It seems to me that the 4E Avengers in the General forum are guilty of sophistry. They don't so much make logical or reasoned arguments as pepper posters with incessant questions until they are at a loss for words. Before you know it, you are being asked to define the true meaning of piety, while being seduced by an old greek man. Pure sophistry! :P
Lordflashheart, stop trieing to get the 4e avengers baned or worse. 4e isn't that bad, destroying it from the inside won't make people happy. Just play 3.5 and move on already! You are no better, really.
Exactlly. Is it so hard to not troll, Lordflashheart.
Sorry for the offensivness, but really!
To my knowledge I have not been banned yet for trolling, just for the content of my posts (and images).
I am just voicing my opinion. I may go overboard at times. But I think it is fair to open a thread in the community forum voicing my aggravation with the rhetorical stylings of the 4E Avengers and fanboys. As I recall, they were piling up on you as well not so long ago (unless I am confusing you with someone who had a similar avatar).
It seems to me that the 4E Avengers in the General forum are guilty of sophistry.
Well, that depends on your perspective, I think. If you're going to say that they are 'guilty' of sophistry, then what authority do you have to make that distinction? Do you think it just to view the free exchange of ideas in terms of guilt or innocence? If you describe their arguments as 'guilt', then aren't you thus judging their ideas to be criminal? Free speech is not a crime, sir!
They don't so much make logical or reasoned arguments as pepper posters with incessant questions until they are at a loss for words.
Where exactly is the rubicon between logic and illogic? When does an argument given in good faith cease to be valid simply because you disagree with its structure or basis? What exactly is 'logic', and how can you tell it's been correctly used in a post? Incorrectly used? Please delineate the precise difference between the two types of posts, or at least construct a viable, conclusive, and inclusive test that can be applied to any such post to determine whether its argument is reasoned or not. Your response should be at least one thousand words, double-spaced, with no spelling errors. 1" margins will do.
Before you know it, you are being asked to define the true meaning of piety, while being seduced by an old greek man. Pure sophistry! :P
I don't believe such a declarative statement can be made until all of the previous points have been examined, explained, referenced, cross-referenced, and peer-reviewed. Anything less than a discerning analysis of the language used in a discussion is a disservice to the topic at hand and those discussing it, and is frankly wasteful. I might go so far as to say it's highly irresponsible of you to so brashly throw around words like 'forum', 'pepper', and 'the'! Before your claims can even begin to be taken seriously, of course, I'm also going to have to ask you to define the true meaning of sophistry.
Well, that depends on your perspective, I think. If you're going to say that they are 'guilty' of sophistry, then what authority do you have to make that distinction? Do you think it just to view the free exchange of ideas in terms of guilt or innocence? If you describe their arguments as 'guilt', then aren't you thus judging their ideas to be criminal? Free speech is not a crime, sir!
Where exactly is the rubicon between logic and illogic? When does an argument given in good faith cease to be valid simply because you disagree with its structure or basis? What exactly is 'logic', and how can you tell it's been correctly used in a post? Incorrectly used? Please delineate the precise difference between the two types of posts, or at least construct a viable, conclusive, and inclusive test that can be applied to any such post to determine whether its argument is reasoned or not. Your response should be at least one thousand words, double-spaced, with no spelling errors. 1" margins will do.
I don't believe such a declarative statement can be made until all of the previous points have been examined, explained, referenced, cross-referenced, and peer-reviewed. Anything less than a discerning analysis of the language used in a discussion is a disservice to the topic at hand and those discussing it, and is frankly wasteful. I might go so far as to say it's highly irresponsible of you to so brashly throw around words like 'forum', 'pepper', and 'the'! Before your claims can even begin to be taken seriously, of course, I'm also going to have to ask you to define the true meaning of sophistry.
You deserve a cookie
How does he deserve a cookie? I am led to believe you are the strangest person on these boards, Lordflashheart.
Because his post was an example of sophistry. Well played.
