Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8816810" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, I am not.Or, and hear me out here, I think I'm right, because I have reasons. And when asked to share those reasons, I did. And when I shared those reasons, you said I was wrong, and ignored my reasons.If someone says Fortnight is a better game than Overwatch, that isn't an objective opinion. If they say it is better designed, that still isn't an objective opinion. Because objective opinions do not exist. However, if someone came up to them and asked &quot;Well, why do you think that Fortnight is a better game&quot;.... wouldn't you expect them to answer? And they aren't going to answer &quot;because I think it is good.&quot; I mean, they might, but that is an incredibly poor answer. They probably have based their opinion on more than that. They likely have reasons. And, if they gave a reason like &quot;the gun are better balanced&quot; and someone responded &quot;Well, actually, if you hack the game and change the gun stats to unbalance them, it is really unbalanced&quot; the person isn't going to be saying &quot;well, your beliefs are valid&quot; they are going to be saying &quot;Why are we comparing the game as it is to a hacked version that you altered to unbalance it? That's a terrible comparison and doesn't address my reason at all!&quot; I'm not reacting as someone who thinks they are the only person who could possibly see the truth. I'm reacting as a person who WAS ASKED THEIR REASONS and after given them was berated and their reasons ignored because people decided they wanted to alter the fundamental situation.&quot;The Oberoni Fallacy is an informal fallacy, occasionally seen in discussions of role-playing games, in which an arguer puts forth that if a problematic rule can be fixed by the figure running the game, the problematic rule is not, in fact, problematic.&quot;How is &quot;The problematic design can be fixed by the figure running the game, therefore the design is not problematic&quot; not just a straight Oberoni Fallacy? I don't care if you alter the product, if you felt that it was only good if you altered it, it wasn't good in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8816810, member: 6801228"] No, I am not. Or, and hear me out here, I think I'm right, because I have reasons. And when asked to share those reasons, I did. And when I shared those reasons, you said I was wrong, and ignored my reasons. If someone says Fortnight is a better game than Overwatch, that isn't an objective opinion. If they say it is better designed, that still isn't an objective opinion. [B][U]Because objective opinions do not exist[/U][/B]. However, if someone came up to them and asked "Well, why do you think that Fortnight is a better game".... wouldn't you expect them to answer? And they aren't going to answer "because I think it is good." I mean, they might, but that is an incredibly poor answer. They probably have based their opinion on more than that. They likely have reasons. And, if they gave a reason like "the gun are better balanced" and someone responded "Well, actually, if you hack the game and change the gun stats to unbalance them, it is really unbalanced" the person isn't going to be saying "well, your beliefs are valid" they are going to be saying "Why are we comparing the game as it is to a hacked version that you altered to unbalance it? That's a terrible comparison and doesn't address my reason at all!" I'm not reacting as someone who thinks they are the only person who could possibly see the truth. I'm reacting as a person who WAS ASKED THEIR REASONS and after given them was berated and their reasons ignored because people decided they wanted to alter the fundamental situation. "The Oberoni Fallacy is an informal fallacy, occasionally seen in discussions of role-playing games, in which [B]an arguer puts forth that if a problematic rule can be fixed by the figure running the game, the problematic rule is not, in fact, problematic[/B]." How is "The problematic design can be fixed by the figure running the game, therefore the design is not problematic" not just a straight Oberoni Fallacy? I don't care if you alter the product, if you felt that it was only good if you altered it, it wasn't good in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification