You are Here:

+-

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate

Author (Read 4791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« on: May 24, 2005, 08:27:46 PM »
 

TheGreatAvatar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • 1302
    Posts
  • Country: 00
    • H. A. A. W. G. S.
    • Awards
How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate

Section 1. The Goal
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

In any intelligent rules debate, the goal is to determine what the rules actually say. A rules debate should not help you win more games or find exploitable rules. It should allow you to feel confident that you are not breaking any rules, and thus (unintentionally) cheating your opponent.

Section 2. The First Principle
"Testimony is like an arrow shot from a long-bow; its force depends on the strength of the hand that draws it. But argument is like an arrow from a cross-bow, which has equal force if drawn by a child or a man." - Charles Boyle

The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: “Break No Rule.” In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle. If rules appear to conflict each other, there are three possible causes. First, that one rule is more specific, and thus overrides the more general rule. Second, that one rule limits the other. Third (and thankfully, most rarely), the rules are actually in conflict, and it is up to the players to come up with a mutually agreeable solution.

Section 3. The Method
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle

First, create an argument. The most applicable type of argument to make for YMDC is a deductive argument. A deductive argument consists of premises that provide a guarantee of the truth for a conclusion. The premises support the conclusion so strongly that if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Premises
For the sake of organization, number your premises. Premises should be largely based on rules. Sometime the rules won’t cover the issue, but if there is a related rule, it’s a good idea to include it in a premise. Be sure to provide page numbers or quotes.

Conclusion
This is your stance. Be sure that your premises support it and that they support no other conclusions, or the opposing side isn’t going to have much of a problem refuting.

EXAMPLE
Question: Can you ignore a large target to shoot at a smaller target further away?

Premise 1: Grey Tome, p19 "...you must pass a Leadership test if you want a unit target any enemy unit other than the closest."
Premise 2: Grey Tome, p19 "Exceptions: Units are always able to ignore targets which cannot be fired on (units with all models engaged in close combat, for example) and units that are falling back (see the Morale section for more on this)."
Premise 3: Grey Tome, p19 "...when it comes to choosing a target you can declare that your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery, and monstrous creatures (these are the only unit types you can target this way, collectively referred to as 'Large Targets') If you choose to target Large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target. A leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target."

Conclusion: You may not ignore a large target to shoot at a smaller target further away, because smaller targets are not among the exceptions made to the target priority rules.

Simple enough, isn't it?

Section 4. Refute the Argument, not the Arguer
“I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow.” - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

When refuting an argument, always remember that you are refuting the argument, not the arguer. The same applies to the arguer; remember that while the responses to your arguments may include scorn and derision, they should be directed towards the flaws in your argument, and should be taken as such. In other words, don't take any argument personally. If you feel you are being personally attacked, then notify a moderator.

Section 5. Refuting an Argument
"To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains." - Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole

There are basically two ways to refute a deductive argument.

#1 - Disprove a premise. If a premise is shown to be false, then it can’t lead to the conclusion. Be sure to reference the specific premise you are disproving. Use the numbers he provided.
#2 - Show that the premises don’t lead to the conclusion. This is usually a bit trickier, but a conclusion can’t stand if it’s based upon improperly applying premises.

…And that’s basically how you have a rules discussion. One side makes an argument, the other refutes, and they go back and forth until one side proves their case. In all rules disagreements, at least one side will almost always be wrong. If you're proven wrong, admit it and move on. You'll gain far more respect for admitting to an error than you will for stubbornly holding to an unsupportable position.

In those rare circumstances where both parties are right...congratulat ions, you've discovered a loophole in the rules. Now you know what you may need to discuss with your opponent before a game, in order to avoid an argument during the game.

