Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4130869" data-attributes="member: 57832">Not entirely.&nbsp; The very point of stating &quot;You can do X!&quot; is to imply that you couldn't before.&nbsp; The positive assertion is implying the negation of a previous condition.This strays perilously close to the No True Scotsman argument.&nbsp; If they are saying &quot;You can do this now!&quot; they are implying that you couldn't before.&nbsp; For broad statements, it is easily seen as false: &quot;You can use swords now!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;4e uses dice!&quot;.&nbsp; Clearly, these statements are nonsense because they are of a form that implies negation of a previous situation, but that situation didn't exist.&nbsp; However, &quot;Your Wizard can use a sword now!&quot; or &quot;4e uses a social skill resolution system!&quot; are a bit trickier, as the previous condition may not be commonly known, or well known to a particular reader.&nbsp; It still reads as a negation of &quot;Your Wizard couldn't use swords before now&quot;.&nbsp; Except that it takes a bit of digging to discover that your Wizard could use a sword in previous editions without penalty, if you applied the rules for that situation (in 3.x you can take a feat, in 2e you could take a kit).In other words, if they are saying you couldn't do something before, it is best to take them at their word and seek clarification.&nbsp; Assuming they meant something else can lead to problems.&nbsp; In other words, typically, the best response to &quot;You can do X now!&quot; is usually &quot;You could always do X&quot;&nbsp; and see where things go.&nbsp; It may be an honest lack of knowledge, it may be willful misrepresentation, or anything between.&nbsp; In almost all cases, however, it is best to correct the statement in order to have a clearer idea of the argument and the topic at hand.Well, that's your opinion.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />In most ways, this is definitely the best way to read the Intarwebs.&nbsp; On the other hand, it can be tricky at times to separate someone spouting off with an 'expert' defining a point.&nbsp; Especially when it is difficult to verify any particular person's credentials to speak authouritatively on a particular topic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm-Bringer, post: 4130869, member: 57832"] Not entirely. The very point of stating "You can do X!" is to imply that you couldn't before. The positive assertion is implying the negation of a previous condition. This strays perilously close to the No True Scotsman argument. If they are saying "You can do this now!" they are implying that you couldn't before. For broad statements, it is easily seen as false: "You can use swords now!" "4e uses dice!". Clearly, these statements are nonsense because they are of a form that implies negation of a previous situation, but that situation didn't exist. However, "Your Wizard can use a sword now!" or "4e uses a social skill resolution system!" are a bit trickier, as the previous condition may not be commonly known, or well known to a particular reader. It still reads as a negation of "Your Wizard couldn't use swords before now". Except that it takes a bit of digging to discover that your Wizard could use a sword in previous editions without penalty, if you applied the rules for that situation (in 3.x you can take a feat, in 2e you could take a kit). In other words, if they are saying you couldn't do something before, it is best to take them at their word and seek clarification. Assuming they meant something else can lead to problems. In other words, typically, the best response to "You can do X now!" is usually "You could always do X" and see where things go. It may be an honest lack of knowledge, it may be willful misrepresentation, or anything between. In almost all cases, however, it is best to correct the statement in order to have a clearer idea of the argument and the topic at hand. Well, that's [i]your[/i] opinion. ;) In most ways, this is definitely the best way to read the Intarwebs. On the other hand, it can be tricky at times to separate someone spouting off with an 'expert' defining a point. Especially when it is difficult to verify any particular person's credentials to speak authouritatively on a particular topic. [/QUOTE]

Verification