Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sir Brennen" data-source="post: 4916940" data-attributes="member: 553">Now, is it just me, or does the OP, complaining about people incorrectly referencing the Stormwind Fallacy (which I also have never heard of 'til now), himself commit an error when referencing it?If his assertation is valid that Stormwind says 'Skill at optimising is not necessarily incompatible with skill at roleplaying', then Stormwind is talking about players, not characters. Yet, Vonk's logical proof only deals with characters, not the people creating or playing them. He's basically attempting to disprove the idea that an optimized character can't be role-played. Now personally I've heard plenty of accusations leveled against *players* who optimize not being roleplayers (or that &quot;Roleplay Uber Alles!&quot; players aren't playing the game right), but never that an optimized *character* can't be role-played. So, in essence, Vonk is setting up a strawman argument (as I jump on the logic buzzword bandwagon.)Really, the proof should be more like:A is the set of every existing roleplayer
B is the subset of A that are skilled at optimization but suck at roleplaying
c is the subset of A that are skilled at roleplaying but suck at optimization
D is the subset of A that are skilled to some degree at both roleplaying and optimization
E is the subset of A that suck at bothLike Umbran said, it's about psychology. People who are skilled at doing something a particular way tend to prefer to do things that way. As a form of validation, people often see their preferences as the &quot;right&quot; way, even if it is not the norm.Isn't that what 99% of Internet arguments are about?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sir Brennen, post: 4916940, member: 553"] Now, is it just me, or does the OP, complaining about people incorrectly referencing the Stormwind Fallacy (which I also have never heard of 'til now), himself commit an error when referencing it? If his assertation is valid that Stormwind says [I][COLOR=YellowGreen]'Skill at optimising is not necessarily incompatible with skill at roleplaying'[/COLOR][/I], then Stormwind is talking about [u][i]players[/i][/u], not characters. Yet, Vonk's logical proof only deals with characters, not the people creating or playing them. He's basically attempting to disprove the idea that an optimized character can't be role-played. Now personally I've heard plenty of accusations leveled against *players* who optimize not being roleplayers (or that "Roleplay Uber Alles!" players aren't playing the game right), but never that an optimized *character* can't be role-played. So, in essence, Vonk is setting up a strawman argument (as I jump on the logic buzzword bandwagon.) Really, the proof should be more like: [indent]A is the set of every existing roleplayer B is the subset of A that are skilled at optimization but suck at roleplaying c is the subset of A that are skilled at roleplaying but suck at optimization D is the subset of A that are skilled to some degree at both roleplaying and optimization E is the subset of A that suck at both[/indent] Like Umbran said, it's about psychology. People who are skilled at doing something a particular way tend to prefer to do things that way. As a form of validation, people often see their preferences as the "right" way, even if it is not the norm. Isn't that what 99% of Internet arguments are about? [/QUOTE]

Verification