about them.

My answer has not ever once been "YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING UNTIL YOU HAVE ALSO MADE MY PRODUCTS."

Instead, I've explained to them that "Yeah, that might be better, but it would also drive up the cost of goods by about $200 and then you wouldn't be buying from me. You'd go buy from the next guy that didn't do that."

Or various other logical explantions that fit the situation.


EDIT: By the way, is this you admitting that your claim has no legs to stand on and was born from emotion? I'm totally fine with that. It's a forum and you can say whatever you want.

You haven't shown that you've earned the right to tell people how to play a villager, because you've never once done it correctly yourself.

That doesn't mean you can't be right. Only I am going to discount your opinion 99/100 times because I know you haven't shown an example of how you could do it better.

You should judge a claim on its merit, not who is making the claim.

"You haven't shown that you've earned the right to tell people how to play a villager, because you've never once done it correctly yourself."

He has every "right" to make whatever claim he wants. It's up to you decide if you want to believe it or not for sure. However, I urge that you make the decision based on the merit of the claime and not the authority of the person making the claim.

Furthermore, this suggests that you think a coach can't teach a sports team how to win a championship without themselves having won a championship. Or rather, the players shouldn't pay any attention at all to the coach because he hasn't won a championship.

"Only I am going to discount your opinion 99/100 times because I know you haven't shown an example of how you could do it better."

It's well within your "right" to discount any claim you wish. It's up to you to choose for yourself if you believe something or not. Especially with regards to things that are wholly or partially subjective. However, taking the approach you suggest is indeed both fallacious and foolish. Hence the title of my original post "Foolishness"

Yes, everyone has a "right" to make any claims that they wish on any subject that they wish. This is not up for debate.

The problem is that when someone who is uniformed, underinformed or misinformed makes a claim about something they don't understand or don't understand completely they run two risks.

The first is risk of "talking out of their ass." This colloquialism refers to the ignorant imparting knowledge about a subject they are not qualified to comment on due to lack of knowledge.

The second risk is simply being "wrong."

The idea that someone must have experienced something to be allowed to comment on it is ludicrous. However, you must accept that if someone hasn't been in a situation themselves, they are, in part, basing their ideas of the situation on speculation.

When smart people speculate, great ideas can be formed. When dumb people speculate you end up wish a pile of nonsense and horse-poop.

In regards to this specific conversation, the question must be asked: If a particular person feels strongly enough about a situation to speculate on it again and again over a period of years, why are they so resistant to taking on that experience themselves?

CF is not reality and we are not bound to the constraints of reality. If you feel that a police officer in your town is doing a bad job, no one reasonably would expect you to quit your job, join the police academy, get a job with the force in your town and only then be qualified to comment on the behavior of that particular cop.

In CF if you have a problem with The Village or The Empire, it is totally within the scope of your abilities to become a Villager or an Imperial with a minimum of effort. Continually resisting the opportunity to walk a mile in another man's moccasins further reinforces the idea that the person making the statements is not only ignorant, but unwilling to try an enlighten themselves.

So, should you judge a claim by the worthiness of the statement? Absolutely. Can you use the ignorance or enlightenment of the source of that statement as a criterion for judging the worthiness of that statement? You better, otherwise you're going to buy every penis enlarging snake oil that passes through your inbox.

>Yes, everyone has a "right" to make any claims that they wish
>on any subject that they wish. This is not up for debate.
>
>The problem is that when someone who is uniformed,
>underinformed or misinformed makes a claim about something
>they don't understand or don't understand completely they run
>two risks.
>
>The first is risk of "talking out of their ass." This
>colloquialism refers to the ignorant imparting knowledge about
>a subject they are not qualified to comment on due to lack of
>knowledge.
>
>The second risk is simply being "wrong."
>
>The idea that someone must have experienced something to be
>allowed to comment on it is ludicrous. However, you must
>accept that if someone hasn't been in a situation themselves,
>they are, in part, basing their ideas of the situation on
>speculation.

We agree on everything up to this point. You even say what I've been trying to say with a bit more gusto.