** end part 1 **

(From DakkaDakka: Written by Mauleed. Edited/Revised by Centurian99)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/6158/view/topic/Default.aspx


** updated link 8/21/7 tga **
** updated link 5/22/6 tga **
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 12:19:53 PM by Chuckles »

 

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate (part II)
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2005, 08:31:05 PM »
 

TheGreatAvatar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • 1302
    Posts
  • Country: 00
    • H. A. A. W. G. S.
    • Awards
How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate (part II)

Appendix A: Common Argument Mistakes
”In my experience, if you can not say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The details are everything.” - Centauri Minister of Intelligence Durano, Babylon 5

A-1. Misquoting a Rule
Exact wording is important. If the exact wording of a rule doesn’t support your premises or conclusion, it’s going to be pretty simple for the opposing side to refute.

A-2. Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General
The rules are written so that a more specific rule supercedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

A-3. Drifting Off the Topic at Hand
It’s important to stay on topic, because while similar situations are interesting and sometimes worthy of note, they have no inherent ability to support or refute this type of argument. If you do reference a related, but different, situation, be sure to note that they are merely conversation.

i.e. Farseers from Codex: Eldar are independent characters that fight in assault separately from their retinue or any squad they have joined. It does no good to point out that Farseers in an Ulthwe Seer Council do not fight separately, because Ulthwe Farseers are not Independent Characters, and thus not germane to the topic of Independent Characters fighting in assault.

A-4. Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
What is a rule? This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
• The Big Red Book (BRB) (40K Main Rulebook/Assault on Black Reach Rulebook)
• Army Codices
• 40k V5 FAQs published on the website:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=600005&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2
• Anything with a Chapter Approved Stamp not marked Trial, Experimental, etc.
• Other Official Rulebooks

What isn’t a rule? Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here’s some of them:
• Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy," they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it’s not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you’ve just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
• Posts from the Eye of Terror (or any other forum on the Internet, for that matter) are not official. They’re interesting and there’s nothing wrong with following them in common practice, but they are not rules, regardless of the alleged source.

A-5. Intent Arguments
While interesting, discussing the “Designers’ Intent” will never help you in a rules discussion. Why? First, intent of a single designer and what may actually end up in print are never guaranteed to be the same. GW has no policy against routinely changing the same rule back and forth repeatedly. Second, it’s impossible to know intent. Unless you’ve got ESP, or the rule’s author is in the discussion, you’re just guessing at intent. Intent can be very simply refuted with an, “I don’t agree,” and the conversation ends, as neither side can prove its case for intent.

A-6. Conflicts With Another Rule
If you’ve provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It’s important to remember to Break No Rule.

i.e. Raptors can be given the Infiltrate veteran skill. However, in a mission that includes Escalation, although the rules say that models with Infiltrate may deploy after all other units have deployed, Raptors are classified as Jump Infantry, and thus may not deploy due to the Escalation rule.

A-7. ”The rules don’t say I can’t!”
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you’ve been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don’t say I can’t place my models back on the board after you’ve killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn’t mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

A-8. ”That’s Not How it Works in the Real World!”
Real world arguments are immediately irrelevant. This is a game of abstractions, and whether or not those abstractions make any sense, the rules depend on them to function. As an aside, these arguments are often flimsy at best anyway. These are games of Science Fiction and Magic. To make arguments that ray guns and mind bullets would work in a certain manner in the real world is silly.

A-9. Committing a Logical Fallacy
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. Basically, if an argument includes a logical fallacy, the premises do not support the conclusion reached. Some logical fallacies are specified above, but using any logical fallacy will weaken and facilitate the refutation of your argument. For more information on logical fallacies, here are some websites that examine them in greater detail.


Appendix B: What to Do When the Rules Don’t Cover It?
”Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools.” - Gene Brown

At this point we are in uncharted territory, and there may in fact be no definitive answer. But since we are playing a game, we’ll need an answer that provides us with enough functionality to actually play the game. So we must strive for a solution, but we must also realize that the solution we find does not have the weight of the rules behind it.

