nah - its just that people don't usually play with first order logic. There is a tactful difference between "taking heat" and "heated debate". You yourself - never did cross the line from the latter to the former... but a few others did.
When people try and invoke "logic errors" when you are using logic of the first order - there are two general categories. The first is premise, the second operational. Even my most ardent and sagely critics - will have to concede that the argument itself - in an "operational" basis is sound.
What they like to forget, is the nature of logic of the first order. If a definition is used as a premise - it CANNOT be assailed - unless you can derive a clear and absolute contradiction, in which case the definition is untrue. That is why I used only given definitions in my arguments.
What I essentially did (or at least tried to do) was prove that the interpretation of "one way only conversion" of actions was fundamentally inconsistent with itself. It is.
I see people describing all sorts of "actions":
full round
standard
partial
double move
move-equivalent
free
"not an"
attack
misc
charge
The problem always shows up in that their "hierarchical" descriptions are inconsistent. That is why I had to resort to first order logic. Magus_Coereleus was quite correct in stating that text not designed (and people not trained in using) such logic tend to get blown away by it. You may notice that Sigil seems to invoke "time" into my argument. As I didn't really want to rock boats - I did not use the argument most lethal to the entire process.
A "round" is defined to be 6 seconds
full round actions take 1 round
standard actions are a type of full round action
double move actions are a type of standard action
- ergo double moves take 6 seconds
double move actions are composed of two and only two MEA
- MEA's MUST take 3 seconds...
take the MEA out of a standard action, and a partial action MUST equal 3 seconds.
Now - only two categories remain:
free actions "don't count" - and thus take 0 time - thus the name.
but the GM is given arbitrary discretion about how much is "truly 0" for the sake of not arguing quantum theory at the game table
"not an actions" - are done in conjunction with something else, and are "counted in" other actions.
therefore - the "possible flaw" is that "plus zeroes" could also be taken in double move actions.
The invocation of first order logic is done to prevent people from trying to state - effectively;
3 + 3 + 0 is not equal to 3 + 3
When they have to start throwing numbers around to back their argument - they fail. Why? Because I can "forcibly" define the MEA as three seconds. They can attack this as an "assumption" all they like; and throw in theoretical numbers... but tis they who then are guilty of - literally - attempting to break down combat itself into fractions of a second to disprove the definition. I don't have the energy to continue with the debate - I just prefer to watch them stumble over "what one can and can't do".
regrettably - I don't have any way of communicating except by posts... the blasted messenger system has been disabled.
Actually, you're only "taking heat" from me because I disagree with your argument. And if you consider someone disagreeing with you to mean you are "taking heat", you need to realize that not everything goes your way, no matter how sound you believe your argument to be. Just because you like green pea soup and I don't, doesn't mean that you're "taking heat".
