What really bothers me is the misuse of fallacies.
Why? Because
- it is a fallacy on its own, and thus quite ironic
- it is an easy way out of an argument ("ha, I don't need to answer that, because its a fallacy")
- it deteriorates the thread, because the next posts will be why it is or isn't a fallacy rather than addressing the topic
This is why I would like to add a new fallacy or two for everyone’s reference that is formatted like this: The ____/Qube Fallacy
For example:
The Oberoni/Qube Fallacy
The Oberoni Fallacy says ONLY says that Rule 0 is not a valid reason why Rule X is not broken/inconsistent/etc...
The Oberoni Fallacy: This is an incorrect statement: There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.
It is commonly misused as reason why the following argument is should be dismissed:
"I think there is nothing wrong with Rule X, but if you want to fix it, you can use Rule 0"
this is a correct statement:
- The writer's opinion is that Rule X is okay (for whatever reason)
- The writer also wants to be helpful, saying that, if you do not share his opinion, you can fix it.
- Seeing that English is not everyone’s native tongue, the word 'fix' is poorly chosen (perhaps 'change' would be a better word).
The Stormwind/Qube Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy ONLY puts a link between character-creation and the playing of the character, saying that one is independent of the other.
The Stormwind Fallacy: Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
It is commonly misused by powerplayers who say that their character is a roleplay character.
The difference between a roleplay character and a powerplay character is the reason why someone takes ranks/feats/...
- A player of a "roleplay character" takes his skill/... because it fits his character concept.
- A player of a "powerplayed character" takes his skill/... because it makes his character better.
Examples:
- In both cases, an optimized rogue will have full ranks in hide and move silently, but that does not change the fact that one is a roleplay character, while the other is a powerplay character.
- When you create an optimal feat-combination for a melee cleric, and then say that you have a roleplay character (based on the The Stormwind Fallacy) you are wrong.
- When you create Thomas Peterson, cleric of Kord and Punisher Of infidels, and give him (coincidently or for optimizing purposes) the same feats, and then saying you have got a roleplay character, is correct.
As you can see in the last 2 examples, the line between roleplay and powerplay is sometimes hard to distinguish.
On a final note: Stormwind nor Oberoni know of this post. I mentioned their name in the name of the Fallacy, for easy use. I first called them 'First Qube Fallacy' and 'Second Qube Fallacy', but that didn't seem right to me, and it was more difficult to use. Of course, I would appreciate input from them. Other examples are also welcome.
However, you took it one step futher and made a more general statement. It's more like a universal corollary rather than a fallacy though.
I do agree people misuse it -- it makes NO claim whatsoever about how you should play. It also isn't phrased the way it is to support overpowergamers; it's phrased that way because all of the dichotomy statements that it opposes come from the 'high-horse-pure-roleplaying-min-maxing-is-evil' camp, which is apparently acceptable, and none come from the 'get-your-icky-roleplay-out-of-the-way-and-let's-go-stomp-monsters' camp (which doesn't seem to exist on these boards). Had it gone the other way, I'd have reversed the emphasis (i.e. just because one roleplays their character well does not mean that the character is not optimized, and vice versa).
All it is meant to say is that you can roleplay AND be good at what you do at the same time, or you can have a deficiency in one or the other, or a deficiency in both. That is all.
That said, if your concept is a strong [X], and you take feats that make you stronger, you are both powergaming AND fitting the concept (A roleplayed character is not necessarily one who has a disability. Vestigial Thumb noted at one point that the drama queens *all* tend to make characters with severe handicaps, such as one-armed blind bards with a limp, and in jest led to the "Cripple your drama queen; it's what they want" mockery). A player of a character who takes a feat 'because it makes him more powerful' is making a metagame decision -- but his character isn't. He could play that feat in any way he wanted, and it could serve him quite well as a character tool -- but it could also serve him as just something in the background (not played at all), or even a DETRIMENT ("Kravex, explain to me why, as a wizard who has never held a weapon in our games, you saw it fit to take Improved Trip."). It all depends on how you play that choice.
For instance, my shaper started with the Overchannel feat. This is a sound feat choice in most cases, and it makes for a very strong manifester. That is entirely why I, the player, chose it.