When the rules don’t actually give us an answer, you can’t create a deductive, rules based argument on how something should be played. In this case, strive to follow the ideal of “Break No Rule.” Find a way of playing out the situation that doesn’t actually break any rules. This may require doing something the rules don’t specifically outline, but if the game will stop without taking some action, then this is probably the best course of action.

But what if this can’t be done? What if you can’t follow all the rules because they conflict on a point? In this case, you must simply strive to find a solution that makes the most sense and causes the least amount of disagreement. Thankfully, these cases are rare, and can usually be resolved either by mutual agreement, or by rolling a d6 and playing on.

Appendix C: On Rules Ethics
“Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.” - Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

When we discuss rules, it may not always be clear which argument has weight. If you have any question, or you have any doubt in a claim, there is a simple system to follow to ensure you get yourself into the least amount of trouble and make the least amount of people unhappy:

If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.

So if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don’t take it. But it’s important that this is only reserved for situations where there is a legitimate grey area. Simply because some people might not see or understand an argument doesn’t make that argument false, so you must choose carefully when this applies. And remember, the onus is on the person taking the action. If you don’t stop your opponent from taking advantage of a shaky rule, or at least discuss it, then you’re just letting yourself be taken advantage of. But if he's got a good argument, be prepared to let him take the action.

Conclusion:
“Arguing is one of life's great pleasures, even if you have to argue with yourself. Course, I could enjoy the other side of that argument, too.” - Walter Slovotsky, as written by Joel Rosenberg

Remember, the ultimate goal is not to win more games or find rules to exploit. It’s simply to determine what the rules actually say so that we can feel confident that we aren’t breaking any of them.


(From DakkaDakka: Written by Mauleed. Edited/Revised by Centurian99)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/6158/view/topic/Default.aspx


** updated 7-3-9 tga (removed dead links an updated some of the text) **
** updated 8-21-7 tga **
** updated 5-22-6 tga **
« Last Edit: July 3, 2009, 10:23:19 AM by TheGreatAvatar »

 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2005, 08:36:59 PM »
 

TheGreatAvatar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • 1302
    Posts
  • Country: 00
    • H. A. A. W. G. S.
    • Awards
I found this one Dakka Dakka I was given permission to repost it here.

The text is all done by Mauleed and Centurian99 from http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=6158&view=topic.  I formatted for fit and style for this forum.  Any editting error are most likely mined due to c&p issues.

I thought it to be a nice basis for having rules discussions.



** 5-22-6 update link tga**
« Last Edit: May 22, 2006, 05:21:10 PM by TheGreatAvatar »

 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2005, 09:51:29 PM »
 

Gotchaye

  • Member
  • ***
  • 632
    Posts
    • Awards
Question

Where, as a general principle, do we stand as a forum on the spirit of the rules versus their letter?  Taken another way, how much of a rules lawyer should we be in interpreting said rules?
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2005, 11:14:47 PM »
 

Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 3812
    Posts
    • Awards
Question

Where, as a general principle, do we stand as a forum on the spirit of the rules versus their letter? 

Unless you're psychic, how can you know what the 'sprit' (ie, the intent) of the rules are?  Simply put, unless the game designer tells us what his intent was when a particular rule was written you can't know what the 'spirit' of a rule is.  You may have an 'opinion' on how a rule should be interpreted, but trying to use the 'spirit' of the rules as a valid argument is a load of BS.
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2005, 11:25:18 AM »
 

LiveFromHell

  • Member
  • ***
  • 377
    Posts
  • I *LOVE* EO and 40K.ca
    • Awards
Usually that's true.  But, there are certain circumstances where it's fairly clear what the rule is meant to be, but was written poorly enough to allow enough leeway for intelligent people to infer another meaning.

