Good rule of thumb

[DEFCON 1]

See people... this is exactly why I created this rule of thumb... because looking at how many of you are arguing the wrong points, it tells me that when actual D&D rules arguments occur, one side just hasn't really been paying attention to what been written.

It doesn't matter how many posts I have made or whether you currently have more or less posts than me... because I am not currently arguing for or against an official 4E D&D rule. So you cannot use my rule of thumb to prove or disprove the existence of the rule of thumb itself.

Secondly... I also must remind you that having a high post count does not automatically mean you are always correct in a rules argument. Don't get so high and mighty on yourself. There are two reasons why you wouldn't be. One, it depends on the person you are arguing with, because while you might have 7,000 posts... the person opposite you might have 8,000, and thus you are probably wrong. And second... post count doesn't matter at all if five other people (or one DracoSuave) are arguing the opposite side of the rule. All that matters is the number of people... and their post counts have no determining factor in this one. If you have 5,000 posts, but the people who say you're wrong include five folks with post counts of 2,500, 1,200, 835, 800, and 37... you are probably still wrong. In fact, it doesn't even matter than the combined post counts of these five people doesn't even add up to your post count (let alone 1,000 posts over yours)... because subsection A does not require the main part of the rule of thumb to also be correct for the subsection A rule to be true.

(That being said... I realize that I think I've been erroneously calling it subsection A... when that really I guess shouldn't be true. Because I did not mean for the first rule to also have to be correct when looking at the subsection part. I really intended for either rule exist independant of each other. I probably should have just made a second Rule of Thumb. Unfortunately, I'm not really up on exactly these kind of proofs should be worded.)

And in response to DracoSuave's question... as far as your inquiries pertaining to the subset of DracoSuaves... remember that your presence in the argument does not change Post Count at all. Your part of the rule applies only to the number of people part of what I shall now call Rule of Thumb 2 (rather than the previously erroneously identified subsection A) Thus you do not have a 'Effective Post Count' at all. You are worth 5 people in Rule of Thumb 2, but have no impact on Rule of Thumb 1.

So as an example for Rule of Thumb 2... if one side have 3 people arguing for it, and the other side has 11, at that point the smaller side is probably right because you need at least 5 times as many on the other side (i.e. 15) for the second rule of thumb to come into effect. But say at this point, you, DracoSuave, chime in with a vote on the side that has 11 people. As you count for 5 people (as per the subrule of the second rule of thumb), the totals are now 3 on one side, and 16 on the other... and thus the side with 16 is now probably correct. That's how you get applied.

Finally... as far the question of DracoSuave versus Hypersmurf in a rules debate, it gets very tricky to determine. Because both my rules of thumb and Jack99's rule of thumb can be applied at the same time, but will produce some difficult-to-parse results. As far as DEFCON’s Rule of Thumb 1: “When two people take opposite sides of a D&D 4E rules debate, if one of them has more than 1,000 posts over the other, the higher person is probably correct.”… DracoSuave has over 4,600 posts, Hypersmurf has more than 25,000. So with this rule of thumb, Hypersmurf is probably correct. However, because Draco counts as 5 people with regards to DEFCON’s Rule of Thumb 2: “When many people take opposite sides of a D&D 4E rules debate, if one side has five times as many people than the other, the higher side is probably correct.”, then it is 1 Hypersmurf versus 5 DracoSuave, and thus applying this second rule means Draco is probably correct. Right now, the probabilities are equal that either can be right. However, when we then apply Jack99’s rule of thumb: “If you are arguing rules with Hyper, then you are wrong or masochist.”, we run into difficulties because Jack99’s rule does not give any indication of the proportion of wrong people to masochistic people. So without that proportion… we are unable to determine how often DracoSuave is in fact wrong versus how often he is masochistic. Until Jack99 applies a percentage to his rule of thumb… it cannot be used to effectively determine rules debate incorrectness between DracoSuave and Hypersmurf.

I humbly request Jack99 to amend his Rule of Thumb so that this question can more accurately be determined.

 

[Camelot]

I think a good rule of thumb would be that the person who uses more accurate grammar and spelling is correct in their argument.

