Good heavens
Magus_Jerel said:
Given
2(MEA) <= 1 round
make 1 round = R
2(mea) <= R
Manipulation by definition of <=
[2(MEA) = R] or [2(MEA) < R]
[/B]
So far, I am in absolute agreement with you, and the rules bear you out. However, it is your next assertion, which is NOT borne out by the rules, and which you continue to cling to which has everyone so upset with you...
Momentarily Assuming: 2(MEA) < R
not true; as two move equvalent actions take up the entire potential of 1 round of action; therefore;
~[2(mea) < R]
If you don't mind, let me repeat you as to why this statement is incorrect.
Magus_Jerel said:
One word Logic Error:
Dogmatism
You are just as guilty of this, hanging on to the Dogma that "A Standard Action MUST take up the entire potential of the round." Allow me to show that this position is NOT rock-solid. Nowhere, and let me repeat,
NOWHERE in the Core Rules or anywhere else other than in postulations by yourself is it stated that 2 MEAs take up the entire potential of one round of action.
hmmm.... two move equivalent actions must NOT take up the entire potential of 1 round of action... how contrary to the definition of double move is that? [/B]
Not at all... there is simply not enough "potential" left to take any other meaningful action (again, we have removed Free Actions from the discussion. How contrary to the definition of Double Move is that? Not at all contrary... if you choose Double Move, you do not necessarily have no time left, you simply have not enough time left for anything meaningful.Let me again give you a counter-example to make it clear to you... these are admittedly arbitrary suppositions, but they serve to show my point as much as your arbitrary supposition that "because Double Move is listed as a 'Special Case of a Standard Action' it must use up your entire potential" (which, I will re-iterate, is a grevious example of, and I hate to keep beating a dead horse, Accident Dicto Simpliciter - as you are comparing a Special Case of the Standard Action (by your own definition, the Double Move is a special case) to the General Case of the Standard Action. To avoid complicating things, we shall follow your suggestion and not consider "Free Actions/Not an Action."
Suppositions:
MEA=2.5 sec
PA=3.5 sec
Full-Round Action=6 sec
If I use two MEAs, I have not used the full temporal potential of my round... I have used only 5 of my 6 seconds and I still have "1 sec" remaining. However, there is no action I can perform in 1 sec, so that second is essentially wasted.
I have disproven your theory that "all Standard Actions must take exactly the entire potential of the round" by counter-example. Your statement is based upon your interpretation of the rules; nothing in the rules forbids my interpretation, therefore we cannot admit that your statement is conclusively true. That mine cannot be proven as conclusively true either is not at issue - the issue is that we cannot accept your statement as "gospel truth" and therefore cannot include it in a logical argument, as we have a second theory that also fits the rules.
Analogously (if my example was not clear), I could give you 6 dollars (or your choice of local currency) and send you into a grocery store where all items cost at least $1, with the provision that your money disappears as you walk out of the store (since you can't "bank" time).
If you choose to buy $5.21 of goods, have you used the full potential of your $6? No, you have not. Do you have the ability to purchase anything else? No, because you do not have the minimum $1 that it takes. The extra $0.79 is wasted since it disappears as you leave the store (or the combat round).
That I walk into that store with $6 and spend $6.00 exactly tells me that I made more efficient use of my money than you did.
When we walk out of the store, we have the same amount of money - zero. If you were to examine us before we entered the store and after we left it (checking only our wallets), you would conclude that we both spent the entirety of our $6.
What you fail to realize is that it is quite possible (and well within the rule set as written) that a particular Standard Action does not necessarily use up the whole 6 seconds, but may leave insufficient temporal "change" for you to take another action. In fact, that the rules specifically allow for "sliding down the slope" from use of an action to one that has less potential (avoiding for the moment the example of the Double Move - I will cite the Ready an Action as another example - I give up a Standard Action in exchange for a partial action).
Your immediate response to me will of course be, "prove the system works this way." I again point to the fact that using one-way exchange "down the slope" you can get a Double Move. I have cited the Ready an Action option.
You have STILL failed to cite so much as a single sentence from the Core Rules that supports your fallacious position. I have given you analogy after analogy. I have repeatedly pointed out your logical error (which you still refuse to own up to despite the fact that it is clear by your own definition of the Double Move that you are making it).
What more do I need to give you? You have not given me a single shred of rules quotaions or logically-supported evidence to support your fallacious hypothesis. Since you are the one advocating a fundamental change of the rules, burden of proof rests on you. I have provided analogies, I have provided examples, I have provided rules quotations, and logical arguments which support my position, not one of which you have been able to discredit by counter-example, logical refutation, other rules quotations, or exploitation of analogies.
Let it go.
Your constant defense of your position by trotting out the same fallacious argument (which has been shown to be fallacious) is annoying at best and proof of willful ignorance at worst. Your attempt to redefine the rules to suit your own purposes (which apparently are either (a) munchkin powermongering or (b) a deep-seated need to somehow prove your supposed intellectual superiority) are tantamount to trolling at this point.
Furthermore, your conclusions specifically counterdict examples from the rules themselves... you are advocating two attacks per round when a character's BAB is "+1" (i.e., no iterative attacks) when the rules specifically state that without iterative attacks, a character gains one attack per round (leaving aside such complexities as two-weapon fighting).
Let me re-iterate that - your conclusions contradict the rules themselves. Since you claim your argument is based solely on the rules as written, I must conclude one of two things:
(1) The rules themselves are inconsistent.
This is a possibility, but I feel that the stronger possibility, especially given that I have been able to use the rules to generate consistent models without relying upon your particular assumptions and/or definitions is the following:
(2) Your suppositions and/or logic are incorrect.
In your case, you suffer from both a flawed temporal supposition in that it cannot be used as it cannot be proven to be true - see my use of counter-theory - AND the logical error of Accident Dicto Simpliciter - which you are STILL falling into, BTW, as you try to compare Double Move to Standard Action.
As a matter of principle, you shall see no further responses from me on this topic until you present an argument that:
1.) Does not rely upon the "Specific Case" of the Double Move action. You have been unable to find anything else to base your argument upon and that your reliance upon it has been shown to be logically fallacious. This tells me that you are obviously not equipped to interpret this action properly.
2.) ALL of your logical premises are direct quotes from the rules, especially including your temporal suppositions. Specifically, "all Standard Actions are the complete and full use of your potential" - nowhere is this idea set out in rules, therefore burden of proof is on you for this one. I have introduced a supposition that is completely consistent with the rules as written and that does not violate your temporal ideas (in that there may be "time left" and the potential is not used up completely, but there is not enough "time left" to to anything meaningful - this creates the same net result - you can Double Move and nothing else - as your supposition). You are NOT allowed to define your own terms and ideas or re-define exisitng ones... you must work within the same logical framework as everyone else, which means you must start with the rules as written. As we all know, he who defines the terms controls the argument.
If I see a post from you that meets both of these criteria, I shall respond. If not, I will refrain from posting on this topic again, as it is apparent that your ignorance is willful and I will no longer waste my time trying to convince you of your errors. I am quite confident everyone else is already convinced.
I hope I don't sound "high and mighty" or stuck-up or anything else... the tone of this should be someone who is sick of arguing about a point that should be abundantly clear. I agree with you in many other forums on many other points. This just happens to be the one point where I must vehemently disagree. I have shown that your logical premises are not rock-solid (counter-example) and that your logical argument is flawed (fallacy).
Whether I have shown
you that these are so is a question for debate. The irrefutable truth is that you have thus far failed to show, by any consistent logical system, that your ideas have merit.
--The Sigil