There was a debate of this nature on the GW boards a ways back about whether or not you can remove casualties from rapid fire from within 24" instead of 12".  Like the other legal language debates that had occured before it the answer was added to the FAQ on the GW messageboards.  It's quite obvious that rapid fire weapons are "meant" to have a 12" kill zone, but since it doesn't state that the actual range of a rapid fire weapon changes to 12" when fired someone decided there was cause enough for debate.

Generally speaking, the people who actually write these codexes and rule books are NOT rules lawyers.  They make quite a few errors, and leave alot of leverage for debate.  Problems occur when people try to be specific to the very letter of what's written, when it's fairly obvious that it was poorly put together.

With the change from 3rd to 4th edition there have been alot of these little legal language issues.  They mostly stem from poor, inconcise wording and get blown way out of proportion when the rule itself get's debated.

To make sure it stays a game, and not a court hearing, a player should worry more about making sure that both he and his opponent have fun and stay within "the spirit" of the game, than he should worry about sucking every little bit of advantage from every possible loophole in the codex dry in an attempt to make sure his army has the advantage.

Just my opinion I guess.
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2005, 12:24:52 PM »
 

TheGreatAvatar

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • 1302
    Posts
  • Country: 00
    • H. A. A. W. G. S.
    • Awards
Usually that's true.  But, there are certain circumstances where it's fairly clear what the rule is meant to be, but was written poorly enough to allow enough leeway for intelligent people to infer another meaning.

There was a debate of this nature on the GW boards a ways back about whether or not you can remove casualties from rapid fire from within 24" instead of 12".  Like the other legal language debates that had occurred before it the answer was added to the FAQ on the GW messageboards.  It's quite obvious that rapid fire weapons are "meant" to have a 12" kill zone, but since it doesn't state that the actual range of a rapid fire weapon changes to 12" when fired someone decided there was cause enough for debate.

Generally speaking, the people who actually write these codexes and rule books are NOT rules lawyers.  They make quite a few errors, and leave alot of leverage for debate.  Problems occur when people try to be specific to the very letter of what's written, when it's fairly obvious that it was poorly put together.

With the change from 3rd to 4th edition there have been alot of these little legal language issues.  They mostly stem from poor, inconcise wording and get blown way out of proportion when the rule itself get's debated.

To make sure it stays a game, and not a court hearing, a player should worry more about making sure that both he and his opponent have fun and stay within "the spirit" of the game, than he should worry about sucking every little bit of advantage from every possible loophole in the codex dry in an attempt to make sure his army has the advantage.

Just my opinion I guess.

I agree to a point.  The spirit of the game, after all it IS only a game, is to have fun and enjoy the company of your opponent for a few hours.  However, there are rules so BOTH sides understand what is accepted play in the course of a game.  The vast majority of the rules are clear cut (despite the hundreds of hours spent bad-mouthing GW).  Some are grayish and others are just down right confusing.  When debating the interpreting of a rule, arguments need to be objective and provable.  The "intent" or "spirit" of a rule is subjective and proving it, outside the author himself providing input, is difficult at best.

I understand your position, though.  Sometimes you can see past the fogginess of the rule to understand what is meant not what is said.  However, all to often "intent" of the rule is used as a counter argument with no further proof.  These "debates" tend to degenerate into highly subjective arguments with no basis of logic.  A good example is the current thread on psychic powers.  (Please, this isn't the place to debate it, it's just an example!)  The vast number of posts are related to the "intent" of the rules.  Valid arguments either for or against the topic are lost due to the enormous amount of posts attempting to infer the intent of the rules instead of debating the rules themselves. 

When debating the rules I think some people forget we are just playing a silly little game that costs a fortune to play.  Maybe one of the requirements for debating a rule should be: "All debates must start with 'Premise 0: 40k is just a game.' and conclude with '40k is just a game.".
« Last Edit: May 22, 2006, 05:23:18 PM by TheGreatAvatar »

 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2005, 12:35:32 PM »
 

LiveFromHell

  • Member
  • ***
  • 377
    Posts
  • I *LOVE* EO and 40K.ca
    • Awards
Agreed.
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2005, 02:31:31 PM »
 

Arcas

  • Aksho Tzeeneth Phaos
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 10970
    Posts
    • Awards
...and stickied.
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2005, 09:38:50 PM »
 

Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 3812
    Posts
    • Awards
But, there are certain circumstances where it's fairly clear what the rule is meant to be, but was written poorly enough to allow enough leeway for intelligent people to infer another meaning.