That said, my shaper herself has a tendency to go overboard and lose control every so often, letting emotions cloud her discipline. This sometimes even emerges without her control -- part of her backstory involved her losing control of her powers while having nightmares as her early talent stirred. This, story-wise, is best represented either as Overchannel or Wild Surge, and my character's outlook and approach to her talents didn't fit with the wilder class (she is intelligent, methodical, and disciplined, approaching her power as a deliberate art). This left Overchannel.
Now, which came first, the story, or the metagame choice?
It sounds like I chose the feat first and wrote the story to fit later (which is what many optimizers, including myself, often do). In this case, though, the story came first and I chose the feat later (I wrote her story back in 3e, before Overchannel existed, and relied on simple RP to show its effects. When the update hit, I couldn't resist taking the feat, noting that it both tickled my powegamer senses and fit her story quite well). Either way is equally valid -- as are ways that develop them in tandem.
This happens with other players as well. Just because a choice is made for powergaming or roleplay reasons doesn't mean it can't have roleplay or powergaming reasons as well, to say nothing of the results.
In other words, your example of Thomas Peterson, cleric of Kord and Punisher Of Infidels is pretty spot-on.
Without a story and/or personality, your character is not designed for roleplay, no matter how optimized. And, conversely, without optimal mechanical choices, your character is not designed for in-game rules-based success, no matter how well you may play that role. Only by developing both can you claim to have strength in both. By violating either of these claims, you're committing the Stormwind/Qube Fallacy.
And it's one of my three pet peeves about the thing that people misuse it so much. The others are that I had to write it at all (it should have been obvious, but needed to be popularized), and that I used my name for it (It needed a catchy name, yes, but I was arrogant enough to give it my own. At least it has a semi-used subname).
I can't comment as intently on the Oberoni/Qube Fallacy, although I do agree with it (i.e. saying that you believe it is fine or that a possible alternative could be X is not the same as making the claim that it *is* fine or that you *should* use X, which would be textbook Oberoni). That said, it could be more dramatically improved by simply saying "Yes, some people find a problem with it, but" before your quote. People don't tend to invoke Oberoni if there's an admission of a problem, even if the proposed solution is a rule 0 effect.
It is commonly misused as reason why the following argument is should be dismissed:
"I think there is nothing wrong with Rule X, but if you want to fix it, you can use Rule 0"
this is a correct statement:
Correct, though usually either the original post/angry reply suffers from not reading the topic/previous poster. Thus it's not so much a fallacy in action so much as a breakdown in communications.
The Stormwind/Qube Fallacy
The difference between a roleplay character and a powerplay character is the reason why someone takes ranks/feats/...
- A player of a "roleplay character" takes his skill/... because it fits his character concept.
- A player of a "powerplayed character" takes his skill/... because it makes his character better.
WRONG. A roleplaying character has a background and story that give that character a unique and believable personality. The character should have skills and feats that represent things that occurred in the characters history or their abilities, but a character with no skills can be roleplayed, just as a character with no skills.
A powerplayed character has stats and abilities that make his character optimal in the situations he chooses to excel at.
The only time the two sets ever interact is when a character roleplays abilities and skills. In all other functions the two fields are completely separate.
Examples:
- In both cases, an optimized rogue will have full ranks in hide and move silently, but that does not change the fact that one is a roleplay character, while the other is a powerplay character.
- When you create an optimal feat-combination for a melee cleric, and then say that you have a roleplay character (based on the The Stormwind Fallacy) you are wrong.
- When you create Thomas Peterson, cleric of Kord and Punisher Of infidels, and give him (coincidently or for optimizing purposes) the same feats, and then saying you have got a roleplay character, is correct.
When you claim that the person who created an optimal melee cleric, then named him Thomas Peterson, cleric of Kord and Punisher Of infidels, and gave him a back story unto 5 generations is not a roleplayer, solely because of the order in which he built his character, you commit the Stormwind fallacy.
The roleplaying aspect of a character is not defined by how it was built or even why it was built. It is based on how the player roleplays it in game.
As you can see in the last 2 examples, the line between roleplay and powerplay is sometimes hard to distinguish.
