unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp

[Hypersmurf]

Isn't them being right/wrong what we are debating? Using that as evidence to support their invalidity seems like a circular argument (hence it could be left it out without effectively changing the implication of your statement).

If they're right, it doesn't matter if there's one, or a hundred; all of them are right regardless of number.

If they're wrong, it doesn't matter if there's one, or a hundred; all of them are wrong regardless of number.

Thus, the volume of the stack of citations is irrelevant - if they all say them same thing, then they're either all correct or all incorrect, and all that matters is the reasoning they used to reach their conclusion.

If the reasoning is flawed, all of them are just as wrong as if there were only one.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I am fairly confident that Skip has the power at WoTC to get errata/changes made in the PHB, so if I were in error, and not him, it would have happened officially by now.

As mentioned, that doesn't seem like a truism. Also note: it's not just Skip, but several other authors too (at least 4 or 5 mentioned so far). I have not yet found an author that clarified the issue in the other direction.

 

[atom crash]

Using that as evidence to support their invalidity seems like a circular argument (hence why I left it out).

My point is that they -- citations from sources other than the PHB -- should not be used to support either the validity or invalidity of the original argument. For reasons Hypersmurf sums up nicely above me.

Also note: it not just Skip, but several other authors too (at least 4 or 5 mentioned so far).

Imagine that a scientist made some empirical observations about the movements of the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies as seen from earth and deduced that the universe actually circled around the earth. Then a bunch of other scientists used that geocentric model as the basis of their work in tracking the orbits of all objects through the starry expanse. This model held sway for hundreds of years. But just because it was the basis for scientific thought for so long for so many people doesn't make it correct.

Perhaps Skip published an inaccurate ruling. Then 4 or 5 other authors repeated it in their work. Is it now more or less true than when Skip wrote it?

I'm not necessarily saying this is the case. I'm merely pointing out that it is perfectly feasible that this could be the case. And just because 4 or 5 people repeat something doesn't make it more true. Perhaps no one has made a clarification to the contrary because, I don't know, they feel the rule is clear enough as written.

 

[mvincent]

the volume of the stack of citations is irrelevant - if they all say them same thing

Your post seems to be contesting my earlier post, rather than the one you were quoting. As mentioned, it is relevant to me (and possibly to atom crash as well, since he said "I'm not saying that sheer volume has no weight" after I restated his earlier statement).

 

[mvincent]

My point is that they -- citations from sources other than the PHB -- should not be used to support either the validity or invalidity of the original argument.

That is your assertion, but not everyone’s. On that we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[atom crash]

(and possibly to atom crash as well, since he said "I'm not saying that sheer volume has no weight" after I restated his earlier statement).

Again, by only quoting part of my statement, you've taken what I wrote out of context and misconstrued my meaning.

But that's neither here or there.

While I was editing post #253, several people posted, so let me re-direct your attention briefly back to that post. Thanks.

 

[atom crash]

Let me take a moment, mvincent, to assure you that I don’t intend to imply that you’re intentionally trying to twist my words. I hope I don’t seem too defensive or overly sensitive to criticism. On the contrary. I’m merely concerned that partial quotes may muddy the waters of what we’re really saying here.

I consider our exchange here to be both civil and informative, and I hope you feel the same way (on that, at least).

Now back to our regularly scheduled rules debate.

 

[Mistwell]

I do not understand this idea that rules are like scientific questions. That it's all precise, that it's a yes or no at every level, and that it is purely objective.

That seems to be to be a wierd way to look at rules. In the law, where even life and death can be on the line, they are still not as rigid as you guys are making these rules sound (and intent of the authors, and debate at the time of the law, and reasonability, all play a factor). And if that field isn't as rigid, I would think rules for a role playing game certainly are not.

The intent of the author is relevant. The opinion of the company that writes the rules is relevant. The ramifications of various rules decisions are relevant. It's not just this thing in a vacuum lab or machine that registers either on or off. These rules have a context, and that context extends to the people who wrote them, and who work for the company that wrote them.

It should matter to everyone what the full context, including the people, say regarding this rule. Because the goal should be to formulate the best intepretation of the rule, not the most pure intepretation.

 

[DungeonMaester]

...Flavor text does not replace the mechanic? From what Ive seen and read, what beltone's argument is based on is flavor text and not a mechanic in the game.

---Rusty

 

[mvincent]

Perhaps Skip published an inaccurate ruling. Then 4 or 5 other authors repeated it in their work. Is it now more or less true than when Skip wrote it?

1) In regard to game rules (i.e. an artificial system created by authors and players) I believe it would technically be more true by repetition.
2) That aside, there is also the fact that having more eyes on a ruling increases the likelihood that any errors would be noticed (note: my career is in software quality assurance, so this concept is near and dear to me).
3) Thirdly, it becomes not just Skip's error (i.e. some have implied, to support their point, that it is just Skip making an error).
4) Lastly, in regard to establishing whether something can reasonably be interpreted in a different way, I feel weight of numbers has some bearing.