Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3799707" data-attributes="member: 30001">I guess I did.&nbsp; In fact I just scanned the page again and I still don't see it.&nbsp; Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.In the process of breaking down arguments into manageable chunks, I'm often having to provide a specific example or counter-example to a point.&nbsp; This is not intended to be a replacement/proxy for the original argument but instead a building block, and hence, is not a strawman argument.&nbsp; With that in mind -You never said &quot;could never&quot; but if I say &quot;A is B&quot;, in certain contexts that means the same thing (ie. &quot;B can never be C&quot;).&nbsp; In the context of what you were saying, you were suggesting that placing an encounter in context was sufficient.&nbsp; What I actually was trying to point out with my example was that it wasn't sufficient.&nbsp; The next step was to show that as you try to avoid heavy-handedness, you're increasingly relying on a narrower set of circumstances that might not fit the encounter, ie. it becomes more and more difficult.&nbsp; Contrast this with my statements about the resource management issues being a more natural fit for the game (and easier to engineer).&nbsp; Regardless, my main point here is that my counter-example was never intended to be a strawman argument for the overall (and more complicated) issue.?&nbsp; I don't know what you mean here.&nbsp; My statement that you quoted was saying something else, related to the &quot;time restrictions&quot; issue only in the ways that the arguments are connected.&nbsp; Time restrictions in themselves are not contrived, is that what you're trying to say here?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3799707, member: 30001"] I guess I did. In fact I just scanned the page again and I still don't see it. Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. In the process of breaking down arguments into manageable chunks, I'm often having to provide a specific example or counter-example to a point. This is not intended to be a replacement/proxy for the original argument but instead a building block, and hence, is not a strawman argument. With that in mind - You never said "could never" but if I say "A is B", in certain contexts that means the same thing (ie. "B can never be C"). In the context of what you were saying, you were suggesting that placing an encounter in context was sufficient. What I actually was trying to point out with my example was that it wasn't sufficient. The next step was to show that as you try to avoid heavy-handedness, you're increasingly relying on a narrower set of circumstances that might not fit the encounter, ie. it becomes more and more difficult. Contrast this with my statements about the resource management issues being a more natural fit for the game (and easier to engineer). Regardless, my main point here is that my counter-example was never intended to be a strawman argument for the overall (and more complicated) issue. ? I don't know what you mean here. My statement that you quoted was saying something else, related to the "time restrictions" issue only in the ways that the arguments are connected. Time restrictions in themselves are not contrived, is that what you're trying to say here? [/QUOTE]

Verification