PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Justin Bacon wrote:
>> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
>>>>"Attacking the person ****INSTEAD***** of attacking his argument"
>
>>>If I state you are wrong because (i) you're premise doesn't support
>>>your concusion and (ii) you are stupid, I have committed an ad
>>>hominem.
>
>>Huh. You'd think that with capital letters and *nine* stars for
>>emphasis, you'd find it hard to overlook the word "INSTEAD" in that
>>definition, but apparently not. Is it perhaps the definition of the
>>word "INSTEAD" that you're struggling with?
>
> No, just the fact that it's inconclusive. Suppose that I make two
> claims: one is well-reasoned, and one attacks you instead of your
> argument. MSB insists that this is not "ad hominem fallacy" -- but
> there's that word "instead."

If you've got something to say, try it in your native language,
whatever that may be. X AND NOT(X) is an empty set, you can't address
the argument /and/ do something /instead of/ addressing the argument.

> Furthermore, MSB's claim is inconsistent. He insists that it's not ad
> hominem fallacy if you write it in addition to a well-reasoned argument.
> But what if you write it in addition to a poorly-reasoned argument? Does
> it suddenly become ad hominem fallacy then?

No. Poor reasoning makes for some other error, it's only when you
confront the poster instead of his argument and thereby conclude his
argument to be wrong that you've argued against the man.
"His conclusion is wrong because he is an idiot". Other personal
attacks may well be poor form, and may be called ad hominem by some, but
are *not* a logical fallacy.

This is similar to how it's not strawmanning to pick apart the
periferal aspects of an argument when you've also taken on the main
thrust of it, as much as people here might claim otherwise.

> He misses the point, which is that ad hominem is a fallacy because it is
> prejudicial and worthless, not because it is illogical.

This is your most critical mistake. Fallacies are where you get
your conclusions from poor reasoning, which comes from breaches of logic.

Prejudicial posting style is *not* illogical (and so not in itself
fallacious), even though it *may* promote illogical thought (and thus
fallacies) in the minds of readers.
This is why lawyers avoid prejudicial style (called ad hominem by
some); the jury isn't expected to be strictly logical.

> He misses the point that /all/ informal fallacies are like that. He
> keeps taking definitions out of context, like the one above, and keeps
> insisting that experts "misuse" terms when they disagree with his
> definitions, even though he admits to lacking even basic knowledge of
> critical thinking like the difference between formal and informal
> fallacy.

[1] You're assuming that it's MSB who's got the incorrect context.
[2] Not all experts disagree with him. [3] The experts who do are not
experts in logic, but in legal presentation and political speech. [4]
Incomplete knowledge of logical nomenclature does not restrict one from
understanding logic.

NAME THOSE FALLACIES.

> Despite this, he keeps declaring victory by fiat. It's a classic case of
> Goslin-Wilson Syndrome.

TtPCtKB.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

tussock wrote:
> This is your most critical mistake. Fallacies are where you get your
> conclusions from poor reasoning, which comes from breaches of logic.

That's true for the formal fallacies, but not always true for the
informal fallaices. For example, an argument that "begs the question" is
logically valid but still worthless.

> Prejudicial posting style is *not* illogical (and so not in itself
> fallacious) ....

This statement has an implicit premise, that all fallacies are
illogical. That premise is untrue, thus your conclusion is invalid.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote:
>
> >> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
> >> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
> >
> >An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>
> I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
> minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
> Do you have some other definition in mind?

Its a matter of extremes. A character does not have to be designed for
maximum effectiveness to be effective.


John

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:49:28 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

>John Phillips wrote:
>>> An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>> minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>
>That's a bogus definition, because it completely ignores the importance
>of the "min" in "min-maxing." The term refers specifically to the
>practice of creating disadvantages with minimal scope so that you have
>extra resources to spend on advantages with greater scope.

You don't think minimising your disadvantages increases your
effectiveness?

>
>Putting your worst stat into Charisma so that you have more points to
>spend on Strength is min-maxing. Buying a greataxe instead of a dagger
>is not, because it's not using "dump stats" to save points.

You are discounting the value of concealability and working better in
close quarters in favour of the advantage of doing more damage.
Unless you expect being concealable and working better in close
quarters to be as or more important than doing lots of damage, you are
minimising your disadvantages and maximising your advantages.
The only reason not to regard weapons selection as not being
susceptible to minmaxing, is because you don't regard weapons
selection as part of character design in the first place. Which isn't
entirely unreasonable. After all, when Bertha Battleaxe visits a
crowded and highly policed city where the axe now causes more
trouble than it's worth, she can always put it away and just carry a
nice sharp knife for as long as she's there. It's not like the axe
grows out of her arm.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:30:57 GMT, "John Phillips"
<jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" wrote
>> "John Phillips" wrote:
>>
>> >> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
>> >> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
>> >
>> >An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>>
>> I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>> minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>> Do you have some other definition in mind?
>
>Its a matter of extremes. A character does not have to be designed for
>maximum effectiveness to be effective.