Because there isn't one. There's a point where they intersect, and it's called Charisma, Diplomacy and Bluff. Other then that, they rarely talk.
Bam. Realistic character, right there. As Magic designer Mark Rosewater loves to say, restrictions breed creativity.
Some approach character creation from the bottom-up: creating a person and finding the numbers to represent that person. But some of us approach it from the top-down: starting with a set of numbers and finding the person hidden there. I once tried to do "bottom-up" and couldn't, because it is in my nature to plan ahead and work my hardest in every endeavor. My character was not only weak, but no fun to roleplay. Both methods are valid. Neither way is wrong or less of an exercise in roleplaying. The line you draw between "roleplaying" and "powerplaying" would be better drawn between "bottom-up" and "top down".
I would question a slightly different case though. Poster A creates one of the many threads claiming "Rule X is broken." Then Poster B responds that "If you think Rule X is broken, then use Rule 0 on it." Then people accuse Poster B of using the Oberoni Fallacy. I would suggest that this is not a case of the Oberoni Fallacy. Poster B is in no way claiming that Rule X does not have an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue. He is simply claiming that an easy way to get rid of the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue is to apply Rule 0.
What I think Poster B really wanted to say is: "why are you here complaining about something instead of doing something about it? Rule 0 allows you to fix/change Rule X instead of complaining about it." It's the difference between "Rule X is not broken, you can Rule 0 it." and "Rule X is broken. You can Rule 0 it." A rather small grammatical change, but often misunderstood.
The Oberoni fallacy seems to me to only apply in evaluations of a gaming system. The Oberoni fallacy means that someone cannot say that System A is a perfect gaming system because Rule 0 means that a particular Rule X isn't actually a problem. It denies the argument "There are no problems in this system because you can always Rule 0 a problem." That's about it.
To sum up: Rule 0 is a solution to a problem, not a denial of the problem. Therefore suggesting Rule 0 is not a fallacy.
I mean, as far as I can tell, you haven't even added anything to the fallacies, you're just restating them and pointing out how other people misuse them. How does this entitle you to try and claim an equal share of the recognition by sticking your name into their work?
All of these so called "fallacies" are not written as fallacies. In fact, they are written is a logical deduction format meant to dispel the fallacy. In presenting a fallacy, it should *be* a fallacy, not a deduction that is opposed to the fallacy. You can think of a fallacy, in a way as a falter, or down-fall. It's the incorrect (in terms of being logical) way of thinking. A fallacy is a negative thing to have.
In addition, your "Qube fallacy" is simply a straw man argument. By mentioning a fallacy in a debate/argument, the provoker is actually using a straw man to draw attention away from the points someone has said by claiming a named fallacy. The common success of this straw man argument is partially contributed to the fact that there are named fallacies in the first place. Simply by mentioning the name of a said fallacy, the mentioner has already supposedly discredited the other person whether or not the said fallacy applies.
I mean no insult to Oberoni or Tempest Stormwind, or anyone else who wishes to make a named fallacy, but I find that naming common logic fallacies on the board does little to no good. And attaching your name to them suggests that anyone who understands what a fallacy is, that you were the one that used the fallacy, rather than recognised/organized that specific application of the fallacy popped up often on the board. Rather, it might be better mentioned as the "Sphyre Fallacy Theory" rather than the "Sphyre Fallacy."
For Example:
The Stormwind Fallacy Theory states that Role Playing and Character Optimization are mutually exclusive. The logic fallacy is that people will make claims contrary to this because their experiences have been limited. Examples of the Stormwind Fallacy are:
--If you really want to see the stormwind fallacy you can see the thread Tempest Stormwind made it in.
- I know someone who role plays well, but his character mechanics aren't nearly as good as an optimized character, thus those who role play well cannot have a well optimized character.
--If you really want to see the stormwind fallacy you can see the thread Tempest Stormwind made it in.
But, you see the thing is, you can't just decide to name stuff after yourself. It sounds arrogant at best, and like you're just trying to grab up some fame for yourself (aka greedy) at worst. Oberroni didn't start calling it the Oberroni Fallacy, he just kept repeating it and that’s what other people started calling it. Same with Stormwind. Honestly, I find trying to stick your own name on the end of someone else's claim to fame rather distasteful.
