PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:47:29 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
scribed into the ether:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:28:43 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.
>
>Sure every character is effective.

Demonstrate how a 9 int Wizard is effective.

>But every character can do something.

Being able to do "something" is not the same thing as being effective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Feel free to call red herrings "entertainment," but claiming that the
>> entertainment value makes them anything but red herrings, that's pure
>> intellectual dishonesty of the "fooling yourself" variety.

tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> <random website>
> Red Herring.
> This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to
> the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away
> from the points made, towards a different conclusion ....
> </random website>
>
> Wrong again, Bradd. MSB doesn't do that --

You're joking, right? He not only does it, he often gloats about it.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:19:02 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:47:29 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:28:43 GMT, Matt Frisch
>><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.
>>
>>Sure every character is effective.
>
>Demonstrate how a 9 int Wizard is effective.

Sure thing. He can stab people when they aren't looking, and help
carry luggage.

>
>>But every character can do something.
>
>Being able to do "something" is not the same thing as being effective.

Sure it is. It's just not _very_ effective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Logical fallacies are in the hands of the person with the poor
> reasoning and unsupported conclusions. Everything I've found says
> that, other than things that talk about the lawyerese and
> political-speak "ad hominem".

Sorry, but I don't trust your reading comprehension, and you haven't
actually cited anything that backs up this claim. If you can't provide
verifiable support for it, I'm not accepting it.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Red Herring.
>>
>> This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material
>> to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted
>> away from the points made, towards a different conclusion."
>>
>> Note, DF, that is doesn't say anything about skipping the argument --
>> merely introducing irrelevant material. But I am sure you didn't snip
>> the definition because it contradicted your conclusion, right, DF?

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Your reading comprehension has failed you. SO THAT EVERYON'ES
> ATTENTION IS DIVERTED *AWAY*. That, you moronic buffoon, is *skipping
> the actual argument*.

WTF? You can make relevant claims /and/ divert attention away from the
main point. We see examples of this all the time: "Yes, drug dealers are
hurting society, but we really should focus on locking up murderers
instead." We even saw an example of it in the recent thread on putting
spammers in jail. The relevant parts of the argument don't change the
fact that the diversion is a red herring.

> Why divert someone from an argument if you took it on and defeated it?

Because you find it amusing when people go after your bait instead of
focusing on the main topic, duh. You've already admitted that.

> If you address the argument and move on to a new subject, there is no
> red herring.

Incorrect.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:12:02 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
scribed into the ether:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:19:02 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:47:29 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:28:43 GMT, Matt Frisch
>>><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.
>>>
>>>Sure every character is effective.
>>
>>Demonstrate how a 9 int Wizard is effective.
>
>Sure thing. He can stab people when they aren't looking, and help
>carry luggage.

Demonstration failed.

>>>But every character can do something.
>>
>>Being able to do "something" is not the same thing as being effective.
>
>Sure it is. It's just not _very_ effective.

not very effective != effective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:4267a155.93981590@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:19:02 GMT, Matt Frisch
> <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

> >Being able to do "something" is not the same thing as being effective.
>
> Sure it is. It's just not _very_ effective.

So a child molesting, serial killer is good just not _very_ good?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd682nl.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
>>> The simple argument quoted above has two lines of attack: one against
>>> the argument ["You are wrong"], one against the interlocuter ["You
>>> are a moron"]. The second line is ad hominem fallacy, and therefore
>>> adds nothing to the argument overall.
>
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> I'm sorry Bradd, but this *is* wrong.
>>
>> What you are doing is stretching the 'ad hominem' definition so far
>> that it can be applied to any and all personal attacks ....
>
> No, only to personal attacks that assault the interlocutor's credibility
> (honesty, competence, etc). Furthermore, the American legal profession
> -- a large group of experts on this subject -- appears to agree with me,
> according to the sources quoted below.

That is not quite fair. Comparing recommended courtroom behavior to Usenet
behavior is like comparing apples to engine blocks.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:

> >>>Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.
> >>
> >>Sure every character is effective.
> >
> >Demonstrate how a 9 int Wizard is effective.
>
> Sure thing. He can stab people when they aren't looking, and help
> carry luggage.

The Luggage just scampers around of it's own accord.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1cd238253981a2ed989a40
@news.iskon.hr:

> rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:
>
>> >>>Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.
>> >>
>> >>Sure every character is effective.
>> >
>> >Demonstrate how a 9 int Wizard is effective.
>>
>> Sure thing. He can stab people when they aren't looking, and help
>> carry luggage.
>
> The Luggage just scampers around of it's own accord.

But it does tend to stay in the vicinity of the spell-less wizzard, so that
sort of counts as a party benefit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy against
> one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept your
argument.
> Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is an ad hominem
there.

True. But MSB has never actually done that, so I'm still not seeing the
relevance.

