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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JmanTheDM" data-source="post: 8232219" data-attributes="member: 6791902">[for emphasis]"If you feel you can supply good arguments...actual fact-based arguments..."Is astoundingly disingenuous.  the implied double-standard here is...  well... obvious.The rules, in this fact based debate with you, if I understand it correctly is this:CapnZapp may "come up with any reason why the game does not work for his particular tastes.  CapnZapp need only make a claim that x is broken because of y"their opponent must therefor bear the onus to "supply only good fact-based arguments to counter any claim made by CapnZapp"so, you can make a claim, really any claim you want, whereas I must provide "actual, fact-based" evidence, which is presumably a referenced official statements to counter your claims.  because, like how can any rebuttal be an "actual, fact-based" reply if not referenced by official sources?am I understanding your conditions correctly?  is this what you in fact intended as the sole means to sway you?  is your emotional response to PF2e even swayable, even with the most fact based argument from the mouths of the designers themselves? is not the onus on you to carry the heavier burden to prove your points through "good argument... actual fact-based arguments" instead of us, as you are the one making the extraordinary claim?are you not setting the conditions for us to prove a negative?and finally,  because you are holding us to a standard of evidence that you yourself are not bound to, is this not by default a situation where The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and thus, by not providing actual fact-based data, you can then somehow claim a point?I fear even in an ideal situation where "fact-based" evidence to a specific claim could even be produced, the debate would follow a script similar to the below:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a claim is made</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the claim is disputed through the submission of fact-based evidence</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the goalpost is then shifted by claiming the original premise is therefore flawed.  eg.  "well then, the designer was wrong"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">stalemate! as how can you debate further the minds of a creator, when the creation IS what the created intended to create?</li> </ul>its OK to not like art.  art is deeply personal.  but to crap on the artists because they didn't create something you like...  well, that just strikes me as the ultimate hubris and unless you commissioned the artist yourself directly, waaaaaaay outside your right to claim.but that's just me [shrug]Cheers,J.</blockquote>

Verification