KLOL
Common sense? Right, calling completely perfect scaling chains as BS is definitely common sense.
That is what I was called out for. Yes. That is what an Argument from Incredulity is.
Because your arguments weren't good enough to serve as a thorough debunk of what I and Glass and V had to post.
That doesn't justify it. Even as a joke. Idk about you, but there is barely anything I take as much offense to as someone saying "I dont agree with you because of who you are" or "I'll disagree with you no matter what."
Oh, and you antagonizing us and calling us biased isn't being made fun of. Nice. Impressive.
I've called him out. Maybe not in the most respectful fashion and Ig I should have done that better, but saying "I'll never agree with you" in a vs wiki, especially from a mod, isn't really ok.
You were the one bringing up how standard rules were stagnating. That's on you. Also you being reported for RVR is a threat now?
To the first thing . . . are you sure you replied to the right thing? About the second one, if you tell someone you'll report them for trying to defend themselves or for deescalting a situation while they are already in here, which might get them banned, then yes, that's a threat.
Buddy I don't think we need to even blink to call bullshit on this.
So why exactly are you linking me to me saying that it's a misrepresentation? I am fine with heat and I am not against the calculation itself, but the usge, so the only thing valid in there is that I am vehemently against UES (and even then I tried my best to be productive in there)
I didn't call you as not having common sense, but your proposals overall. Don't twist this.
Fair enough. Not much better though.
You mentioned the "edge of the blade" first, not me, maybe you should have actually read the past slashing-piercing-based threads first before even using such an example?
Why would I read a thread about something that doesn't exist? And why should I bring something up that doesn't exist? My point was simply that the quality of the sword influences the result and saying a blunt sword is just as good for cutting as a sharp sword is a weird take, no matter what our current standards may be. I never meant to derail with that either since I simply mentioned this propperty with a bunch of others, simply to show "The effects may vary". Never did I even consider someone coming in and talking about "piercing damage".
the fact is that you used these points to derail the thread despite us repeatedly telling you not to do so. And it was clear as day you were clearly intending to change our standards and use that as a crutch to aid your arguments on that UES thread
I am not even sure what exactly you think I was trying to accomplish here. I simply responded to derailed topics that directly involved me. Especially if they represented me, my goals or my arguments in a bad light (Like Implying that I want to break a discussion rule). If nobody had derailed while dragging me into it, it would have never gotten to that.
Again? After showing your own?
I actually like playing with open cards and making it clear when I am biased towards a toppic. I'd go even further and say it's important to me. Also, there is a mojor difference between having a bias towards a topic or towards a person. Not to mention, even with all my bias, you agreed with the majority of points I've maid in that first post.
None of this would have happened if you hadn't taken up the attitude you did there and if you even bothered to read the Creation Feats CRTs to see why we scale how we scale and how DontTalk's comment works with that.
What attitude? In my reply I simply said "I didn't mention it, but I'll reply to this anyways." as well as "I am not sure if I get the argument that is being made, but from what I am getting this seems very odd."
Theglassman
no what I called you out was making a Fallacy for no reason other than saying "I don't believe it". You saying there's no issue with using it doesn't change the fact that you have to debunk the feat being a legitimate feat in the first place. If you don't bother doing it no one's going to buy your side. Also I told you in my second comment that the more you antagonize people by saying they lack common sense the less likely you'll get to have anyone buy your argument, and you're just digging your hole deeper here.
And I've told you that's impossible. UES forces the opponent to prove something improvable. That's one of the biggest issues I have with UES. You can almost validate anything using it since it completely foregoes validification based on vague standards which rarely even hold up in verse. Since your opponent would have to prove a negative, the burden of proof isnt on them, since they cant prove it. If the person making the claim actually has evidence for it scaling, then that's fine and dandy, but if not, then this is nothing but an argument from ignorance and when it's fallacy vs fallacy I'll go with the one that isn't upgrading a character every day all day. Also, I said that I never said that the people I debated on that thread lack common sense. That's you misinterpreting what I said.
DDM
Okay, I still found a lot of it weird assumptions that come from no where. Like assuming a magic spell equates to throwing a match in a gas tank despite being able to do so in an environment that has no gas tank or no match as opposed to just snapping their finger and a giant explosion of magic energy happens.
That wasn't literal. It was to illustrate the difference in processes of the same energy source, resulting in vastly different results.
He was just saying he finds it crazy that people are against "Every feat that isn't pure destruction" and even crazier that people find it crazy that those people aren't against them.
You kinda lost me on the end there, but about the first one. I am not against any none destruction feat. Mostly just on how they are handled.
He was more so being rhetorical and joking, this is Bambu just saying "You will drown in the No's" all over again. Also, a simple people disagreeing you isn't something to get sensitive over.
Disagreeing vs saying they wont ever agree are separate things and so is this from predicting the popular oppinion.
Sounds like he was just mentioning the google definition of bias.
Highlighted the unfair part, implying it was just.
Actually, he was just telling you he doesn't need to prove a negative. Saying something is "A chain reaction" requires more evidence that it's not a chain reaction. Not a logical assumption that there were random matches or gasolines that teleported because a mage asked them to...
Strawmanception Seriously, what's your point here? What do chainreactions have to do with this? Let alone my butchered car example.
The point I am making is quite simple, really. Someone makes claim, which we will assume to be false for the sake of argument here. Now this false claim gets validified via the UES. Now the person who disagrees with it due to there being no showings or evidence of it scaling will have to find ways to disprove the feat. How? Good question. There likely wont be much or any evidence, due to the claim being false to begin with. It's like looking for evidence of unicorns not existing. What would that evidence even look like? Idk. To get back to your chain reaction example, imagine this:
"The house fell over as I leaned against it."
I'll claim this was a chain reaction (it actually wasnt). Prove me wrong. Oh and my statement is assumed true unless proven false. While irl you could go and investigate, in fiction you dont have that liberty. You only have what you are given and you have to make judgements based on that. With what is given you can't prove me wrong, just that my assumptions is baseless. Making it so that one side doesn't need any valid basis besides a claim "because if it's false you can simply disprove it" is, at least in my opinion, the worst approach possible, as it makes pushing for inflated statistics easier and harder, if not straight up impossible in some cases, to disprove them.
Actually, it was a more in general thing that a lot of users and former staff did in the past and some who still do. And he thought of you as one of them.
Fair enough, ig.
You frequently said "This will be fun" or "Lovely discussion going on here" both of which are sarcastic comments that rub a lot of people the wrong way.
I just try to take things with humor
¯\(ツ)/¯
Well, ig that covers everything from my side, ig . . . Hope that'll be all then