MSB's insults, when they are not wholly tangential to his argument, are
the *conclusion* of his arguments -- not their substance.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ruidnX8pkevms_TfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> >> What you are doing is stretching the 'ad hominem' definition so far
> >> that it can be applied to any and all personal attacks ....
> >
> > No, only to personal attacks that assault the interlocutor's credibility
> > (honesty, competence, etc).

... which Bradd has thus far defined as *all of them*. So does goslin,
by the way... and neither of them are correct. As a bonus funny, notice
that Bradd has now included *competence* in that list - apparently, it is
now a fallacy to observe that someone is incompetent even though they had
just been demonstrably inept!
And yet, at the end of the day it's their arguments one still has to
contend with, regardless of whether one has dubbed their maker a fool.
Bradd just can't seem to grasp that there is no fallacy in reasoning
associated with hurling barbs alongside an argument.

> > Furthermore, the American legal profession
> > -- a large group of experts on this subject -- appears to agree with me,
> > according to the sources quoted below.
>
> That is not quite fair. Comparing recommended courtroom behavior to
Usenet
> behavior is like comparing apples to engine blocks.

.. a point that Bradd is repeatedly failing to grasp. Frankly, in an
arena with real stakes (liberty, finance), there are rather powerful reasons
to be concerned about the credibility of those involved and only impugning
it legitimately- else no conclusion of the system will be accepted. So it
is hardly surprising that the things that the "American legal profession"
(who are, by the way, *woefully* misrepresented as experts on logical
thinking) REDEFINES the term ordinarily associated with the reasoning
fallacy into a term of art that includes "rhetorical shenanigans" as well.

Bradd just can't seem to grasp how embarrasing an appeal to false
authority he has made.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> >> You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy
against
> >> one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept your
> >> argument. Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is an ad
> >> hominem there.
>
> Justin Bacon wrote:
> > True. But MSB has never actually done that --
>
> What, are you blind?

Quote it. Quote MSB saying something equivalent to, "You are a moron,
so no one should accept your argument."

It's fully possible that he's done so at some point in time. I haven't
read every post he's ever written. But if he has, then it's been few
and far between.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <IaS9e.152$fZ5.338@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>
>> I think a big issue is effective for what? If someone has a suboptimal
>> fighter build, but had some other reasonable goals for the character, the
>> character might be effective in reaching his own goals without being maximally
>> effective in the fighter's usual primary purpose of fighting.
>
>Following on this: "Maximum Effectiveness" is best defined as a
>character best matched to his challenges.
>[snip two interesting examples]
>Likewise, a character may know a hard quest is coming up in three or
>four levels. He's smart for prepping his character for that quest, but
>meanwhile, those skills aren't paying off at this level. In this case,
>we have a strategic choice, where maximum effectivness for now has been
>traded for maximum effectivness later.

I liked all of your examples, but especially this one. It says you have to
know what is likely to be happending in the campaign before judging for
effectiveness. If someone builds the uber-fighter, they are saying either "I
expect this campaign to be mostly combat" or "I don't care whether I'm
effective for non-combat because I'm happy to stand around helping to guard at
those times. The issue I'd have as a DM and saw an uber-fighter is, am I
going to have to skew my campaign more towards combat than I intended? After
a few of these I've decided my only responsibility to the player of the
uber-fighter is to make it clear how much or little combat there is likely to
be.

The "gladiator" build I posted in another thread is not an optimal generic
fighter by any means, but (I think) very good at the sort of gladiatorial
contest discussed in Complete Warrior, where the crowd's attitude has a
significant effect, and certain nontraditional weapons are used much more
often.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>> You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy against
>> one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept your
>> argument. Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is an ad
>> hominem there.

Justin Bacon wrote:
> True. But MSB has never actually done that --

What, are you blind?

> MSB's insults, when they are not wholly tangential to his argument,
> are the *conclusion* of his arguments -- not their substance.

Irrelevant.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>> When you say things that aren't true, you have no business getting
>> pissed off when people point it out.

tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> I'm pissed that Bradd's ignoring my argument while playing semantics

Pointing out that some of your claims are blatantly untrue is not
"playing semantics." This, however, is:

> (X) AND NOT(X) does not exist. You cannot make (a sound argument) AND
> (irrelevant personal attacks) INSTEAD OF (a sound argument). Let alone
> that *noone* is drawing any conclusions about the argument from the
> personal attacks.

You're "playing semantics" with the word /instead/. That's not the only
way to interpret it in context, and Jeff & I have both given examples of
how it can be read differently.

Furthermore, your interpretation goes against the very spirit of the
informal fallacies.

> I destoyed Bradds argument --

Victory by fiat doesn't work for you, either.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>> What you are doing is stretching the 'ad hominem' definition so far
>>> that it can be applied to any and all personal attacks ....