Hhm
Primogenial when in a commodious confabulation exigency (Analogous when your consorted multitudinous of perspicacious plebeians) vamoose adjacent with their repartee and masquerade cognizant by salaaming your belfry and reprehending your cementum. When preferential upon for your presupposition, conjecture some Big Words you contemplation in the concordance lang syne eventide (you COMPASSED this IMPECCABLE??)
or: I think your wrong. :P
or: I think your wrong. :P
I know.
I know what I said made no sense. I'm already gone and will probably not come back to this thread, so if you must tell me that I said nothing coherent then feel free to but know that I will never see it.
4E "Avengers": "What makes you say that?"
Lordflashheart: "Because it does."
4E "Avengers": "Could you give me an example?"
Lordflashheart: "Sure. ."
4E "Avengers": "That isn't true. Look, here. "
Lordflashheart, frustrated by his inability to have a reasonable discussion: "SOPHISTS, THE LOT OF YOU!"
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and platonism were enemy schools).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling/spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter "testing."
http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
I hope the mods step in and do something about this. *reported*
The most effective way I know to overlook the more *tedious* subjects is simple: Spend more tme playing D&D and less time putting on a show of Intellectual Superiority on the boards. Unfortunately, it's 7 a.m. here, and I'm bored ;)-- call me a sucker.
Lordflashheart: "4e Sucks."
4E "Avengers": "What makes you say that?"
Lordflashheart: "Because it does."
4E "Avengers": "Could you give me an example?"
Lordflashheart: "Sure. ."
4E "Avengers": "That isn't true. Look, here. "
Lordflashheart, frustrated by his inability to have a reasonable discussion: "SOPHISTS, THE LOT OF YOU!"
This is false. I have mostly made specific criticisms of 4e (except in cases where I was simply trying to get a reaction out of people-- which I have, to be honest, indulges in on occassion). I have also made a point of stating that it is simply my opinion. When people have asked me for examples for why I like 4e less than 3e, I have provided them. When they suggest why my examples are wrong, I have engaged them in limited debate on the matter. The problem is, no matter how much info or data I give for my assertions, it is never enough. They keep applying the socratic method like its going out of style (Socrates was most likely trained as a Sophist). It reaches a point where the two parties simply draw different conclusions about the the new skills, the power system, the combat mechanics, etc.
I say I don't like some aspect of 4th, let's say the near reliance on the battle map. For saying this I get blasted with questions:
Have you played with the map enough? How long have you tried the map? What maps are you using? How did you play before without a mat? What house rules are you using? What makes you think those rules are better? Who are you to question how DnD shoudl be played? What's your background? Are you a troll? How did you handle the 5 foot step? How did you handle movement? Did your players like not having a battle map? How do your players trust you? Where is Jimmy Hoffa buried? How can you visialize combat without a map? Isn't the shift better than the step? Isn't it better to count movement than to measure it? What is the average air velocity of an unladen swallow? African or European?
And even if I take the timet o go therough here item by item and answer every question, the result is rarely a "oh.. well I can see that it's not for everyone" but instead another round of questions about my DM style, or a round of "you're not playing DnD anyways so shut up".
Of course the 3.5 purists are nearly as bad taking just about every opportunity to remind people why they are still playing the old system.
Rorlins
Disagreement with Lordflashheart = Flaming
Disagreement with Lordflashheart with detailed explanation (even when asked for) = Sophistry
SHut the **** up, fanboy.
= Perfectly Acceptable.
Got it.
This is false. I have mostly made specific criticisms of 4e (except in cases where I was simply trying to get a reaction out of people-- which I have, to be honest, indulges in on occassion). .
So your saying you bait people?....
*backs away slowly*
So your saying you bait people?....
Not that it really needed said, given the fact that this thread is just another in a long line of this sort of behavior from him, including (but certainly not limited to) strawmanning with the "Avenger" thing.
So, let's recap (from all the other threads you've started or derailed similarly);
Disagreement with Lordflashheart = Flaming.
Not at all. You are mischaracterizing my argument. I simply said people should be polite and allow others to have their own opinions once the discussion has reached a natural conclusion.
Disagreement with Lordflashheart with detailed explanation (even when asked for) = Sophistry.
That is not what I am saying at all. Asking for an explanation is fine. But once reasonable explanations are given, assailing the poster with questions simply because you don't accept their subjective conclusion becomes sophistry after a point.
= Perfectly Acceptable.
Got it.
No it isn't. I am not advocating my own behavior (for which I have been banned many times). I should not post such things, and when I do the mods are right to ban me.
Not that it really needed said, given the fact that this thread is just another in a long line of this sort of behavior from him, including (but certainly not limited to) strawmanning with the "Avenger" thing.
yep.. but it is pretty bad when the Avengers/X-men etc never get moderated and can pretty much do what we like on the boards, because we run the boards at the moment... but somebody who is very clearly an oppressed member of the "anti 4th ed/anti avengers" clique, who gets modded constantly for their anti 4th views, even when they never ever bait anybody... it must suck not being able to bait people.. especially when you enjoy it.. even if it is only on occasion.
Not at all. You are mischaracterizing my argument. I simply said people should be polite and allow others to have their own opinions once the discussion has reached a natural conclusion.
That is not what I am saying at all. Asking for an explanation is fine. But once reasonable explanations are given, assailing the poster with questions simply because you don't accept their subjective conclusion becomes sophistry after a point.
No it isn't. I am not advocating my own behavior (for which I have been banned many times). I should not post such things, and when I do the mods are right to ban me.
And who said you had to answer the questions? or even read them? You have this thing called free will which allows you to be perspicacious about what you read and respond to. Try using it. If you see questions you dont like, walk away....agh....walk away.
After all, a question without an answer is like a tree falling in the woods.
Not at all. You are mischaracterizing my argument. I simply said people should be polite and allow others to have their own opinions once the discussion has reached a natural conclusion.
I'm not mischaracterizing anything. Your view of discourse in the these forums slants sharply towards the "people I disagree with flame" side of things. You then go on to paint one entire side of the debate with the term "Avenger" and accuse them of flaming. If anyone here is mischaracterizing someone else, it's you.
That is not what I am saying at all. Asking for an explanation is fine. But once reasonable explanations are given, assailing the poster with questions simply because you don't accept their subjective conclusion becomes sophistry after a point.
Those posters can always just walk away, right? That's what I keep hearing that these "Avengers" should do; walk away from non-productive threads. If it works for one side, it works for the other. Unless, of course, you're just there to start trouble in the first place.
No it isn't. I am not advocating my own behavior (for which I have been banned many times). I should not post such things, and when I do the mods are right to ban me.
This thread is baiting, and it's against the code of conduct. You're "calling out" an incredibly wide swath of people, making accusations against them and then failing to back any of it up.
This thread is baiting, and it's against the code of conduct. You're "calling out" an incredibly wide swath of people, making accusations against them and then failing to back any of it up.
This thread is no different than the many "problem with 4e avengers"/"Problem with 4e hater" threads on the community forum.
All you have to do to see that my position has traction is to read any of the following threads:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1066685
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065669
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065671
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065442
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1066289
These are just examples. There are many more. Simply observe how the more adamant pro-4e posters respond when someone makes a criticism of 4e.
I'm not mischaracterizing anything. Your view of discourse in the these forums slants sharply towards the "people I disagree with flame" side of things. You then go on to paint one entire side of the debate with the term "Avenger" and accuse them of flaming. If anyone here is mischaracterizing someone else, it's you.
Those posters can always just walk away, right? That's what I keep hearing that these "Avengers" should do; walk away from non-productive threads. If it works for one side, it works for the other. Unless, of course, you're just there to start trouble in the first place.
.
1) Nope. That isn't my position at all. I feel that both sides should be respectful of the other. I also feel that there is room for reasonable debate. But once someone has explained their position after a round of questioning it does become sophistry. You can always keep asking questions. That is why sophistry works. Asking incessant questions, redifining terms, moving the goal post, and maintaining an extreme level of skepticism about event the most mundane claims are hallmarks of that style of rhetoric.
2) I don't feel anyone should have to walk away.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1066685
Started by a fan of 4E, asks an entirely reasonable question and even includes this caveat;
Also, to help prevent this from devolving into a flame war, I invite anyone who has an answer to PM me for 1-on-1 discussion.
Mention of the "Avengers" by the OP?; No.
Help your case?; No.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065669
Note the third post.
Yeah, it's the 4E people who are looking for fights.
Mention of the "Avengers" by the OP?; No.
Help your case?; No.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065671
That thread was started by a new poster who was curious what all the hubub was about. He got his answer early, thanked everyone who helped, then the thread was taken over by the usual suspects. Note the 6th post.
Mention of the "Avengers" by the OP?; Yes.
Help your case?; No.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065442
This thread doesn't look to me to be overly contentious at all until the board's most well known troll drops in for post 3. Outside of the minor derailment that called, the thread itself has been pretty productive.
Mention of the "Avengers" by the OP?; No.
Help your case?; No.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1066289
This thread was actually posted at the request of someone you'd term an "Avenger," and has been incredibly well received. Then again, it's a well thought out and clearly well informed critique of the new system from the point of view of someone who doesn't like it yet understands that other people have a right to. In other words, it's the online equivalent of a white buffalo.
Mention of the "Avengers" by the OP?; No.
Help your case?; No.
These are just examples. There are many more. Simply observe how the more adamant pro-4e posters respond when someone makes a criticism of 4e.
I'm left with the impression that you didn't actually read any of the threads you linked to, or weren't expecting anyone else to check the veracity of your claims. Either way, none of this helped your case.
This thread is no different than the many "problem with 4e avengers"/"Problem with 4e hater" threads on the community forum.
All you have to do to see that my position has traction is to read any of the following threads:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1066685
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065669
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065671
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1065442
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1066289
These are just examples. There are many more. Simply observe how the more adamant pro-4e posters respond when someone makes a criticism of 4e.
All the examples you have shown here (with the exception of the last one) are actually a very clear demonstration of yourself, psionx, Derren S and the rest of the usually suspects taking normal discussions off the rails. Lets see, i saw your first entry you made in one of them consisted of something along the lines of 4E is bad because at least 3.5 was fun... wow... that is not baiting in the least, you didn't go into any detail at all (in fact your post consisted on one sentence) and the people who were actually silly enough to engage you in grown up conversation are the ones i am assuming you are saying are guilt of Sophistry... like Batshido and other mentioned here.. this whole thread is another sad attempt at baiting....
1) Nope. That isn't my position at all. I feel that both sides should be respectful of the other. I also feel that there is room for reasonable debate. But once someone has explained their position after a round of questioning it does become sophistry. You can always keep asking questions. That is why sophistry works. Asking incessant questions, redifining terms, moving the goal post, and maintaining an extreme level of skepticism about event the most mundane claims are hallmarks of that style of rhetoric.
the threads you have posted above go a long way to support batshido's comment... see my above post for the why part of this post..
I'm left with the impression that you didn't actually read any of the threads you linked to, or weren't expecting anyone else to check the veracity of your claims. Either way, none of this helped your case.
I did. I just didn't stop with the OPs like you did. I suggest you read the posts on the threads by people who don't like 4e, and then oberve the responses.
Way to cherry pick. Read the thread with an open eye, instead of the narrow lens you have been using to this point.
I did. I just didn't stop with the OPs like you did. I suggest you read the posts on the threads by people who don't like 4e, and then oberve the responses.
This thread is no different than the many "problem with 4e avengers"/"Problem with 4e hater" threads on the community forum.
None of those were a "Problem with X posters" thread, first off. You seem to be one of the only people around here with a mad-on for the other side that's big enough that it forces you to post threads demonizing them.
Second, I don't see anything in those threads that is unacceptable outside of a few instances of active trolling by anti posters trying to derail threads that are actually going somewhere. The last instance in particular is an excellent example of a thread started by someone who doesn't like 4e that has yet to be flamed or derailed by an "Avenger." Any derailment or flaming started with a drive-by troll (most of them well-known for such around here) and was quickly quashed in favor of actual conversation.
You're seeing what you want to see and taking offense when others don't. Sorry, but you're wrong here and the more you try to force this non-issue and engage in attempts of mass character assassination you're just trolling.