>When smart people speculate, great ideas can be formed. When
>dumb people speculate you end up wish a pile of nonsense and
>horse-poop.

The value of the speculation is in no way dependant on who made the speculation. The claim "The Earth is round" is equally valid and correct regardless of whether or not the people who speculate it are smart or dumb.

>In regards to this specific conversation, the question must be
>asked: If a particular person feels strongly enough about a
>situation to speculate on it again and again over a period of
>years, why are they so resistant to taking on that experience
>themselves?

I don't know. Why is Artificial so resistant to it? That has nothing to do with whether or not the person making a claim affects the value of the claim.

>CF is not reality and we are not bound to the constraints of
>reality. If you feel that a police officer in your town is
>doing a bad job, no one reasonably would expect you to quit
>your job, join the police academy, get a job with the force in
>your town and only then be qualified to comment on the
>behavior of that particular cop.

This isn't CF. This is a REAL forum and there is REAL discussion taking place. I will argue against foolish irrationalities every time.

>In CF if you have a problem with The Village or The Empire, it
>is totally within the scope of your abilities to become a
>Villager or an Imperial with a minimum of effort. Continually
>resisting the opportunity to walk a mile in another man's
>moccasins further reinforces the idea that the person making
>the statements is not only ignorant, but unwilling to try an
>enlighten themselves.
>

This isn't about Artificial's ability to empathize, nor his ability to enlighten himself. This discussion is about the ease with which some parties are dismissing a claim solely on who is making said claim. Granted, I've probably been bad at elucidating my side, but I'm getting better at it I think.

>
>So, should you judge a claim by the worthiness of the
>statement? Absolutely. Can you use the ignorance or
>enlightenment of the source of that statement as a criterion
>for judging the worthiness of that statement? You better,
>otherwise you're going to buy every penis enlarging snake oil
>that passes through your inbox.

This is where I have to REALLY disagree with you. You cannot use the ignorance or elightenment of the source TO MEASURE THE VALUE OF THE CLAIM because the source's knowledge on the matter has no bearing on the claim's value. Do you have to believe them, just cuz'? No. I never said that either. I just said it's foolish to dismiss a claim based solely on the person presenting it or their "experience".

EDIT: Quick extra thought. I dismis the claims of snake oil salesmen because the claims are ridiculous, not because the salesman is a sleezebag.

...of their information, you're playing the fool.

I don't for a moment believe that you give equal merit to The New York Times and your sister's boyfriend, the meth-head drummer.

This is why you go to a doctor for your medical problems and not a person you select at random off the bus.

The source of a claim is a valid criterion for judging the value of the claim.

Defer to experts? Sure, that's the wise thing to do. However, don't take the expert at face value just because he is an expert. (ESPECIALLY when medical concerns are involved, do your own research. Doctors are wrong all the time).

Dismiss a claim because the person making the claim isn't an expert? That's foolish.

Had Oldril said, "Take it from me, I'm an expert on battle ragers and you are wrong." I wouldn't have said a word. He is dismissing the claim based on his experience. Instead, what we have here is, Oldril dismissing a claim because of who the source is.

In this case we aren't discussing advice from a doctor vs. your sister's boyfriend. We are discussing advice from your sister's boyfriend. Simple as that. We don't dismiss the claim simply because it is your sister's boyfriend making it. We dismiss the claim because it isn't sound medical advice.

If someone is demonstrably uneducated on a subject we may feel free to disregard their claims. End of story.

I work with some people who are, for lack of a better term "stupid."
There is an individual who has claimed on various occasions that
"Sugar has no calories."
"Tuna is not a fish."
"Grade A maple syrup is illegal in New York State."
"Gold has never, ever decreased in value."
And many, many other misinformed "facts."

At this point I take nothing he says as gospel without verifying it myself. He has proven a wide spectrum of ignorance and as a result any information that comes from him is immediately suspect. History has demonstrated that he is an unreliable source of information. Result: I do not use him as a source of information.

In this instance, a person who is demonstrably uneducated about a cabal has proven themselves to be an unreliable source of information about that cabal. Result: I will not use them as a source of information on that cabal.