And again, that is still just your opinion on the rules.  You have no way of knowing that is not what the designer intended, no matter how badly written you think the rule is.
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2005, 01:51:55 PM »
 

LiveFromHell

  • Member
  • ***
  • 377
    Posts
  • I *LOVE* EO and 40K.ca
    • Awards
You obviously haven't seen some of the debates over legal language on the GW boards.  In each case there is a dispute over some poorly written section of the 4th edition codex, and someone wants to argue that such bad wording creates a rule that is obviously not "supposed" to be there.

An example is the debate that occured over rapid fire range.  While it never states that the actual "range" of a rapid fire weapon changes to 12 inches, it's common sense that when you shoot a unit using rapid fire, your opponent must remove models from that unit that are within 12 inches of the model doing the shooting.

I'm quite certain that i'm not describing the debate with the clarity that I should be, but if you're interested in understanding what the question was a simple search of the gw boards on rapid fire will probably turn the posts up.

Certain rules that are not stated specifically enough leave themselves open for debate, and I still assert that if one is in posession of basic common sense it's apparrant what the rule is "supposed" to mean.
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2005, 09:29:31 PM »
 

Ghaz

  • I argue because I care
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 3812
    Posts
    • Awards
You obviously haven't seen some of the debates over legal language on the GW boards. 

I'm a regular on Dakka Dakka.  I've seen debates on language that makes those on the GW Forums sound like grade schoolers.  However, none of that matters.  There is no way anybody can know what the author intended when the rules were written.  It doesn't matter in the least if the rule in question was written whereas it is crystal clear or is incomprehensible.  You can NEVER use the 'spirit' or the designer's intent for a rule to back your position because there is no way that you can know what the designer intended and there is no way to prove it even if you did.  You can only debate on the letter of the rules. 
« Last Edit: May 26, 2005, 09:30:47 PM by Ghazhkull Thraka »
"A commander must have the courage to see his plan through,
for good or ill. Wars are won or lost when the battle-lines are
drawn
."
-The Tactica Imperium-
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2005, 09:55:22 PM »
 

Lomendil

  • Mad Prophet of Commorragh
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 10733
    Posts
  • Country: 00
  • If it's comprehensible, it's obselete
    • Awards
While sometimes the 'spirit of the rules' can be useful in order to get a working consensus on unclear/ambiguous rules so you can get on with the game, there are also occasions when it is impossible to tell where the 'benefit of spirit' should lie. For example, on recent discussions about the Dark Eldar Webway portal (note I don't want to have that discussion here - this is just for example):

"It [the Webway Portal] may be activated by the model carrying it in the shooting phase, instead of moving or shooting that turn."

Can be interpreted as:

1. A model can activate the portal if it neither moved nor shot that turn
2. A model can activate the portal if it either doesn't move or doesn't shoot that turn

There's no real common sense 'spirit of the rules' way to decide which is right, let alone a semantic one.


Which leads me to this point: Sometimes there is no definitively right answer. Learn to recognize when this happens so you can avoid pointless 'head vs brick wall' type arguments. ;)
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #13 on: October 5, 2005, 10:29:34 PM »
 

Squirrelloid

  • Honor Guard
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • 1849
    Posts
  • Only in darkness, light
    • Awards
It should be pointed out that having an intelligent debate requires making arguments.  All arguments have two parts:

(1) Claim - this is what the argument is saying to be true.
(2) Warrants - this is how the argument's truth is demonstrated.  It involves marshalling evidence and using logic to show how your interpretation is better than another. 