I mean, as far as I can tell, you haven't even added anything to the fallacies, you're just restating them and pointing out how other people misuse them. How does this entitle you to try and claim an equal share of the recognition by sticking your name into their work?
In all honesty, I did state it over and over and over, but it didn't get named spontaneously by the forum -- I was the first to call it by name. It's one of the few things I regret about it (see above). I could have cited the CO Board FAQ by stembolt (which includes a famous exchange: "I'm a roleplayer and I don't min/max." "Right. And I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury."), which to my knowledge is the oldest surviving well-known record of the same idea on these boards, but I was too involved in the argument on the thread that spawned it to think to do so.
I've also admitted many times that yes, I'm arrogant (of all the seven sins, Pride is the one I suffer the most although I wouldn't describe myself as vain), which may have contributed to the choice of name given the context of the argument. It was arrogant of me to use my name when I named the thing. The important part, though, was that it could GET a name -- people LIKE names, which is part of the reason fallacies are so popular ("That's the No True Scotsman fallacy" has a lot more panache than "you're using subjective definitions as proof"). The point I was trying to make -- that RP and optimization are not opposed to each other but rather independent -- desperately needed to be put out, and I figured (right there in the post) that with a catchy name it'd pick up. Incidentally, it has a more proper name as well -- the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy -- but no one seems to use that, although it's a commonly-cited fallacy now. Which, you know, kind of was the whole point of writing it -- so people would stop saying such stupid things as "I'm a roleplayer and I don't min/max."
(On an unrelated note, it's always that way -- 'high roleplay' people who talk smack towards optimization. I've never once seen it go the other way -- and indeed, the whole 'keep your roleplay to yourself, let's go crush monsters' perspective sounds silly and biased by itself, doesn't it? I posit that the earlier statements should sound JUST as absurd in the public eye, since it's essentially an embodiment of the Stormwind Fallacy. I don't know why it's only one-directional, though I have some theories.)
Oh, and for the record, Highbulp speaks for me on Oberoni. Well said.
Just as, technically, the Stormwind Fallacy is the Red Herring fallacy phrased in D&D terminology, this is an elaboration on the misuse of fallacies. I agree with your conclusions, although I must object to your terminology when describing examples of misusing the Stormwind Fallacy. You use terms that imply a dichotomy when the whole point of that fallacy is that there is no such dichotomy.
Actually, isn't it a False Dilemma? Taking from this website:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
While the whole Roleplay vs Rollplay argument could utilize Red Herrings, I don't believe it's the core of it.
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.
I think that fits more with people who claim that you cannot be both a roleplayer and an optimizer.
Fill in the X and Y with Roleplayer and Optimizer respectively and you'll see how neatly it fits.
It happens all the time, most famously with an Eberron gnome bard who had a bit of an issue with curiosity. I can't count the number of times that she set off some trap by going, "Hey that button looks cool I wonder what it does!" The one that most comes to mind was during an intentionally silly gestalt game. Though silly, I still wanted SOME character development: she was a monk-priestess of Bahamut who loudly yelled at any chromatic dragons she came across that they were sinners, etc. Then the guy playing the barbarian says to me, essentially, "Will you SHUT UP and STOP TALKING TO THE DRAGON so we can freaking KILL IT." (As a note, I hadn't even been talking to it that long, the conversation was something like "The might of Bahamut will smite thee, beast!" with it replying something like "You cannot stop me, Child of Bahamut!" or some such villain banter.) This actually led to one of the few times when I have, in fact, flipped out at someone.
And honestly, I can't understand this attitude. I still don't understand the guy who perpetuated it and I make it a point to avoid him in games, because I KNOW we'll fight. D&D is NOT a videogame, no matter how much you think it is. Yes, there is killing things and blowing things up and grabbing loot. But at its heart the point of D&D is to tell a story. At least, that's how I feel it should be.
