Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9069687" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So...instead of listening to anything someone who disagrees with you might say, you would prefer to dismiss all disagreement as bad faith or worse? That's kind of counter to the very concept of discussion.I made the argument I did because it is logically valid. People turn weak evidence, or even no evidence at all, into extremely strong claims, and then use them to completely dismiss anyone who disagrees with those strong claims that just so happen to confirm all of their biases.Presuming a subversive conspiracy rather than taking a person at their word is not a great discussion tactic.Also, can't really say I actually believe you when you say, &quot;I hope they get what they want.&quot; See below.Your absolutely unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric aside, I TRIED THAT. For years!Guess what all those attempts ever got me was?How dare I try to add excess classes. Classes are sooo bloated. So excessive. Look at how we already have Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin. There should only be six classes. No, only four! Really we could have just gotten away with one but okay, four is a huge concession apparently.So...yeah. Want to talk about bad-faith, disingenuous argumentation? Nobody is allowed to want the thing you're claiming to allow space for here. If we ask to change the Fighter, we get your argument here, which boils down to &quot;how DARE you try to take away what people like.&quot; So then we say, &quot;Okay. How about a new class?&quot; Which leads to what I said above. Adding classes is absolutely unacceptable. That was literally the core argument behind excluding the Warlord, remember? &quot;Don't add new classes, just make better use of the ones we have.&quot; A whole class was unnecessary, it should just be folded into the Fighter. Look how well that turned out for Warlord fans. So we turn to the final, narrow, barely-effective space of subclasses. And no prizes for guessing what we're already seeing: &quot;there are too many subclasses&quot; &quot;this is bloat&quot; &quot;you don't need this many&quot; etc., etc.For all your condescending talk, we're the ones who have been dismissed, ignored, and put into a never-ending conga line of &quot;no don't do that, do something else. Stop having even the tiniest effect on my fun so you can beg for scraps from the table!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9069687, member: 6790260"] So...instead of listening to anything someone who disagrees with you might say, you would prefer to dismiss all disagreement as bad faith or worse? That's kind of counter to the very concept of discussion. I made the argument I did because it is logically valid. People turn weak evidence, or even no evidence at all, into [I]extremely strong[/I] claims, and then use them to completely dismiss anyone who disagrees with those strong claims that just so happen to confirm all of [I]their[/I] biases. Presuming a subversive conspiracy rather than taking a person at their word is not a great discussion tactic. Also, can't really say I actually [I]believe[/I] you when you say, "I hope they get what they want." See below. Your absolutely unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric aside, [I]I TRIED THAT.[/I] For years! Guess what all those attempts ever got me was? How [I]dare[/I] I try to add excess classes. Classes are sooo bloated. So excessive. Look at how we already have Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin. There should only be six classes. No, only four! Really we could have just gotten away with one but okay, four is a huge concession apparently. So...yeah. Want to talk about bad-faith, disingenuous argumentation? Nobody is allowed to want the thing you're claiming to allow space for here. If we ask to change the Fighter, we get your argument here, which boils down to "how DARE you try to take away what people like." So then we say, "Okay. How about a new class?" Which leads to what I said above. Adding classes is absolutely unacceptable. That was literally the core argument behind excluding the Warlord, remember? "Don't add [I]new[/I] classes, just make better use of the ones we have." A whole class was unnecessary, it should just be folded into the Fighter. Look how well [I]that[/I] turned out for Warlord fans. So we turn to the final, narrow, barely-effective space of subclasses. And no prizes for guessing what we're already seeing: "there are too many subclasses" "this is bloat" "you don't need this many" etc., etc. For all your condescending talk, [I]we're[/I] the ones who have been dismissed, ignored, and put into a never-ending conga line of "no don't do [I]that,[/I] do something [I]else.[/I] Stop having even the tiniest effect on [I]my[/I] fun so you can beg for scraps from the table!" [/QUOTE]

Verification