Compared to what? Everyone's effective. First level commoner potboys
with no particular skills are "effective". They can do stuff. They
just can't do as much as characters with a greater degree of
minmaxing.

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
>>> To be specific I say that the very definition of minmaxing is to
>>> design a character for maximum effectiveness.

Bradd wrote:
>> That's a bogus definition, because it completely ignores the
>> importance of the "min" in "min-maxing." The term refers specifically
>> to the practice of creating disadvantages with minimal scope so that
>> you have extra resources to spend on advantages with greater scope.

> You don't think minimising your disadvantages increases your
> effectiveness?

Of course it does, but it's not the only way to do it! "Min-maxing"
refers only to that specific method: creating superficial disadvantages
to get more power elsewhere. A character with no disadvantages is not
min-maxed.

Furthermore, a min-maxed character doesn't necessarily have maximum
effectiveness. Other methods (such as cherry-picking splatbooks or
outright cheating) can create even more effective characters than
min-maxing can.

>> Putting your worst stat into Charisma so that you have more points to
>> spend on Strength is min-maxing. Buying a greataxe instead of a dagger
>> is not, because it's not using "dump stats" to save points.

> You are discounting the value of concealability and working better in
> close quarters in favour of the advantage of doing more damage.

I'm discounting it because it's irrelevant. The axe and the dagger both
have advantages, true. Giving up one advantage to get a different one is
not min-maxing. Creating a superficial disadvantage to get more "points"
to spend elsewhere is min-maxing, and that's not the case with axe vs
dagger.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>>> Bradd wrote:
>>>>You [MSB] have repeatedly claimed that courtrooms are different, but
>>>>you have not established that the difference is substantial or
>>>>relevant. Until you do, you are guilty of the genitive fallacy.
>
>>Ad hominem is used to refer to _any personal attack_ in certain modern
>>texts, look it up.
>
> I did look it up, after you brought it up the first time, and I must
> have been reading a different definition than you were, because the
> usage note in the AH4 only vaguely resembled your description of it. I
> can only assume that you introduced significant personal bias into your
> paraphrase, and probably also into your initial reading.

Such things are always possible, as is the rubber and glue thing as
I would hope you can understand. We may simply be describing the same
thing in different ways, even though we must then be coming to different
conclusions from the same internal premises.

> Furthermore, the sources I quoted -- especially the last one -- show
> that they aren't using "ad hominem" to mean just any personal attack,
> but only when talking about substantial and irrelevant attacks.

So literally: making a "substantial" attack on a person when that
person is not up for debate. That's pretty much what I was saying above,
AFAICT; I left out the bit about discussing relevant negative qualities
of people, because it's *also* used that way.
For instance you're *not allowed* to discuss in the slightest way
the improper partiality of a judge or lawyer infront of a jury. Your
evidence, Bradd, would call that "ad hominem", when it's obviously
relevant *if true*. Minor, relevant, yet still termed "ad hominem".

Everyone doing that, including yourself, seems overly worried about
what conclusions an audience might come to. That's fair enough infront
of a jury when someone's freedom's on the line, especially as banned
speach can be used away from them.
That revolves around the audiences potential errors in logic
though, not the person making attacks. You're discussing the effects of
an argumentive form, rather than the logical fallacy of the same name.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> Furthermore, the sources I quoted -- especially the last one -- show
>> that they aren't using "ad hominem" to mean just any personal attack,
>> but only when talking about substantial and irrelevant attacks.

tussock wrote:
> So literally: making a "substantial" attack on a person when that
> person is not up for debate. That's pretty much what I was saying
> above, AFAICT; I left out the bit about discussing relevant negative
> qualities of people, because it's *also* used that way.

Not in my experience, and not in the sources I quoted. They say that you
should avoid ad hominem attacks, and even in the rare cases where your
remarks /are/ relevant (and therefore not ad hominem attacks), you
should proceed with caution.

> For instance you're *not allowed* to discuss in the slightest way the
> improper partiality of a judge or lawyer infront of a jury. Your
> evidence, Bradd, would call that "ad hominem", when it's obviously
> relevant *if true*.

But it's not obviously relevant. It might justify a different venue, but
it has no bearing on the defendant's guilt or innocence.

> Everyone doing that, including yourself, seems overly worried about
> what conclusions an audience might come to ....

I'm not "worried" about anything. I'm merely pointing out that leading
other people to draw the wrong conclusions, or leading them away from
the main point of an argument, is committing an informal fallacy
regardless of whether your main point is well-reasoned.

