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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8630228" data-attributes="member: 16814">Logically flawed.  There are tons of taxonomies that have uneven baskets.  This isn't even wrong.Strawman.  No one has made any argument about objectivity.Circular reasoning.  You declare the structure to be vague and then show that since it's vague it must be vague.It's also been well covered that the language wasn't the best choice, so unclear what your point in bringing this up again is.  Either we're using the definitions as provided or you're still trying to argue definitions.  Pick one.I didn't define story.  I said storied have internal causes and care about them.  Surreal stories still function on internal cause, they just subvert that cause into a different form.  Internal cause doesn't require a particular structure (although dramaticism is often concerned with creating proper story structure).  Tech manuals are not the goal of dramaticism in any consideration, so a red herring.It's not that vague, and also it was defined in the essays.  Either we're talking about the model or we are talking about definitions, still.   Pick one.  This vacillation when it aids your argument is tiresome.No, of course it isn't.  Another strawman.  I'd welcome disagreement.  So far, most of your arguments are things like "taxonomies must be symmetrical" which is bogus; or they're "I've changed/ignored this definition from that used in the model and now you must defend the model using this new definition, but you can't!"  Also largely bogus.Disagreement would require actually trying to address the model on the premises it's based on and showing how it fails to hold itself up under even those conditions, or directly attacking the premises.  You aren't doing the first, mostly just the second, but your attacks are ones of assertion or preference for a different premise, not showing that the premises used are flawed.Oh, you mean that preferably they should share the same agenda?  Yes, I agree, that does solve the problem because then you aren't worried about how to harmonize different agendas -- you have the same one.Red herring.  Doesn't matter if it was announced or not -- if we assume it was announced, it's still causing problems; we just move Bob's objections to the time at which the rule is announced.  We still aren't harmonizing anything here -- a solid and hard conflict exists.RIGHT.  The description has no effect at all, so it's not simulationist because we've established an internal cause -- major blow breaks arm -- that aligns, but then have to immediately discard it in favor of the gamist imperatives of the agreed play.  Bob wins, no harmonizing.I'd be Bob in this case.  I'm effectively recreating an issue I had with a GM that decided that damage needed to be more simulationist and so he'd assign lasting injuries and penalties for them.  At the time, I was still pretty green, and didn't immediately assert my arguments, but I can 100% tell you that it sucked hard for me in that game.  I certainly didn't feel any harmonizing going on.But, again, I entreat you to find your own examples.  It's your assertion, the burden of proof is on you.</blockquote>

Verification