None of those were a "Problem with X posters" thread, first off. You seem to be one of the only people around here with a mad-on for the other side that's big enough that it forces you to post threads demonizing them.
Second, I don't see anything in those threads that is unacceptable outside of a few instances of active trolling by anti posters trying to derail threads that are actually going somewhere. The last instance in particular is an excellent example of a thread started by someone who doesn't like 4e that has yet to be flamed or derailed by an "Avenger." Any derailment or flaming started with a drive-by troll (most of them well-known for such around here) and was quickly quashed in favor of actual conversation.
You're seeing what you want to see and taking offense when others don't. Sorry, but you're wrong here and the more you try to force this non-issue and engage in attempts of mass character assassination you're just trolling.
But I am not talking about flaming or derailment. I am talking about 4e sophistry. There is a difference. I never said they flamed. I said they asked incessant questions to the point of frustrating posters. No answer is ever good enough. That is my only position on this thread.
But I am not talking about flaming or derailment. I am talking about 4e sophistry. There is a difference. I never said they flamed. I said they asked incessant questions to the point of frustrating posters. No answer is ever good enough. That is my only position on this thread.
Specific examples, please.
Those threads are filled with people discussing the game. If that amounts to "incessant questions to the point of frustrating posters" then that's the definition of a discussion forum.
But I am not talking about flaming or derailment. I am talking about 4e sophistry. There is a difference. I never said they flamed. I said they asked incessant questions to the point of frustrating posters. No answer is ever good enough. That is my only position on this thread.
So were not allowed to ask question to clarify somebody's position on a subject or exactly what it is they don't like or understand.. even when their posts consist of "i don't like 4th ed the skill system sucks".. wow.. that is going to lead to alot on constructive discussion on the boards...
ps.. does anybody else get the feeling i am being ignored?? lol... oh well.. i really enjoyed talking to this guy...
Specific examples, please.
Those threads are filled with people discussing the game. If that amounts to "incessant questions to the point of frustrating posters" then that's the definition of a discussion forum.
This is just from a cursory glance. If I had more time I would offer more examples. Note that it is not the individual questions that are problematic, but the line of questions which never result in a satisfactory explanation.
Which mechanics would be 'needed'? Why it is not a matter of fluff and the organisation of the game?
please explain.
I have to ask? Where do you see more roleplaying in 3.X?
Ok, why do you need a craft skill?
It seems to me that the 4E Avengers in the General forum are guilty of sophistry. They don't so much make logical or reasoned arguments as pepper posters with incessant questions until they are at a loss for words. Before you know it, you are being asked to define the true meaning of piety, while being seduced by an old greek man. Pure sophistry! :P
Fanaticism (of any kind) and sophistry go hand in hand. No surprise.
This is just from a cursory glance. If I had more time I would offer more examples. Note that it is not the individual questions that are problematic, but the line of questions which never result in a satisfactory explanation.
So asking for clarification on a statement like "4E doesn't support roleplaying" is sophistry?
How are we supposed to engage in any sort of discussion if we don't know any details about the issue at hand?
In cases like that, we either ask for a clarification or we nod our heads in agreement; there aren't any other options. Obviously, you'd prefer the second option, but only if it's the "Avengers" doing it, not the people who don't like 4E.
I hope you get perm-banned.
Eh, it's not like all the trolls don't have sock puppets. He'll be back.
Of **** you you dumb piece of ****. I ignore you because your a moron.
But remember, guys, those of us who support 4E are the ones who are being unreasonable and insulting.
Eh, it's not like all the trolls don't have sock puppets. He'll be back.
they always are.. it is hard to light something on fire through the internet...
I know, but it [size=4]MIGHT[/size] leave an impression and remind him what he did wrong here. We can hope, right?
We can hope, but I wouldn't put any money on it.
Best case scenario; they IP ban him and he has to get his provider to reset his connection. At least that would be annoying enough that he might not want to go through it again.
they always are.. it is hard to light something on fire through the internet...
That it is. This is a technology we need to develop soon.
The thread has been brought to the attention of Community Management, who will decide if it should remain closed, be reopened, moved, or deleted.