>If someone is demonstrably uneducated on a subject we may
>feel free to disregard their claims. End of story.

First, let us remember that Artificial isn't uneducated on the matter. He has access to all relevant cabal dogma and the words of the immortal who writes and enforces those rules. Also, don't forget that an immortal who oversees the cabal AGREES with him to some extent below.

Second, being able to disregard someone's claim because they are ignorant on the subject is not what makes the claim incorrect or correct. The claim is disregarded because it is founded on bad/wrong information. Not because your sister's dumb boyfriend said it. Your sister's dumb boyfriend may say "The Earth is round," will you disregard that too (since we are disregarding based solely on the person's credentials). You seem unable to separate the person from the claim. Once again, people who HAVE played ragers feel the same way as Artificial, although I would not use that as an argument for or against him either.

>
>I work with some people who are, for lack of a better term
>"stupid."
>There is an individual who has claimed on various occasions
>that
>"Sugar has no calories."
>"Tuna is not a fish."
>"Grade A maple syrup is illegal in New York State."
>"Gold has never, ever decreased in value."
>And many, many other misinformed "facts."
>
>At this point I take nothing he says as gospel without
>verifying it myself. He has proven a wide spectrum of
>ignorance and as a result any information that comes from him
>is immediately suspect. History has demonstrated that he is an
>unreliable source of information. Result: I do not use him as
>a source of information.

Fine, don't use him as a source for information. You seem to think that I am saying "Take anything anyone says at face value" when I'm not. I'm saying the person has no bearing on the validity of the claim. Your dumb co-worker could very well make a valid claim. Does the claim become less valid because he is the one that said it? I sure hope not. Sounds like a silly way to determine if something is true or not.

>
>In this instance, a person who is demonstrably uneducated
>about a cabal has proven themselves to be an unreliable source
>of information about that cabal. Result: I will not use them
>as a source of information on that cabal.
>

No, in this instance, someone has voiced their opinion and made a claim. What we have is someone dismissing the claim as false based SOLELY on the fact that he hasn't played a character in the cabal. This is foolish. I could make the claim that paladins all eat bunnies for breakfast, and I've played a paladin. Does that mean I'm right? No, of course not. We instead take the information we have "paladins hate eating bunnies" and we determine that the claim is false.

You're being unnecessarily obtuse.

From a purely academic standpoint, you are correct, but this is not a discussion happening in a vacuum.

I've completely lost track of the actual original argument and whatever part Artificial played in it, and frankly I'm unwilling to go back and reread this meandering thread again.

It just seemed to me that (and maybe I misinterpreted you, or maybe you weren't clear) you were claiming that a claim is independent of the source. I simply disagree with this assertion.

What I do know is that it's obnoxious, in the context of CF, to make claims about things that one has not personally experimented with. That's why everyone hates funnyone. He makes claims that if he simply tested them himself, would be rendered untrue. But rather than simply try it out he insists on whining over and over and over about the same false things.

And I'm done with this conversation. You're not likely to convince me of your point, and I'm not likely to convince you of mine. Now I'm just wasting precious n's, s's, e's, and w's that would be better used killing wizards in Thera, something that I know a thing or two about.

Especially since you chose to argue with someone who you agree with. Oldril posted:

"How are you in any way qualified to comment on how a villager should be played?"

That's it. Nothing more. All I did was point out that is a silly reason to dismiss Artificial's claim (doesn't matter what his claim was). It's very much in a vacuum and no other details were offered.

Not to mention there are many ways to qualify without actually having played one, but that is beside the point.

I said I was not inclined to "reread" a meandering series of posts which Pro Godwinned in the opening hours, which you have turned into a silly academic argument, and which, in my opinion, Artificial has been wrong about since post #1.

>I said I was not inclined to "reread" a meandering series of
>posts which Pro Godwinned in the opening hours, which you have
>turned into a silly academic argument, and which, in my
>opinion, Artificial has been wrong about since post #1.
>
>


I need you and twist to take my posts and reword them as you both do way way better than I ever have, while trying to make mostly the same points

Using basic logic when there is no reason not to is very silly. How could I have missed that?