Bradd wrote:
>> No, only to personal attacks that assault the interlocutor's
>> credibility (honesty, competence, etc). Furthermore, the American
>> legal profession -- a large group of experts on this subject --
>> appears to agree with me, according to the sources quoted below.

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> That is not quite fair. Comparing recommended courtroom behavior to
> Usenet behavior is like comparing apples to engine blocks.

The sources I quoted included more than just courtroom behavior. For
example, in one of the examples, the courts punished a lawyer for ad
hominem attacks in a legal brief. I understand that the standards for
"what you can say in front of a jury" are stricter than the standards
for argumentation in general, but my sources were not limited to that
stricter context.

>> Usenet does tend to lay on the antagonism; so do lawyers.

> Not really. That is largely an erroneous view of the profession put
> forth by television. There is *some* antagonism, sure, but it is not
> particularly common in my experience.

The sources I read suggested that antagonism, especially the ad hominem
variety, is most common in situations where there's no judge or jury
present (e.g., some kinds of deposition). They stated that ad hominem is
equally unwelcome there, but that there's nothing to stop it except
professionalism.

This is directly analogous to Usenet, where antagonism is most common in
unmoderated, non-professional newsgroups. Ad hominem is strictly off-
limits in the more serious newsgroups, but it happens anyway in
unmoderated groups. It's more common in the "entertainment" newsgroups.
However, none of that changes whether it /is/ ad hominem fallacy, just
the degree to which the local communities commit and tolerate it.

And frankly, it isn't well-accepted here either. There are a few
regulars who regularly use personal attacks as red herrings. When
outsiders object, those same regulars cite thin rationalizations for why
there red herrings aren't "ad hominem." I don't really care what they
want to call it; even if you can prove that it technically isn't ad
hominem fallacy, it's /still/ a fallacy of the red herring type.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>>> No, only to personal attacks that assault the interlocutor's
>>> credibility (honesty, competence, etc).

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> ... which Bradd has thus far defined as *all of them*.

Should I chalk up this blatant untruth to dishonesty, stupidity, or
something else?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>><random website>
>> Red Herring.
>>This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to
>>the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away
>>from the points made, towards a different conclusion ....
>></random website>
>>
>>Wrong again, Bradd. MSB doesn't do that --
>
> You're joking, right? He not only does it, he often gloats about it.

You'll be able to google me up an example then, assuming he often
gloats about it.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>><random website>
>>> Red Herring.
>>>This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to
>>>the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away
>>>from the points made, towards a different conclusion ....
>>></random website>
>>>
>>>Wrong again, Bradd. MSB doesn't do that --
>>
>> You're joking, right? He not only does it, he often gloats about it.
>
> You'll be able to google me up an example then, assuming he often
> gloats about it.

What, again?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd6ilin.463.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
> > That is not quite fair. Comparing recommended courtroom behavior to
> > Usenet behavior is like comparing apples to engine blocks.
>
> The sources I quoted included more than just courtroom behavior. For
> example, in one of the examples, the courts punished a lawyer for ad
> hominem attacks in a legal brief.

*Wow*. Talk about a ballsy attempt at semantics!

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy
>>>> against one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept
>>>> your argument. Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is an
>>>> ad hominem there.

Justin Bacon wrote:
>>> True. But MSB has never actually done that --

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> What, are you blind?

> Quote it.

I already have. If you can't read the thread, I'm not going to
spoon-feed it to you. Furthermore, I don't need to. As I've already
shown, red herrings do not require that your conclusion actually depend
on the diversion.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> That is not quite fair. Comparing recommended courtroom behavior to
>>> Usenet behavior is like comparing apples to engine blocks.

Bradd wrote:
>> The sources I quoted included more than just courtroom behavior. For
>> example, in one of the examples, the courts punished a lawyer for ad
>> hominem attacks in a legal brief.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> *Wow*. Talk about a ballsy attempt at semantics!

Keep digging, juicebag.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy
> >>>> against one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept
> >>>> your argument. Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is
an
> >>>> ad hominem there.
>
> Justin Bacon wrote:
> >>> True. But MSB has never actually done that --
>
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> What, are you blind?
>
> > Quote it.
>
> I already have.

Then post a link to the message where you quoted. There's 1400+
messages in the thread, so it's quite possible I missed it. But right
now your posts are stinking of bullshit.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justin Bacon <triad3204@aol.com> wrote:
> Then post a link to the message where you quoted. There's 1400+
> messages in the thread, so it's quite possible I missed it. But right
> now your posts are stinking of bullshit.

If you weren't so quick to call people liars, I might actually have
enough respect for you to go to the trouble of digging for it. Instead,
I'll just give you a hint: Google for articles containing the word
"shun" written by MSB.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd