Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8163028">This at least gets at something. Yes this is one of my criticisms of the kind of discussion that happens around games on forums. It isn't that people are incoherent, it is that, in a long conversation, it is often difficult to defend positions and you often say things that fail to capture what you mean, that miss a flawed assumption in someone's argument, etc. This is why I am also quite skeptical of models arrived at through forum discussions. I would argue is what often happens is, due to the nature of online debate, and text based debate, people stake out positions they feel they must to defend against a point they haven't really been able to analyze fully. That happens. Doesn't mean the point was sound (there are a lot of flawed, good sounding, but specious arguments, in these threads). Doesn't mean the person is being incoherent (they are just dealing with the difficulty of fending off what is essentially having their ideas put on trial by hostile postersAll that said: I think I have been about as clear and consistent as one can be, while also reflecting a real position on actual table play (and not purely operating at the theoretical level, where reality doesn't fracture a carefully constructed model).And just to make a point about this: I could easily go through your posts, and others (not Pemerton's because I will say he is at least pretty consistent in his use of logic across threads, but then my understanding is he basically studies arguments for a living), and find points of inconsistency or lack of clarity, then hold them up and ask you to defend your 'obvious incoherency'. I don't think that inquisitorial approach is helpful at all.</blockquote>

Verification