D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Xvartslayer]

To be fair I started posting about them because they were rampant all over the thread in almost every post and actually going through the trouble of replying to them and explaining why and so on was getting frankly annoying. So posting a meme was a much more direct way of pointing out that if you're going to engage in fallacious discussion all I'm going to do is point it out for the most part and hope you realize what you're doing. At the same time it was a bit tongue in cheek.

Call that elitist or whatever if you want though.

Kripes. I was trying to avoid derailing too much. I calling out Ovinomancer, not Noctem.

seebs already called out Noctem for posting the distracting ref images, though. Everyone gets a little poke, I guess.

 

[Noctem]

Kripes. I was trying to avoid derailing too much. I calling out Ovinomancer, not Noctem.

seebs already called out Noctem for posting the distracting ref images, though. Everyone gets a little poke, I guess.

yeah it's all good. Not really derailing at this point because we're just waiting on an official response from the tweet Seebs sent out. The discussion can't move forward until then it seems.

 

[Xvartslayer]

The original question was answered, to my satisfaction at least, in the second post by Ath-kethin.

The rest has been a combination of interesting theorizing and watching a potential trainwreck in progress.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was trying to suggest that accusing others logical fallacies is almost always obnoxious and unhelpful. (And often elitist and exclusionary.)

I believe that since you've been proven to wrongfully accuse someone of making an appeal to authority (and strawmen btw) and that you don't seem to actually know the definitions for the fallacies being brought up.. that I'll have to take a risk and say that I think you might be incorrect again when you say that I was "entirely wrong" about the ones I brought up. Just sayin'.

That's a fallacy of composition, there. Where, if one thing is X, all things must also be X. I made an error in one thing, which I admitted to and apologized for, and you therefore infer that I must be wrong about all similar things. Fallacy of illicit transference. It's still an informal fallacy, because it doesn't automatically mean your conclusion is wrong like a formal fallacy does, but it means that you have no support for your conclusion. (Frex, I might still be entirely wrong on everything, but your assertion that since I was wrong once means I'm likely wrong overall is false.) Doesn't really help you out. You got a few of your fallacy call outs right, but you still missed most.

But let's say that your reasoning is correct. That would mean that I merely have to show you wrong in one case to say that you're wrong on all similar cases. I'm pretty sure you don't wouldn't want that to be true, because it would be trivial to show (not that I think you'd ever agree that you made a mistake, of course).

Do the work for fallacies -- show where it exists. I try to follow that rule to keep me straight and avoid just hurling words. I still make mistakes, sure, but not nearly as often.

 

[Noctem]

Ok. Good on you to learn from your mistakes

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok. Good on you to learn from your mistakes

Yes. You should pay attention.

 

[Noctem]

Yes. You should pay attention.

haha ok, thanks for the advice buddy.

 

[Eric V]

[MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION]

Respectfully, do you have any comment on [MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION] dropping snark in response to a free admission of an error?

Honestly, at this point I'm on page 40 and the whole thing is a trainwreck, so...

At the beginning, as someone who wanted to know what the RAW and RAI were (we were already playing with RAF), Noctem took the time to outline, step-by-step how it works, and was later validated by the devs (and confirmed our groups' RAF = RAI). I appreciated the effort as someone looking for the official rules. Arial Black, and later yourself, started taking things in odd directions and it looked, from where I'm sitting as someone who knows not a one of you, like the negative attitude towards Noctem was based largely on the fact that he was shown to be right by Crawford.

The (purposeful?) misconstruing of what he would state, and the hyper picking apart his statements came next...and he was just a guy who took the time to answer a question. No, he's not perfect...does he need to say it? Really?

Sure, now, it's denigrated further...but that's how it looked to me before.

 

[Noctem]

Honestly, at this point I'm on page 40 and the whole thing is a trainwreck, so...

At the beginning, as someone who wanted to know what the RAW and RAI were (we were already playing with RAF), Noctem took the time to outline, step-by-step how it works, and was later validated by the devs (and confirmed our groups' RAF = RAI). I appreciated the effort as someone looking for the official rules. Arial Black, and later yourself, started taking things in odd directions and it looked, from where I'm sitting as someone who knows not a one of you, like the negative attitude towards Noctem was based largely on the fact that he was shown to be right by Crawford.

The (purposeful?) misconstruing of what he would state, and the hyper picking apart his statements came next...and he was just a guy who took the time to answer a question. No, he's not perfect...does he need to say it? Really?

Sure, now, it's denigrated further...but that's how it looked to me before.

You're most welcome friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cguNgnQTRB0

 

[Xvartslayer]

Honestly, at this point I'm on page 40 and the whole thing is a trainwreck, so...

At the beginning, as someone who wanted to know what the RAW and RAI were (we were already playing with RAF), Noctem took the time to outline, step-by-step how it works, and was later validated by the devs (and confirmed our groups' RAF = RAI). I appreciated the effort as someone looking for the official rules. Arial Black, and later yourself, started taking things in odd directions and it looked, from where I'm sitting as someone who knows not a one of you, like the negative attitude towards Noctem was based largely on the fact that he was shown to be right by Crawford.

The (purposeful?) misconstruing of what he would state, and the hyper picking apart his statements came next...and he was just a guy who took the time to answer a question. No, he's not perfect...does he need to say it? Really?

Sure, now, it's denigrated further...but that's how it looked to me before.

I have to admit that is why I kept watching. At about page 10 or so I started to wonder if Noctem snuck into Ovinomancer's and Ariel's house and defecated in their fish tank.