But by the same token, even though it's about telling a story, in my opinion it's about being awesome while telling a story. You are a hero, you can hurl fireballs and use swords and whatnot. There's no reason to intentionally cripple your character so that you're "more realistic" if you don't want to. So your character really -is- that good. So he has trained for years and has visited the Mountains of Sorrow to become the ultimate master. That's what optimization, to me, means. Not that I'm good at optimizing. Frankly, I suck at it. But I'd rather play a well-optimized character than a character who is intentionally crippled for the sake of roleplay.
... Right, I'm done now.
Just as, technically, the Stormwind Fallacy is the Red Herring fallacy phrased in D&D terminology
I wish I knew more about specific names of logic fallacies rather than simply being able to describe them.
When I wrote my post, I didn't know whether the makers of the named fallacies, by anyone who made one, knew that it was simply an application of a logical fallacy in D&D terms. It's nice to know that you know that, and you're simply just restating it. For that reason, I have a bit more respect for the fact that you ended up naming it after yourself, knowing that it was simply just an application of a broader logic fallacy.
I still stand by the statement, that ideally it would be better if everyone just understood logical fallacies to begin with rather than name specific applications of other fallacies... but fat chance that's gonna happen, right?
It's more like a universal corollary rather than a fallacy though.
So are most fallacies: a fallacy is a fault in deduction. Most fallacies are faults created by the fact that they start with something incomplete. Example:
1. Cars should never exceed the speed limit
2. Police cars are cars
3. Therefore, police cars should never exceed the speed limit
The incomplete statement is (1): there are cars (police cars) that sometimes should exceed the speed limit.
In the same way:
1. I got a powerplayed character
2. Stormwind Fallacy
3. Therefore, I got a roleplay character
You use terms that imply a dichotomy when the whole point of that fallacy is that there is no such dichotomy.
(Dichotomy?
-:whatsthis wikipedia- A mutually exclusive bipartition of elements. Strangely enough I understand better 
) It was not my intension to imply a dichotomy, I was just talking about extremes.It is quite natural for your character that he/she wants to be stronger, so any choice you make will make your character stronger. It is not natural that your character gets skills in profession (sailor) to get a synergy bonus in balance (Could be a house rule), while he is in the middle of the desert.
So there are still 'extremes'.
WRONG. A roleplaying character ...
True, and I agree with you. It was a poor explanation of the difference of roleplay and powerplay.
When you claim that the person who created an optimal melee cleric, then named him Thomas Peterson, cleric of Kord and Punisher Of infidels, and gave him a back story unto 5 generations is not a roleplayer,
Of course I would not do such a thing. The problem is that most stop at the optimal melee cleric, give him a name, and that's it. Then they use the Stormwind fallacy and say “look at my roleplay character.”
You've restated these two arguments, provided a few obvious examples, and then attached your own name?
Isn't every fallacy this way, giving an example, explain why it is wrong and then attaching a name to it?
I intend to keep the list up to date; but since there aren't many 'popular' fallacies yet, there aren't many 'popular' misuses of them. So unless I start filling the list with almost never used situations, the list will be short. It is not my intent to replace the Oberoni or Stormwind fallacy. The Stormwind/Qube fallacy only goes in effect if:
1. Someone uses the Stormwind fallacy and
2. uses it wrongly
I take slight issue with the Stormwind/Qube Fallacy. I assert that there is no point distinguishing between "powerplay" character choices and "roleplay" character choices.
As I explained to DaidojiTaidoru, you are correct. My example was poorly chosen. I guess your character will have had a reason to start with taking levels in monk, then later in cleric (perhaps he/she needed to take a test that required some skills, which explains why he/she took on some limited training as monk.) The problem would be if you stopped at Ruby Shadow.
I'm very glad someone has finally pointed out this misapplication of the Oberoni fallacy.
Thanks. This was (at least partially) the reason why I made this post.
Honestly, I find trying to stick your own name on the end of someone else's claim to fame rather distasteful.
1. I am greedy. I know this of myself, so perhaps subconsciously ...
2. I'm not (just) repeating Oberoni or Stormwind. The Qube fallacy is basically, "Don't abuse other people’s work". Given are two popular examples of how the Oberoni and Stormwind fallacy are abused. The list will grow, as there are more 'popular' abuse of fallacies. And, as I said to Argon_Asimov, it is not my intent to claim their work or fame, but rather to prevent abuse.