You could have kept to yourself instead of offering veiled insults. I've kept it civil thus far. Feel free to continue living in ignorance. I don't mind. Your DNA will be weeded out eventually.

I'm starting to think that the issue is with your reading comprehension.

Regarding the "application of logic," I fail to see that you've offered anything other than argument for argument's sake, an awfully sophomoric tack to take.

As for my DNA, I'm the end of the line and proud of it.

Last thing the world needs is more people unwilling to discuss something in a civil manner and unable to put their egos aside.

Good day sir.

I'm starting to think that you're either feigning ignorance or playing devil's advocate or something. I've been nothing but civil. If you think this is someone being rude to you, I can't imagine what sort of insulation you live under.

I simply cannot see your point of view as valid, no matter how much you attempt to wrap it up in "applied logic."

I wrote out more, but I'm not wasting another keystroke on this nonsense.

nt

You have made a concious decission to remove yourself from the gene pool without having produced offspring?

Maybe this is something that will benifit the human race over all buy eliminating some unfavorable genes from the mix, but to me it is the equivilant of what devoutly religious people feel when they think of separation from their Gods.

If you are doing it out of a sense of civic and moral responsibility, you can still spready your genes and reduce the over all population of the world.

It is achievable if people coupled up and each couple only had 2 children, natural attrition would ensure a decline in world population beginning with the first generation. The odds would also favor that most couples would in fact pass on their genetic code.

I think the world needs less people, but I feel a real sense of pity and sibelief when I read about people who seem to think they are doing something noble when they chose not to reproduce.

Paralleling this, the death of an individual before they had a chance to reproduce also upsets me. This ideology has troubled me as I have gotten older and have been charged with training and leading young soldiers.

Synopsis: While there is only one Latex Breaker, use what you got and give life to another human being and I hope you get to know what true joy is.

n/t

I have no interest in having children. It's just not for me.

Part of it is simple misanthropy. Part of it is that is that I don't think my ####ty father's genetics need to continue. Part of it is that I just hate children.

The idea that "true joy" can only be known through having kids irritates the hell out of me. No one can presume to know what another's "true joy" is. Oh, they'll tell you it's Jesus or Allah or the Hale-Bopp Comet, but the fact is that if these things worked for you, there's no guarantee that they'll work for me. The difference is that if you find Jesus and then get sick of him all you have to do is stop going to church. You can't exactly shake a kid's hand and toss him out of the car if you feel like it's not working out.

Your lifestyle may suit you, but please don't pity anyone who takes another path. It's quite condescending and puts you on equal footing as the most annoying bible thumpers out there.

Edited to add: Meant to post under Pro.

I'm not saying you are insane, but your post would seem to indicate you have some deep seated rage that you associate with childhood because of your own.

I'm not trying to be condecending when I say, I hope you can get past that.

It may well be better for man kind over all that your line ends with you, but you aren't doing yourself any favors by letting the spectre of your father have so much influence in your life.

I am a believer in quality of life over quantity, so if you would project hostility onto children then you are wise to identify this in yourself and not have them.

Personally, the hostility in me, both toward the world at large and my father developed as an adult.

He was a great "Dad," but once I reached my late twenties his failures as a man became evident to me. They have nothing to do with my idyllic New England childhood. I'd wish that anyone could have formative years as golden as I did.

There's a quote that is attributed to Kurt Vonnegut that says "Everyone should live in New York once, but leave before it makes you too hard and everyone should live in California once, but leave before it makes you too soft."

My time in Brooklyn has certainly helped shape my opinion that most of humanity is garbage. Perhaps I should have heeded Mr. Vonnegut.

I don't like peas. If I had a garden I would not grow them.

I don't like kids. I'm sure as hell not going to grow them either.

>
>There's a quote that is attributed to Kurt Vonnegut that says
>"Everyone should live in New York once, but leave before it
>makes you too hard and everyone should live in California
>once, but leave before it makes you too soft."
>

Incorrectly attributed, I might add. This is the original article, it's a great read, but it was never an actual graduation speach.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-sunscreen-column,0,5909206,full.column

And my new favorite thread for its inability to let us reply where we want.

