What a standard action is

[IceBear]

Get off your intellectual high-horse! You are now putting too much thought into what Artoomis posted than I'm sure he intended.

Artoomis wasn't implying that you shouldn't question the rules - Artoomis probably questions the rules more than anyone else.

All he was refering to was the fact that MANY of the debates on this forum is because people are questioning certain rules too closely and thus leading to confusion. He was also trying to be a little light hearted - he wasn't being the thought police and telling people to stop thinking for themselves. The INTENT of the 3E rules are often the deciding factor in many of these debates, and questioning something too closely often causes the intent to be lost.

If you don't like a rule and want to change it, please discuss in the house rule forum, not here.

IceBear

 

[AGGEMAM]

Over-analyzing this will only produce confusion.

The "insinuation" implied by the above statement in and of itself is - to a philosophical mind - one of the gravest insults that is possible. Bluntly - it is calling the IDEA of questioning this particular series of statements (namely the initiative system) "a heresey", and is tantamount to threatening to "lynch" the questioner outright - if spoken in person.

"Questioning this will only confuse you (and thus bring you under the sway of the devil)" is the "old form" of the statement.

If you have a set of inconsistent premeses - but still hold them to be true - there is nothing I can do except point this out. Pointing out that someone's way of thinking is flawed however - tends to draw ... intense reactions. Sometimes - violent ones. I strongly resent the "devilish" characterization implied in that statement. - deliberate or not.

Knowing both Artoomis and Caliban, quite well (time flies, you know), I can positively say on their behalf that any potentionally offensive remarks, where not, and should not concieved as intended as such.

As for the twin partial actions. Let me draw you a picture (no offense intended).

Take two oranges and cut them in half.
Now eat one of the halves of each orange.
Put the remaining two halves together.

And let me ask you this: Do you now have one orange? And could you sell it as such?

 

[Caliban]

[quoute]
If you have a set of inconsistent premeses - but still hold them to be true - there is nothing I can do except point this out. Pointing out that someone's way of thinking is flawed however - tends to draw ... intense reactions. Sometimes - violent ones. I strongly resent the "devilish" characterization implied in that statement. - deliberate or not.

Bwahahahahah.....

 

[dcollins]

... Thou shalt not question...

From the screenplay for "Frankenstein" (TriStar 1993):

HENRY: You know, you're quite mad.
VICTOR: I am not mad.
HENRY: As a march hare.
VICTOR: Are you having fun me on?
HENRY: Of course I am. It pays to humor the insane...
VICTOR: Do you really think I'm mad?
HENRY: Come now. Magnus? Agrippa? Next thing you know, you'll be teaching toadstools to speak.

 

[Pielorinho]

"Questioning this will only confuse you (and thus bring you under the sway of the devil)" is the "old form" of the statement.

Magus, there are a few things you could do to lend weight to your arguments:
1) Don't exaggerate. Nobody called you a devil worshipper, directly or indirectly; no Big Brother is policing your thoughts; nobody was giving you a grave insult; and nobody is lynching you. It is very difficult to take an argument about a rule in a game seriously when it's couched in such grandiose inaccuracies.
2) Respect the intelligence of your opponents. At least some of the people arguing with you are very smart people who have studied these rules for years and thought about them extensively. They're not afraid of dissent -- given the history of their posts, that's even more ludicrous than it sounds at first. If they disagree with you, it's for well-thought-out reasons. Even if you think their reasons are wrong, respect that they have a legitimate position.
3) Use dashes and quotation marks correctly. This is more than a pet peeve: when dashes litter your posts like discarded burger wrappers, they impair your communication and give your posts a choppy, disjointed feel. Similarly, when you put quotes around words that aren't actually quotes, it sounds as if you're not taking responsibility for your claims. Granted, when you suggest that someone is threatening to lynch you, I can see why you wouldn't want to take responsibility for the claim. The solution, however, it to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims.
4) Stay nice. It's only a game, and if you disagree with folks, you can do so in a polite, friendly, respectful manner. You'll generally find that people will respond in kind.
5) Proofread. Especially when you're making complicated arguments, typos can really mess things up.

I'm not trying to be a smartass; I really think that if you (and everyone) tries to keep these guidelines in mind, the debate will be much more constructive.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Over-analyzing this will only produce confusion.

The "insinuation" implied by the above statement in and of itself is - to a philosophical mind - one of the gravest insults that is possible. Bluntly - it is calling the IDEA of questioning this particular series of statements (namely the initiative system) "a heresey", and is tantamount to threatening to "lynch" the questioner outright - if spoken in person.

For one who want to be picky about language, you seem to have missed the word "Over." As in "Over-analyzing."

I have NEVER discouraged questioning the system as written, nor did my statement in any way insinuate that, but the "House Rules" forum is the place for questioning the system and coming up with "fixes.". Trying to understand the way the rules are actually written is the purpose of this forum.

Analyze = good - an attempt to understand.

Over-analyze = bad. In this case, it equals taking poorly thought out and incorrect assumptions and attempting to pass them off as actual rules.

If you are insulted by THAT, then I'm afraid you are just over-sensitive and perhaps should not engange in such discussions in the future.

 

[Ywain]

"If you have a set of inconsistent premeses - but still hold them to be true - there is nothing I can do except point this out. "

Actually, they aren't premises. They are rules. As such they were not written by philosophers (and would gain nothing substantial from being vetted by philosophers) they were written by game designers. The language might be less than air-tight in some cases, but it is more than adequately functional.

I shudder to think of what other abuses might be cultivated by an overly close textual analysis of the the Core Books.

Now, unlike a religious text we have living authorities who can clarify what they meant when they or their colleagues wrote certain rules. We can appeal to them (not just their examples, which are pretty clear on their own) to settle disputes such as this. In many ways it is more like a legal text than a philosophical one -- there is a higher court of appeal. If you say that a rule *means* this and I say a rule *means* that we can actually get a definitive answer (even if that answer is based on errata/new legislation).

Unlike a religious text or legal system, if you want to *change* something there will be no smiting nor incarceration for doing so. Houserules are fair game. But they are still house-rules. And there is no shame in enjoying a houserule.

Cheers.