I mean no insult to Oberoni or Tempest Stormwind, or anyone else who wishes to make a named fallacy, but I find that naming common logic fallacies on the board does little to no good.
The fact that you call it 'common logic' is strange. If it was that common, neither fallacy would exist. And personally I would rather say things like 'Stormwind Fallacy' over things like 'Converse Fallacy of Accident' which to me also says nothing.
And attaching your name to them suggests that anyone who understands what a fallacy is, that you were the one that used the fallacy, rather than recognised/organized that specific application of the fallacy popped up often on the board. Rather, it might be better mentioned as the "Sphyre Fallacy Theory" rather than the "Sphyre Fallacy."
Perhaps, but it has already been used over and over again, so now most people don't have this feeling anymore. And now it does not matter anymore if Stormwind used it or recognised it. The important part is that everyone knows it.
So why make a billion different named logical fallacies in the first place?
This is why I opted for the name Stromwind/Qube fallacy instead of the Qube fallacy: The Qube fallacy is just another fallacy; the Stormwind/Qube fallacy is a fallacy concerning the Stormwind Fallacy. Btw, after a couple of months/years, only the most used will be used and the others will be forgotten, so we'll never use a billion different named logical fallacies.
By mentioning a fallacy in a debate/argument, the provoker is actually using a straw man to draw attention away from the points someone has said by claiming a named fallacy.
Aren't you assuming that the "provoker" is wrong? Calling someone's statement logically unsound when it is logically unsound doesn't draw attention away from the points being made.
The fact of the matter is, there are some instances of conversations on the boards when people make blatantly unsound arguments. Pointing out the lack of validity of said arguments is quite a valid, and often necessary act, since it allows others to see the mistake, or to realise the argument is being made in bad faith. Having a quick name for it doesn't have any intrinsic negative value, just as "straw man", "appeal to authority" or "argumentum ad nauseam" do.
The problem, as with anything else, is when those names are not used properly, as has been pointed out by others here.
Is there some form of arrogance in naming the fallacy after himself? Yes. However, the reasoning behind giving it that name is not one of desire for recognition (Tempest Stormwind had that already), but one of a desire to see the fallacy eliminated. He thought, very correctly, it appears, that the fallacy would be cited and thus eliminated more quickly if it had a catchy name. Since a precedent stood in the form of the Oberoni fallacy of naming a fallacy after the person that gave it recognition, it was acceptable to follow suit.
I applaud Stormwind for starting the fallacy craze. While I am not happy with the current trend of creating other named so-called "fallacies," I feel that sometimes starting a deplorable trend is acceptable when giving a greater amount of service to the community.
As to Qube's "fallacies," they are, as has been stated, a waste of time. Your Oberoni corollary is almost nonexistant, and your Stormwind corollary is, at best, a simple restatement and, at worst, a complete contradiction to its parent fallacy. I believe it is the latter.
It is commonly misused as reason why the following argument is should be dismissed:
"I think there is nothing wrong with Rule X, but if you want to fix it, you can use Rule 0"
this is a correct statement:
- The writer's opinion is that Rule X is okay (for whatever reason)
- The writer also wants to be helpful, saying that, if you do not share his opinion, you can fix it.
- Seeing that English is not everyone’s native tongue, the word 'fix' is poorly chosen (perhaps 'change' would be a better word).
The way I see it, because the statement is not that clear anyways, is that the writer there is pretty much saying that Rule X is fine because you can use Rule 0. Yes, it is an assumption, but people reading what you're saying are going to do that when given an ambiguous response.
And Rule 0 might not even be anything that's any good. Like with Fighters, as that is the debate I am generally associated with, there are people out there who think that Fighters are perfectly A-Okay because a DM can just shower them with equipment until they reach a comparable level of power to the rest of the party.
To me, doing that is like drinking alcohol during a snow storm to try and get warm. It's a superficial solution to the problem and it leads us directly to the Fighter = Warrior issue (wherein giving two characters of the respective classes the same equipment is going to lead to marginal differences in performance between them. It can be expanded to using the commoner instead of the warrior in some extreme cases). That, to me, falls into the realm of the Oberoni Fallacy.