>It just seemed to me that (and maybe I misinterpreted you, or
>maybe you weren't clear) you were claiming that a claim is
>independent of the source. I simply disagree with this
>assertion.

Claims are absolutely independent of the source that makes them. It doesnt matter if I am a Thor (as in Norse Thor) worshiping brain trauma survivor with no education at all. The claim stands and falls on its own merits. If I, the brain damaged Artificial, claim that the actions of a Fortress member who killed every elf in Darsylon on a whim are incongruent with, and diametrically opposed to, the tenets of Maran, and I have never played a fortie, should you dismiss me because I am inexperienced and clearly stupid? That would be ridiculous.

If your idiot coworker says that sugar has no calories, you already, instantly know thats wrong, and as such, you mark his intelligence down a notch in your brain. This claim was not dismissed because he made it, but because you already know that its stupid.

Now sometimes when one cannot research something for oneself, or are in a time constraint situation, you most definitely need to take the claim made without assisting evidence based upon the person making it, and what you know about them. This is simple time management skills. But it is purely a logical fallacy to dismiss a claim purely based upon the individual making it in any other situation.

>You should judge a claim on its merit, not who is making the
>claim.

I do. And my response is "if you had played a villager you wouldn't be saying it".


>However, I urge that you make the decision based on the merit
>of the claime and not the authority of the person making the
>claim.

His claims have no merit. He has offered no evidence to support his claims and hasn't even put in the tiniest bit of effort to play a villager so that perhaps he might change his opinion.

>It's well within your "right" to discount any claim you wish.
>It's up to you to choose for yourself if you believe something
>or not. Especially with regards to things that are wholly or
>partially subjective. However, taking the approach you suggest
>is indeed both fallacious and foolish. Hence the title of my
>original post "Foolishness"

Foolishness is what artificial constantly pollutes this board with in regards to villagers. Tell you what, when he plays one and can point to it and say "This is how it should be done", Ill be happy to revisit the topic.

>>You should judge a claim on its merit, not who is making
>the
>>claim.
>
>I do. And my response is "if you had played a villager you
>wouldn't be saying it".
>

You do not know this and it is false. I have played a villager, and I say it.

>
>>However, I urge that you make the decision based on the
>merit
>>of the claime and not the authority of the person making the
>>claim.
>
>His claims have no merit. He has offered no evidence to
>support his claims and hasn't even put in the tiniest bit of
>effort to play a villager so that perhaps he might change his
>opinion.
>

I never said his claims have merit. What I am saying is you shouldn't take merit away from the claim based on the fact that Artificial is the one that put it forth. Let's be honest, that is exactly what you are doing. Again, playing a villager may not even necessarily change his opinion. It didn't change my idea of how a villager should be played.

>>It's well within your "right" to discount any claim you
>wish.
>>It's up to you to choose for yourself if you believe
>something
>>or not. Especially with regards to things that are wholly or
>>partially subjective. However, taking the approach you
>suggest
>>is indeed both fallacious and foolish. Hence the title of my
>>original post "Foolishness"
>
>Foolishness is what artificial constantly pollutes this board
>with in regards to villagers. Tell you what, when he plays one
>and can point to it and say "This is how it should be done",
>Ill be happy to revisit the topic.
>

Artificial is indeed foolish much of the time. I still am not going to discount his claims simply because it is him making them.

Joe is a police officer. Joe is amazing at apprehending criminals, topping the records in arrests. However, he also takes bribes, regularly beats up random women and arrests innocent bystanders, and any other corrupt cop thing you can think of.

When a few activists try to get something done about his behavior, of which there is tremendous video documentation, one officer was cited as saying to the activists "How are you in any way qualified to comment on how a police officer should be behave?"

The chief of police explained that while he does not condone such behavior, he never saw any of this happen first hand, and so he could not take action, and was even heard to say that he was a big fan of Joe.

The mayor agreed with the sentiment of the fellow police officer, suggesting that the activists become police officers to gain experience as such.

I think Lohakahn specifically got away with a lot more than he should, but I don't think enforcement in Battle in general right now is in crisis.