We generally have 2 sorts of evidence on this forum.  (a) the rules themselves, being the text we are handed from the designers and from which we should be able to play the game.  Proper citation should uniquely specify the book referred to and the page number, at a bare minimum.  (b) As the rules are a document in the english language (translation may involve errors, the original is the best source), rules of english language including definitions of words, interpretation of grammatical structure, and similar are all permissible avenues of research.  Such evidence should be cited properly, which may be more detailed than rulebooks (since the corpus available is larger), and a link included for an online source.

Arguments not based on (a) or (a) and (b) are inappropriate as they have no way of referencing the game itself.  "Arguments" without warrants are not arguments, they are baseless claims and merely assertions with no proof.  You are perfectly justified in telling said 'emperor' his 'argument' has no 'clothes'.

Arguments must be both valid and sound.  Soundness is a claim about the truth of the premises of the argument.  Eg, if one or more of the warrants are false, the argument is unsound.  Validity is a claim about the logical structure of an argument - a valid argument can have sound premises (warrants), but the warrants don't justify the conclusion.  These two requirements of an argument are totally independent of each other - creating unsound but valid arguments is easy, as is sound invalid arguments.  Only arguments which are both actually prove anything.

The only way to defeat an argument is to prove it is either invalid or unsound (or both!).  If you cannot do that, you cannot argue against it.

Note that it may be the case that no one interpretation is the best answer, but there are some number of interpretations which it is impossible to decide among.  Learn how to realize this and stop arguing at that point.

(Sorry, i felt that some things in the original post needed saying again.)
« Last Edit: October 5, 2005, 10:34:45 PM by Squirrelloid »
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels - Chip 4:2

Unusual SM armies

Angband Code:
S WI(x) !Xok ht->ho !C P88 DL:5000' A++ R+++ Sp+ w: mjolnir or wrestling
S(ToME) W H- D+ !c f- PV+ !s d !P M+
C-- S+ I- So- B- ac !GHB SQ RQ++ V- F: multipage inventory
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2005, 07:17:37 PM »
 

Aron Figaro

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • 230
    Posts
    • Awards
This looks good to me. Hopefully that will keep some of the noobish comments down to a minimum, and we'll be able to intelligently pick apart these rather hole-ridden rules and obtain some consensus as to how they actually work.

P.S. If you need me to do logical analyses or proofs of arguments, let me know. I'm both a skilled student and user of mathematical logic, and a semi-professional (just have to finish my degree and go full-time) game developer. Oh, and I'm bored enough to actually give you a formal proof of something in the bgb. :p
Sorry if I'm not sugar-coating your codex enough. Tier lists are tier lists. Argue and whine, or put your quarter up. I'm here to play.
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2006, 04:32:57 PM »
 

Kritik

  • Banned troll: My arrogance couldn't be matched!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 3505
    Posts
    • Awards
Fundamentals to a sound debate:

Goal: duh
Goal Criterion: You need a way of measuring whether the goal is reached. Without that, you guys never know when the goal is reached. This can't be, "when everyone agrees", it has to be when this, this, and this is met. A list of things that one side need to accomplish to know when the goal is reached.

The arguments should be:
Claim, warrant, Impact.

Claim: Stated Claim
Warrant: Evidence
Impact: Tell us how that claim advances or detracts from our goal and why it matters. This is important because in most debate, evidence to the contrary are always found and things to muttle the whole thing (well, GW pg. X says this, but their update says this on page Y, and the wargear book... pg Z). When we tell about the impact, we can talk about how one thing may be MORE IMPORTANT than other things. That way, we can analyze which argument must take precedence because of its value and weight. That advances the debate the most.
I used to think that I knew everything,
but now I'm just banned.