Though, I guess that it ultimately depends on the situation... and on both of the debaters to be reasonable, logical, and clear with their message. But we can't always have nice things and sometimes it is just easier to respond to an entire post with, "XXX fallacy," and explains ourselves later.
As for the Stormwind Fallacy... it should never have gotten to the point where it became an issue. If people would stop getting uppity about how other people play the game, we would never have anything to talk about.
And at some point writing this I was going to declare the Waffle Fallacy, but I forgot what it was from that point to now... I'm sure that it wasn't that important...
Aren't you assuming that the "provoker" is wrong? Calling someone's statement logically unsound when it is logically unsound doesn't draw attention away from the points being made.
True, but in the scenario of the "Qube Fallacy" the one with the faulty logic attempts to distract those who would expose his faulty logic by claiming that someone else is using the "Stormwind Fallacy," even when it wouldn't be applicable. By doing this, he is saying "I am right because you're using what's already been proven wrong." At this point, we have a shifted burden of proof. Now the one with faulty logic says he no longer has to back up his arguments because the one who he accused is forced with proving his own innocence.
Only those witty enough to notice this ruse will be able to note that it's merely a distraction and shifted burden of proof and actually doesn't have any relevance to the debate at hand. As such, the one with faulty logic appears to have a much stronger argument because he's actually accusing someone of being guilty of a logical fallacy that has been "widely accepted as wrong."
For an analogy, Bob murder George. Pam says that Bob is wrong in killing George. Bob says that killing is part of nature and it's ok. Pam says murder is not party of nature (But concedes the fact that killing is). Bob accuses Pam of the "Tony Fallacy." Bob says that because she's guilty of the Tony Fallacy, and we know the Tony fallacy to be false, her arguments hold no weight, and since Pam’s accusation that Bob is false, Bob must in turn be right.
The "Tony Fallacy" is accepted in their society as the fallacy. The statement stems off the logic that simply because you eat meat in your diet, it does not mean you'd kill another member of your race for food.
An example of this fallacy if someone kills a cow and makes steak for dinner, they would do the same to another member of their race if they wanted to, because they eat meat.
Pam is now forced with the burden of proof that she is not exhibiting the Tony fallacy, but not only that, how can she say she isn't? The Tony Fallacy in the society is already accepted as being wrong, so she's labeled as wrong simply because she was accused, not because she actually was exhibiting the Tony Fallacy in her argument.
Assuming Pam is a smart girl, she'll notice this ruse that she was simply accused of exhibiting the "Tony Fallacy" but wasn't actually guilty of it. She will point this out and reveal that Bob is indeed a murderer.
Assuming Pam is not as observant, she'll be unable to know how to disprove the shifted burden of proof and Bob will get away with murder, and Pam will be shunned unless someone else realizes Bob's ruse. Pam is the hero in this story, the one with correct logic, and her heart in the right place to find the truth, but because she's not as smart, she is shunned simply because she was accused, and accusation equaled guilt because no one noticed that it was merely a false accusation.
If Bob's an idiot who deliberately misuses the name in an attempt to be obscure, the name itself is no less or more valid for it. After all, Bob could pull the same shenanigans off using the long form. It falls to the rest of the audience, or Pam, to point out his specious argumentation.
It's not that it's completely negative or positive, but rather I see them as equal. It adds just as much trouble as it solves. Thus is the never ending debate.
If Bob's an idiot who deliberately misuses the name in an attempt to be obscure, the name itself is no less or more valid for it. After all, Bob could pull the same shenanigans off using the long form. It falls to the rest of the audience, or Pam, to point out his specious argumentation.
As another example, Person B might correctly use an ad ridiculum argument to show that Person A's overly broad categorical statement is deeply flawed or needs to have some limitations defined. Now, Person A might respond, as is the popular trend, by shouting "Strawman Fallacy" as if it were a mantra that wards off disagreeing arguments.
However, even if they were not familiar with the name, Person A very well might still make a statement to the effect of "But that's not exactly what I said - so your 'argument' is irrelevant to the discussion at hand." And that latter bit does get used now and again.
Does the popularity of terms like "Strawman!" as magical argument-winning incantations increase their misuse? Certainly. And misuse and overuse do eventually wear away at the associated meaning that is communicated by many phrases.
