Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9663607" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I flatly disagree. When someone asserts X is better than Y because X never does P while Y does do P, and then someone points out that X in fact does do P, there are only three valid responses:1. Rescind the original statement. &quot;You're right. X is no different from Y on this front.&quot;2. Provide a correction for an incorrect statement. &quot;No, X in fact does not do P.&quot;3. Genuinely change the original statement. &quot;X is better than Y because X never does Q while Y does Q.&quot;It is not a valid response to start inventing ad hoc reasons why the times X does P don't actually count, especially when you completely redefine P so that the fact Y does P is now acceptable anyway!Because, again, let's not forget that the original claim was that a &quot;Steel&quot; roll failing--resulting in a character being unable to take an action they'd like to take--was an utterly, unequivocally unacceptable thing, BECAUSE such a thing was controlling what the character thinks.Faolyn is now redefining things so that a failed roll resulting in fear does not count as dictating what a character thinks!It is, quite literally, redefining the original situation in a way that excuses what 5e does.....and yet doing so also excuses Burning Wheel! But the assertion is that Burning Wheel is still a problem while 5e is not.That's why I'm being such a stickler about this. This is, quite literally, upending the whole of the original example, but claiming that the distinction still somehow applies. It's a textbook case of moving goalposts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9663607, member: 6790260"] I flatly disagree. When someone asserts X is better than Y because X [I]never[/I] does P while Y [I]does[/I] do P, and then someone points out that X in fact does do P, there are only three valid responses: 1. Rescind the original statement. "You're right. X is no different from Y on this front." 2. Provide a correction for an incorrect statement. "No, X in fact does not do P." 3. Genuinely change the original statement. "X is better than Y because X never does Q while Y does Q." It is [I]not[/I] a valid response to start inventing [I]ad hoc[/I] reasons why the times X does P don't actually count, [I]especially when you completely redefine P so that the fact Y does P is now acceptable anyway![/I] Because, again, let's not forget that the original claim was that a "Steel" roll failing--resulting in a character being unable to take an action they'd like to take--was an utterly, unequivocally unacceptable thing, BECAUSE such a thing was controlling what the character thinks. Faolyn is now redefining things so that a failed roll resulting in fear [I]does not count as dictating what a character thinks![/I] It is, quite literally, redefining the original situation in a way that excuses what 5e does.....and yet doing so [I]also excuses Burning Wheel![/I] But the assertion is that Burning Wheel is still a problem while 5e is not. That's why I'm being such a stickler about this. This is, quite literally, upending the whole of the original example, but claiming that the distinction still somehow applies. It's a textbook case of moving goalposts. [/QUOTE]

Verification