 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2006, 07:55:19 PM »
 

Squirrelloid

  • Honor Guard
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • 1849
    Posts
  • Only in darkness, light
    • Awards
Fundamentals to a sound debate:

Goal: duh
Goal Criterion: You need a way of measuring whether the goal is reached. Without that, you guys never know when the goal is reached. This can't be, "when everyone agrees", it has to be when this, this, and this is met. A list of things that one side need to accomplish to know when the goal is reached.

The arguments should be:
Claim, warrant, Impact.

Claim: Stated Claim
Warrant: Evidence
Impact: Tell us how that claim advances or detracts from our goal and why it matters. This is important because in most debate, evidence to the contrary are always found and things to muttle the whole thing (well, GW pg. X says this, but their update says this on page Y, and the wargear book... pg Z). When we tell about the impact, we can talk about how one thing may be MORE IMPORTANT than other things. That way, we can analyze which argument must take precedence because of its value and weight. That advances the debate the most.

Policy Debater!

But seriously, impact is the wrong word (and argument form specific).  Implication would be better (if we must use Policy Debate terms), or *context* for the argument in the larger debate.  semantics++

The problem of course with criterion style debate is that it requires subjective evaluation of the importance of different evidence, something which cannot be gleamed from the rules themselves.  Ideally, there is one logically correct and defensible answer.  Otherwise i recommend the two parties agree to disagree, because if logic doesn't irrefutably lead to one answer, neither side is going to be convinced by implicative or contextual arguments in the other direction and we have no 3rd party to decide the issue.
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels - Chip 4:2

Unusual SM armies

Angband Code:
S WI(x) !Xok ht->ho !C P88 DL:5000' A++ R+++ Sp+ w: mjolnir or wrestling
S(ToME) W H- D+ !c f- PV+ !s d !P M+
C-- S+ I- So- B- ac !GHB SQ RQ++ V- F: multipage inventory
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2006, 07:59:13 PM »
 

Kritik

  • Banned troll: My arrogance couldn't be matched!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 3505
    Posts
    • Awards
eh... Policy... The word makes me cringe. Policy is for loosers who spins 2000000000 words a minute. Incoherent and not worth while.

Most devolve into a who-can-speak-the-fastest-with-the-most-examples-and-craziest-kritiks-combined-with-god-awful-topicality war.
I used to think that I knew everything,
but now I'm just banned.


 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2006, 06:33:16 PM »
 

gengis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 60
    Posts
  • you cannot know our pain......................
    • Awards
Personaly i have met several rules lawyers and i simply take it to the vets who've played since 1st or 2nd ed. sometimes we roll a D6 but always decide the outcome afterwards. in the case of rules lawyers i ignore them and play someone else and if they are the only person playing then i make them agree to the mutual interpretations found last time. in the end none of them have beaten me even when i had no real idea of what to do, and even if i am going off topic by now i want to say this.
"if they are a rules lawyer then punch them in the face, if this is not possible due to physical or legal reasons than put something in their drink, I live with beating the pants off them"

P.S. my bro is also good at arguing the mutual point till the other person gives up.
" your understanding is not required, only your surrender "
      -Eldar Farseer
" P.S. if you dont like that then we can always kill you"
 

Re: How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2006, 09:36:21 PM »
 

Kritik

  • Banned troll: My arrogance couldn't be matched!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 3505
    Posts
    • Awards
I personally think this should also be in the discussion board, also. Some posters really need the 101.

Here's something important:

DEFINE KEY TERMS!!!

I've seen some discussions around here where each side has his or her own definition of what they think that term means. When it comes to clashing arguments, they completely miss each other by 100 miles (160 kilometers).

This helps stop the debate from equivocating, something that makes the debate fallacious. Also, defining the key terms also helps people understand better what they are getting into.


I hope that helps.


(So, can you make a copy of this topic and post it in the discussion board, mods?)
I used to think that I knew everything,
but now I'm just banned.


 

 


Powered by EzPortal

Facebook Comments