Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7844238" data-attributes="member: 7016641">if you want to argue that your abstraction or hitpoints are open ended and thus anyone can add or subtract concepts from them any way they want to then first i would ask you to point out where the definition of these terms in the game state this but additionally id point out you dont state this in your own abstract. if someone was meant to take your definition of your abstract at face value and use it without ever being able to consult you on it, then your definition can not change (like i said it either has to change or its wrong, because your language does not presume to a reader that it is open ended, the term "whether" when applied to "made of" does not denote an open ended statement, it denotes a list of possibilities.though honestly if you consider hitpoints open ended then frankly i dont know what your even arguing against me about, ultimately what i think about hitpoints doesnt matter if hitpoints can mean anything, sure you can say then if hitpoints means anything that when i say to someone else "this doesnt make logical sense within the context of the game" that you can point out the game doesent have logical limitations to the subject, but beyond that i and anyone else can say whatever hitpoints are for our own use when hitpoints subordinate concepts and damage's subordinate concepts are purely interpretive.damage isint a statement about an attack, because damage does not only occur from attacks, damage occurs when something lowers a characters hitpoints, would you argue that a pit trap attacks a character? would you argue that the ground attacks the character when they fall? when a character is poisoned, is it attacking them or is it just doing damage? can you also prove that these are attacks by the games logic providing a source stating these are attacks? if not, then damage is not a statement about an attack, damage is a statement about how hitpoints are lowered, we know this because the definition of hitpoints never mentions attacks. now the definition of damage does state attacks, but we know that other sources of damage exist in the game that arnt associated with attacks, not to mention damage isint specified as being defined as the result of attacks where its mentioned in its definition, what it states is that attacks do damage, that is an open ended statement because it doesn't state what damage is, it simply states where it can come from.so far this leaves us with the conclusion we started with. damage is the related concept to hitpoints for hitpoints, and that because hitpoints is defined without open ended interpretation (until you can quote otherwise) as being an abstraction of the concepts "physical and mental durability, will to live, and luck" while damage has its own subordinate concepts. hitpoints and damage are representatives of those subordinate concepts, they can not be divorced from them in the statements about what these abstracts are defined as, and these concepts define that hitpoints are lowered by damage. if hitpoints cant divorce its subordinate concepts and damage can not divorce its subordinate concepts (specifically damage is never done without a type of damage specified) then it must be assumed that how damage lowers hitpoints is a defining characteristic of hitpoint's subordinate concepts. something like IRV (immunity, resistance, vulneribility) in this analysis is important to help clarify "how" as extra contexts, the same way my "blind and deaf" conditions on the character or "invisible and silent" conditions on the attacker are just extra context to clarify hitpoint's relationship with damage.</blockquote>

Verification