Complicating the matter (although I, personally, would have still come down on him) is that Lohakahn had redeeming qualities. The best thing about Lohakahn from a Battle perspective is that he would (as far as I saw) fearlessly pick any fight he could. It's just that the worst thing about him from a Battle perspective was the very same thing.

You know, if you enforce people complain, and if you don't enforce, people complain. There's a balance, but I've obviously erred too far on the side of soft. That's easy enough to change.

nt

As I've stated before, I might be 'traditional' or a bit strict in my battle views. That said, I see a lot of things that I would boot for if I was a Commander/DM again. I've actually avoided battle lately because of the things I see. Of course this is just from my perspective which I admit is limited. I don't know what happens behind the village's closed doors right now.

When I think of Battle I remember when Bork was Commander and Woldrun was DM. I think we reached a high at that point that hasn't been matched since (Woldrun continued the high as Commander). But, maybe that was because I was the Commander and everyone thinks they do the 'best' job. <shrug>

Maybe one day I'll make one of those classic villagers and roll back into battle and see what happens.

-----------------
"My view of Borkahd IC"
If you anger him, he'll rape you to death, eat your flesh, and sew your skin into his clothing. And if you're very, very lucky, he'll do it in that order. ~Twist

But you guys were ####ING stacked then (I played a hero invoker at that time).

You, Woldrun (twist), Malakhi, Gahdak (NbM), Bartis (TJHuron), Selene, etc etc etc

You guys had the best presence I've seen because there were like 4 of you always on that were tough as #### and played villagers the right way.

when it was just me and Woldrun or Woldrun and that dwarf sword guy. For like a month. Against 3 abs scion shifters + others.

But for the whole game. I was just looking over Kale's death thread, and the village also included Susubienko(Graatch) and Malthalia. Also, Aganthas and Rievar, while they may have had their RP issues, they were pretty badass killers. Scion had Ikanu(Mek) and Tameron as Chancellor. Along with Findo and a slew of other tough shifters. Empire had Xelox, Dolce, Senket, and Ahtieli right before the height of her power. Zaknifal was doing his thing and Sarien had just immed in the fort, not to mention Arrna and Kasir. Also, Satebos and Adegflich were around to make things interesting. Also, Baerinika was playing an overly dramatic "virgin" (HAH!), elf herald. Derieag and Fyreeth were also in Herald. Man, what an awesome time to play CF. Also, Thror came back in a pretty epic quest.


So, reminiscing out of the way. I'm not totally disagreeing that enforcement could be a little stricter. But in general, people really need to come off their expectations where every character is supposed to be a perfect Battlerager, or perfect paladin, or perfect whatever. I know that goes against the grain of many of our fantasy heroes, but its much more realistic. I think I'm a fairly decent example of this. I've played a large number of villagers, most of them have been considered good/really good villagers. I've also been booted from the village on more than one occasion for not living up to its ideals. Zaahir most poignantly comes to my own mind. I've also played characters people thought were pretty good villagers, who pushed the envelope. Perhaps not quite in the manner Lohakan seems to have done, but I've definitely pushed it. Hraustr once beat the snot out of a cloud giant female warrior because she was not properly subservient to his manliness. Isidoros used to look for any excuse he could to kill maran. Zaahir repeatedly attacked an imperial anethema because he was seeking redemption and had a mage girlfriend. All of these were well within role. I also was prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.

At the end, I guess my message is stop trying to win CF and instead enjoy the experience. Worry about your own RP, and interact with the world, even those who RP poorly, as your own would dictate.

P.S. I personally would like to see PK stats removed from PBF's (not just because I could condie a herald healer in 250 hours), but that's probably the number two thing people like to see, so, I'm not holding my breath.

Ooh those were good times.

Crap, now you're making me want to roll elf paladin and mort it up a little. Hmm.

Because I expect Nexuns to keep the balance (Gay), Fort to fight evil, Tribs to enforce the law and Parity from my Berserkers.

When they don't do these things, get snarky PBF's and still get slathered in reward when I can't get #### for being an RP nazi, makes me want to leave.