I think that these are the more 'dangerous' parts. If Pam's none too bright and Bob favors disingenuous argumentation, chances are that Pam's going to end up flummoxed, knowing that she has an objection to what Bob is saying, but unable to articulate it. I don't know if the existence of oft-cited fallacies are really going to majorly change this either way.
Actually, isn't it a False Dilemma? Taking from this website:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
While the whole Roleplay vs Rollplay argument could utilize Red Herrings, I don't believe it's the core of it.
I think that fits more with people who claim that you cannot be both a roleplayer and an optimizer.
Fill in the X and Y with Roleplayer and Optimizer respectively and you'll see how neatly it fits.
Ah, I missed this until now and apologize; yes, I screwed up in the earlier post (I wrote that while procrastinating on a term paper!), and it is more accurately a False Dilemma, simply stated in terms that this board needed to contextualize it. If left in typical fallacy language (i.e. A does not imply not B; A, therefore not B; non sequitor), people wouldn't have identified with it as much, and thus it wouldn't have been cited, and those debates would STILL be going on.
My goal when I wrote it was to stop those bloody stupid arguments, if you'll forgive my tone. They add nothing to the game, imply a schism where none exists (RP/Powergaming), lead to flamewars, and all sorts of other behavior which isn't healthy for the forum or for the game.
That said, back on topic, YES, people misuse them. And yes, it's annoying to me, and to others. These fallacies are simply meant to illustrate when you are making a false argument (in Oberoni's case, that Rule Zero makes all rule glitches obsolete, and in Stormwind's case, that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive). They are not meant to claim anything about how the game *should* be played, nor are they meant as justification for anything (i.e. "Houserules are bad" is not a claim that Oberoni makes, and "I optimize, therefore I roleplay" isn't a claim that Stormwind makes).
I'd make it clearer (i.e. for anyone who attempts to use it incorrectly) in the fallacy post itself if that thread weren't locked. I might consider reposting it, but 1) I don't post on the DM boards anymore due to... well, in all honesty, it'd be best if I kept that reason to myself on Regdar's, and 2) the word is out there; if I were to repost it I'd appear as more arrogant than I actually am (as the Stormwind Fallacy really doesn't need more momentum or publicity, which is all a repost of that thread would be seen as at this point).
Really, at this point, it'd be better just to make sure the world at large was better educated in logic. This has, however, been a goal of education since the Greeks, and look at today -- we still need several of the same freaking fallacies. I see this as a need to try to educate further, though.
I'd make it clearer (i.e. for anyone who attempts to use it incorrectly) in the fallacy post itself if that thread weren't locked. I might consider reposting it, but 1) I don't post on the DM boards anymore due to... well, in all honesty, it'd be best if I kept that reason to myself on Regdar's, and 2) the word is out there; if I were to repost it I'd appear as more arrogant than I actually am (as the Stormwind Fallacy really doesn't need more momentum or publicity, which is all a repost of that thread would be seen as at this point).
Well, you are invited to write an entry here.
In fact I think this is the perfect place to write an update, since everybody seems to stumble into the Dictionary once in a while.
if I were to repost it I'd appear as more arrogant than I actually am (as the Stormwind Fallacy really doesn't need more momentum or publicity, which is all a repost of that thread would be seen as at this point).
Hm, perhaps we could work something out. How about I start a thread containing the Stormwind Fallacy, but I call it Bitnine's Bitastic Bitocracy. You could post your additional thoughts and clarifications on the issue, if only for the record, while looking humble. At the very least, in relative terms.
I mean, I've got a little bit that I've always wanted to say on the subject, which I suppose that I'll mention here in short: Beyond not conflicting, roleplaying well, in part, is another form of optimization. A character who only cares about being powerful and the central focus of attention is well served to be an excellent roleplayer. A real well-honed optimizer will make himself the main character of a story, essential to the plot because it increases that character's power and importance in a very real way.
Seriously, some focused optimizers are near experts in crafting interesting and well-founded characters, with each one of their character choices making sense within their concept and built up to with naturally flowing in-game grounding. Blah, but enough on that.