 

[True_Blue]

The original post just looks like a big way to say "hey you, dont worry your pretty little head, just listen to the people who have been here longer" or "sigh, look at that cute little guy, doesn't he understand the people who have been participating more are talking, you should really listen", both in a derogatory way.

Honestly, at first I thought there was no way you were actually serious, But the more I think about it, and reflect upon other messageboards I've seen, I really do think you are. Its really kind of laughable in a weird way. It really doesn't encourage new people to come to the boards either, when you are basically saying "well sure you can argue, but if the veterans are arguing against you, you would just help us out by being quiet".

Now I've seen threads where a person just did not quit, no matter how many people told and showed them how they are wrong. I can understand that gets frustrating, and sometimes it can be even quite funny. But to create a thread like this where you are trying to suggest to newcomers that they are probably wrong if they are arguing against veterans? I dunno, just sounds a little elitist in my eyes. But thats just my opinion.

I'll even agree with you that probably the people who have posted more about rules interactions and questions know a little more and see the interactions clearer. They probably even post more correct answers, thats greats. But it should be up to them to keep proving it, not they should "win" the argument because they've been here longer or post more. Thats just... weird and crazy. If eventually the arguing party does not understand, no matter how many people tell them they are wrong or show them, the correct response is to say "Well we've all shown the facts, and if you can't look at them and understand the working from them, than there's nothing more we can do for you", not "well I have been here longer and posted more..so you should just give up".

 

[AngryMojo]

And for that matter, what about those people who have been here a while, but just don't post much? When I was a young boy, my mother told me that if I had nothing nice to say, I shouldn't say anything at all.

 

[Ryujin]

Time to bring out ol' faithful:

Flame Warriors Home

 

[Jack99]

I humbly request Jack99 to amend his Rule of Thumb so that this question can more accurately be determined.

That should be easy. A quick parsing of the many years I have followed Hyper's arguments, I am gonna come out and say that 98 out of 100 times, the smurf is (was? I never see him around) right. Which leaves 2% for the masochists.



Fun fact of the day: the 2%-rule as we call it, has been around since 89 in our group. Whenever you are screwed but can argue there is a very, very slight probability of something to happen, you can invoke said rule. Of course, the DM has to be okay with it, but then you get to roll for it to happen. Of course, it goes both ways. Over the years, it has resulted in some cool twists and turns to our campaigns. I recall once when a cleric in the party, which was facing a overwhelming force of his god's enemies said he wanted to invoke it to summon his god. The DM said - look, 2% just doesn't cut it, so the player suggested that he had to do it twice in a row...

Yeah, I will never forget the look on the face of the DM

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now I've seen threads where a person just did not quit, no matter how many people told and showed them how they are wrong. I can understand that gets frustrating, and sometimes it can be even quite funny.

***

I'll even agree with you that probably the people who have posted more about rules interactions and questions know a little more and see the interactions clearer. They probably even post more correct answers, thats greats.

So in other words... you basically agree with the two rules of thumb, but don't like having to admit it. That's okay. We all understand it. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Look folks... I'm sorry to have to burst everyone's bubble here. But I'm not posting my two rules of thumb to make people feel bad... I'm doing it to inspire people to be a little more critical in their thinking. If you find yourself arguing a 4E rule and five other people are telling you you are wrong with your interpretation... I'm just suggesting you go back through the thread, read what they have stated (plus all the evidence they have provided to back it up) and then really think about how they are coming to their conclusions (especially when it comes to Rules-As-Written, not Rules-As-Common-Sense-Would-Dictate-They-Probably-Should-Be). At the end of that, I believe you'll find you've PROBABLY been incorrect in your reasoning. Not definitely... not absolutely... not 100%... but just... probably. Now one out of every four arguments you have, you might indeed be right. So good for you! That's 25% of the time. But it also means those other three of four (or 75%) you were indeed wrong in the end. And that's as good an indication of probably as we're gonna get.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That should be easy. A quick parsing of the many years I have followed Hyper's arguments, I am gonna come out and say that 98 out of 100 times, the smurf is (was? I never see him around) right. Which leaves 2% for the masochists.

Thank you, sir! So plugging your rule of thumb in after my two rules of thumb gives us these results:

DEFCON's Rule of Thumb 1: Hypersmurf 25K in posts / DracoSuave 4.6K in posts: Hypersmurf PROBABLY correct

DEFCON's Rule of Thumb 2: 1 on 1 argument - Hypersmurf equivalent to 1 person / DracoSuave equivalent to 5 people gives 5 times the people on Draco's side: DracoSuave PROBABLY correct

These two Rules cancel each other out.

Jack99's Rule of Thumb: Opponents of Hypersmurf 98% wrong / 2% masochistic: Hypersmurf ALMOST CERTAINLY correct.

**********

There you have it, Draco! Thumbs say you shouldn't bother arguing 4E rules with Hypersmurf cause it ain't gonna be pretty.

(Should you desire to counter the proof above, please bring your arguments to the respective rules of thumb initiators with evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to disprove or amend their rules of thumb claims.)

 

[twilsemail]

Man, I can't wait until the day I have 1001 posts and I can start being Not Wrong. I should go post a ton over in the OT forum so I know more about 4e.

 

[True_Blue]

So in other words... you basically agree with the two rules of thumb, but don't like having to admit it. That's okay. We all understand it. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Look folks... I'm sorry to have to burst everyone's bubble here. But I'm not posting my two rules of thumb to make people feel bad... I'm doing it to inspire people to be a little more critical in their thinking. If you find yourself arguing a 4E rule and five other people are telling you you are wrong with your interpretation... I'm just suggesting you go back through the thread, read what they have stated (plus all the evidence they have provided to back it up) and then really think about how they are coming to their conclusions (especially when it comes to Rules-As-Written, not Rules-As-Common-Sense-Would-Dictate-They-Probably-Should-Be). At the end of that, I believe you'll find you've PROBABLY been incorrect in your reasoning. Not definitely... not absolutely... not 100%... but just... probably. Now one out of every four arguments you have, you might indeed be right. So good for you! That's 25% of the time. But it also means those other three of four (or 75%) you were indeed wrong in the end. And that's as good an indication of probably as we're gonna get.

I dont agree with the idea of this being something that should be told to new people who post here. Whether or not, on average, a group is more right than another group doesn't matter. Its wrong to basically tell the group that they should probably just be quiet because that group probably knows whats best.

If someone did studies on females and males, and found out that males more often than females scored better on math tests, if I were on a forum about math problems, I wouldn't tell the females that when they are arguing, if more guys than girls were arguing a certain way, they should probably just give up and listen to the guys. That would look very sexist and it would be plain "wrong" in many ways.

Posts like this honestly make the forum more unfriendly and accepting to new people. Yeah it makes the veterans feel all good inside because 90% of the people who post here probably post on a regular basis. So you've made most of the main people "warm inside" probably, which maybe is what you were going for. Maybe you were even pandoring towards these veterans, i dont know. Its a theory, but obviously only an opinion.

You just seem to be under the mistaken belief that if you post this, maybe new people will curb their talk when the "pros" are talking. Which maybe is exactly what you want, I don't know. Me personally, I'd rather see some more thoughts and ideas on the forums even if they are doing it differently or "wrong".

Your whole original post, and subsequent posts, give off a bad vibe of almost trying to define a special club, and happily getting the reactions out of some of those people, in my opinion. It sounds like to me you wanted to throw a warning out to the people "who just don't get it" to fall in line, but then also get all the interactions with the veterans about how you recognize them being an important part of the community.

Mostly if a post was something I dont agree with or am not interested in, I'd just let it go and not say anything. But this one actually would have the possibility of swaying new people from posting because "they shouldn't argue with the veterans". They probably dont want to get jumped on if they have a differing opinion, especially by a community who recognizes post count and time spent as a status symbol. So a lot of times they'd be better off asking questions elsewhere where anyone can be part of an argument.

The main good thing about this, is that by the experience I've seen lots of places, this thread will eventually be let knocked off the first page, no one will read it anymore, and people will still post arguments, even against the veterans, and everything will stay the same