You too seem to be missing the whole point of informal fallacies. They
include more than just errors of form; some fallacies, like "begging the
question," are logically valid but still worthless in an argument.

> That revolves around the audiences potential errors in logic though,
> not the person making attacks ....

Irrelevant. Both are considered fallacies. Furthermore, deliberately
leading others to commit fallacies is even worse than accidentally
committing one yourself. It's pure sophistry, a style of argument that's
been condemned for thousands of years.

> You're discussing the effects of an argumentive form, rather than the
> logical fallacy of the same name.

That sentence is nonsense; please learn the terminology if you're going
to debate it.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

On 20 Apr 2005 03:46:48 GMT, Robert Singers
<rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> There's a paper that my brother can never find me the cite for that looks
> at blackberries around NZ and their origins. It seems that there's a
> correlation between the European origins of the settlers and the species
> \variety of blackberries.

That doesn't surprise me.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:38:13 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> In any case, I don't think I'll clear more property right now, for
> several reasons.
>
> 1. I can't afford to right now, and may be moving in a couple of years.
> I'm *not* going through that for someone else's benefit.
> 2. I don't want *more* grass to cut.
> 3. I don't really want to run that much fencing (I wouldn't need to just
> for clearing, but if I put in an orchard, that many young, tender
> trees just scream for deer)
> 4. I like having a nice, treed buffer between my place and the
> subdivision... half the back fenceline is with a biggish lot, the
> other half is against a subdivision. The trees make it quieter and
> more private.
> 5. I like having the trees there, they help keep things cool in summer
> 6. Once I get all the deadfall of the last few years cleaned up, it'll
> be a nifty place for the kids to play. I've taken both of them back
> there to walk around, play a bit; they've both enjoyed it.
> 7. It's peaceful back there. A clearing can be peaceful too, but
> clearing that area would probably change the stream to a ditch, which
> would be disappointing.

To me those last two would be the most important.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42667139.16117998@news.telusplanet.net...
> >An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>
> I say it is.

Your claim says remarkably bad things about your intelligence.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:40:08 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
scribed into the ether:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
><jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David Johnston" wrote
>>> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>>>
>>> > And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
>>> >non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but
>>it
>>> >is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat
>>prowess
>>> >is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No
>>more,
>>> >no less).
>>>
>>> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
>>> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
>>
>>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>
>I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>Do you have some other definition in mind?

Yes. One where "effective" and "maximum effectiveness" are not synonyms.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:34:58 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:42667139.16117998@news.telusplanet.net...
>> >An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>>
>> I say it is.
>
> Your claim says remarkably bad things about your intelligence.

Your feeble response says volumes about yours.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:36:03 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:40:08 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
>><jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David Johnston" wrote
>>>> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
>>>> >non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but
>>>it
>>>> >is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat
>>>prowess
>>>> >is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No
>>>more,
>>>> >no less).
>>>>
>>>> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
>>>> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
>>>
>>>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>>
>>I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>>minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>>Do you have some other definition in mind?
>
>Yes. One where "effective" and "maximum effectiveness" are not synonyms.

That would be one in which every character is effective so there's
nothing to worry about.

 

[Guest]

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

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn tussock just said...
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> >
> >>This is your most critical mistake. Fallacies are where you get your
> >>conclusions from poor reasoning, which comes from breaches of logic.
> >
> > That's true for the formal fallacies, but not always true for the
> > informal fallaices. For example, an argument that "begs the question" is
> > logically valid but still worthless.
>
> Proving something to be true by assuming it is true is a breach of
> logic, by any definition. Stop butchering the language.

I believe you're the one who needs a refresher in critical thinking,
since under formal logic, such an argument is always valid. (You *do*
know what "valid" *means* in formal logic, right?)

This doesn't mean that begging the question is okay, it just means it
can't be considered a *formal* fallacy. So it's not a breach of logic by
"any definition", in fact, that only accurately describes the problem
with it under the typical layperson's definition, *not* under what I
would consider the correct one.

 

[Guest]

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

tussock wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> >
> >>This is your most critical mistake. Fallacies are where you get
your
> >>conclusions from poor reasoning, which comes from breaches of
logic.
> >
> > That's true for the formal fallacies, but not always true for the
> > informal fallaices. For example, an argument that "begs the
question" is
> > logically valid but still worthless.
>
> Proving something to be true by assuming it is true is a breach
of
> logic, by any definition.

Begging the question presumes a premise in dispute is true, ergo, it is
a logically valid argument. He is using the word valid the way a
logician uses it, not in the sense of "legitimate".

> Stop butchering the language.

Learn it first.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:09:56 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
scribed into the ether:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:36:03 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>

>>>>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>>>
>>>I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>>>minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>>>Do you have some other definition in mind?
>>
>>Yes. One where "effective" and "maximum effectiveness" are not synonyms.
>
>That would be one in which every character is effective so there's
>nothing to worry about.

Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.

Gimping a character is in fact, pretty easy.

 

[Guest]

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

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. It's just that some characters are
more effective than others. To make a character more effective is to
move in the direction of maximum effectiveness. To make a character
less effective is the reverse. But every character can do something.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42667139.16117998@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
> <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Johnston" wrote
> >> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
> >>
> >> > And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
> >> >non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed,
but
> >it
> >> >is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat
> >prowess
> >> >is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No
> >more,
> >> >no less).
> >>
> >> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
> >> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
> >
> >An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>
> I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
> minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
> Do you have some other definition in mind?

How about the universally recognized one instead of this meaningless bull
pucky?

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Goslin wrote:

> Magic items in our campaign could be likened to Olympic medals.
Sure, you
> can go out and buy one if you have enough money(what olympian would
sell
> their medal??)...

Cassius Clay threw his Olympic gold medal into the river. Also, too,
not an Olympic example but close, didn't Raging Bull gouge out the gems
from his heavy weight champion belt to sell them?

 

[Guest]

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

"David Johnston" wrote
> Matt Frisch wrote:
>
> >
> >Not every character is effective, sorry to burst your bubble there.
>
> Sure every character is effective. It's just that some characters are
> more effective than others. To make a character more effective is to
> move in the direction of maximum effectiveness. To make a character
> less effective is the reverse. But every character can do something.

Able to do something <> Effective.
Able to do something well = Effective.


John

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4266ce15.39893354@news.telusplanet.net>,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:36:03 GMT, Matt Frisch
><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:40:08 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>>scribed into the ether:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
>>><jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>>>
>>>I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>>>minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>>>Do you have some other definition in mind?
>>
>>Yes. One where "effective" and "maximum effectiveness" are not synonyms.
>
>That would be one in which every character is effective so there's
>nothing to worry about.

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.
--
"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?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:

> In article <4266ce15.39893354@news.telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:36:03 GMT, Matt Frisch
>><matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:40:08 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>>>scribed into the ether:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
>>>><jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>>>>
>>>>I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
>>>>minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
>>>>Do you have some other definition in mind?
>>>
>>>Yes. One where "effective" and "maximum effectiveness" are not synonyms.
>>
>>That would be one in which every character is effective so there's
>>nothing to worry about.
>
>
> 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. By number-cruching, an overall
+2 to hit/damage/keen weapon might seem optimal, but in an
undead-intensive game, a ghost touch weapon may be far more valuable.

Likewise, in the example above, if politics contributed 50% to the
character's XP total, then the fighter would do well to have a few
social feats under his belt. He may not be at maximum effectiveness in
terms of number-crunching, but may be at maximum effectiveness for his
environment.

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.

CH

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
<Re: MSB>
> 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.

<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.

"You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent
against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think
surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their
son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay
for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?"
</random website>

Wrong again, Bradd. MSB doesn't do that. You, OTOH, are rather good
at leading conversations off track, IME.

> While we're at it, let's strip away all your rhetoric: The usual Usenet
> term for what you've just described is "trolling." Aristotle called it
> ignoratio elenchi, literally "ignorance of what constitutes a proper
> argument," and modern textbooks call it a red herring. Spin it any way
> you like, it's still an informal fallacy, still a bad argument, and
> still shoddy thinking.

Trolling is seeking replies over nothing.
It's not MSB who's failing to recognise a good argument, it's
those, like you, who can't see past his nasty-speak.
It's obviously not a red herring distraction to call someone names
while logically dismantling their argument.

Rhetoric: using language effectively to please or persuade. MSB
seeks to entertain, but if the entertainment causes others to make
illogical conclusions, that's not /his/ bad conclusion, and so not a
logical fallacy on his part.

Heh, technically his rhetoric is poor, as too many are left with
the impression he's stopped presenting arguments, when that's obviously
silly. MSB would claim he doesn't care what the stupid people conclude,
as long as they stop doing it in public.

> You try to twist definitions and put up smoke screens to hide your
> ignorance and your lack of skill, but you aren't fooling anyone, not
> even fools.

He's not trying to fool anyone, Mr Wordy Words.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:42673ea5@clear.net.nz...
> Bradd W. Szonye 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.

Notice how Bradd has repeatedly omitted the "towards a different
conclusion" part of the definition?
Tsk, tsk.

> Wrong again, Bradd. MSB doesn't do that. You, OTOH, are rather good
> at leading conversations off track, IME.

It might be said that Bradd's repeated resort to legal-context "ad
hominem" (which, as you have noted, is not the same as argumentum ad hominem
fallcy) is itself a red herring fallacy.

-Michael