Results 1 to 11 of 11
-
2010-02-28, 03:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
[General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
Having engaged in several debates on these boards and others, I believe it has come time to try and define what I feel are a few good guidelines for carrying on discussions and debates in a confrontational or disagreement environment. Also, I want a thread I can link to in my signature, rather than breaking my signature open with a way-to-long character count in spoiler tags.
EDIT: Also, I'm not saying everyone should follow these rules. It will however help people know how I will be debating with them at a glance; as well as help them know how I will view their given styles.
I give you Ashiel's Rules of Engagement v1.0
Originally Posted by Ashiel
Logical Fallacies Listings
To further set the bar, Iceforge and Kurald Galain have presented a list of logical fallacies to avoid when conversing or debating about a subject. Each of these logical fallacies hurt your credibility and make you appear foolish; when carrying on a conversation or debate, these mistakes should be avoided.
Originally Posted by IceforgeOriginally Posted by Kurald GalainLast edited by Ashiel; 2010-02-28 at 07:32 PM. Reason: Clairifying, Updating, Reformatting.
You are my God.
-
2010-02-28, 04:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
Also, people should be aware if their arguments contains any logical fallacies; While presenting a point, you might think an argument is solid, because it sounds right, but if the logic used is filled with fallacies, then it won't convince someone who does not have a positive bias towards your opinion already.
Logical Fallacies
Often used Logical Fallacies are
"Appeal to Authority"
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
"Appeal to Belief"
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true
2. Therefore X is true
-Closely related to "Appeal to Popularity"
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X)
2. Therefore X is true
"Ignoring a Common Cause"
1. When we see A we also see B
2. Therefore, A causes B
Which ignores the possibility that B causes A or unknown variable C causes both A and B
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false
-
2010-02-28, 04:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
Good thinking Iceforge. Logical fallacies are also very bad in general; and doubly so when you're trying to have an actual discussion or debate. Logical fallacies are quick to discredit a debater, and make you look bad.
This is a good addition to the thread. If you would like, I can add your contribution to the OP with credit to you (though it may not be needed since you're the 2nd poster and thus the logical next step from reading the OP).You are my God.
-
2010-02-28, 05:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
-
2010-02-28, 06:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
And, of course, the ever-popular "Straw Man"
1. Person A claims X.
2. Y is false, where Y is usually a misinterpretation or exaggeration of X.
3. Therefore, person A is wrong.
And since this is an RPG forum, there's also the "Oberoni Fallacy", which is actually a form of Straw Man.
1. Rule A has problem X.
2. It is easy to solve problem X through houseruling.
3. Therefore rule A doesn't have problem X.
As well as the less common "Stormwind Fallacy", a suhset of the "False Dichotomy" fallacy.
1. Person A belongs to group X.
2. Group X is different from group Y.
3. Therefore person A doesn't belong to group Y.
And this variation on the Appeal To Authority also often applies to roleplaying gamers,
1. Rule A can be interpreted in several ways.
2. I prefer interpretation X, which tends to correspond to the interpretation that makes my character more powerful.
3. Therefore interprertation X is RAW, and every other interpretation is a houserule.Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2010-02-28, 11:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Some corn field
- Gender
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
also, good logic also requires some ability to properly present it. however, everyone thinks that being too poetic makes them sound smarter (in reality, as often as people appreciate it, these days, more people think you are a certain 3 letter word)
while not being too verbose, and keeping your language to a respectable level of complexity, you no longer run the risk of having your argument itself tossed aside because of your own personal faults (that is, making people dislike you and therefor dislike your argument).
also, dont use words that you dont know the definition for. as someone with a rather large vocabulary, i cannot say enough how annoying it can be,Spoiler
In the past, I played Sir Theo Roost.
I am soon to begin playing his heir, Dora the Destroya
Avatar by Szilard
-
2010-02-28, 01:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Hiding and fleeing.
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
I agree with the rest of your post, Gallagher, and suffer from attempting to make my posts interesting at the cost of some clarity myself, but this bears repeating (in simpler terms: QFT).
When you can simply open another window or tab and search "define: [word]" in your search engine of choice there is no excuse. Laziness and forgetfulness are just about the only reasons for such behaviour, which makes it worse.
-
2010-02-28, 05:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
Updated original post to include Logical Fallacies, to the credit of their Original Posters.
You are my God.
-
2010-02-28, 06:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
The following aren't really statements regarding the use of logical fallacies that were opened with, but I think they need to be said anyway. Mainly because I keep seeing them happen.
People need to use clear cut language, and when stating statistics, do so in a manner that can not taken another way.
Going to try and use a generic example of a conversation that I see occasionally.
By doing X in character generation, the character's chances of hitting the Monster goes up by 50%.
Conclude: So the character should have an easy time fighting the monster. Or: The monster is not a difficult challenge for the character.
Truth: The character as described could only hit on a 19 or 20. Action X, consisted of taking weapon focus. Now he hits on a 18-20, a range 50% larger than previously possible.
In first phrasing, the character had a 50% increase in chances to hit. But, it was only an increase from 10% overall, to 15% overall.
2- Want to make a statement regarding advice given (also slightly offtopic). "Have the wizard cast a spell" which improves someone's effectiveness, or removes a weakness. It requires assumptions on the nature of the game.
Perhaps the player in question does not like the person who plays a wizard. Or their characters hate one another in a game where people roleplay, even if the players themselves are best friends. Also, having been the guy who needs to spend first round of combat removing the weakness of another character so he can fight, it's not fun, and leads to resentment in high power games along the lines of "Why couldn't you avoid this huge weakness in your character?"
Sorry for the slightly rambling rants, I just wanted to get those off my chest.
-
2010-02-28, 07:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
Don't be partisan when you don't need to be. Whenever I see a distinction between "roleplaying" and "rollplaying" stated or implied, I get a bit tense.
Think about what you're doing before you post. This is rather difficult, but if you're inclined to be uncivil and wish to act civilly, it will pay off. It's altogether too easy to get caught up in posting and make hasty characterizations. You might read offense into something, gloss over the humanity of other posters, simply the debate into partisan terms, et cetera.
-
2010-02-28, 07:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: [General] Ashiel's Rules of Engagement
Agreed entirely. I get tense as well when that comes up. It's usually a big "red-flag", and more often than not presented in a very poor context or in ways that are entirely inflammatory and, usually, fallacious in nature.
Your second point is also very good. Humans in general have various things that get under their skin (so to speak); and approaching things rationally and with prepared self control and resilience is often a good step towards solid communication or victory (in the case of a debate). Very sound pieces of advice Foryn.
Originally Posted by herrhauptmann
Want to make a statement regarding advice given (also slightly offtopic). "Have the wizard cast a spell" which improves someone's effectiveness, or removes a weakness. It requires assumptions on the nature of the game.
Perhaps the player in question does not like the person who plays a wizard. Or their characters hate one another in a game where people roleplay, even if the players themselves are best friends. Also, having been the guy who needs to spend first round of combat removing the weakness of another character so he can fight, it's not fun, and leads to resentment in high power games along the lines of "Why couldn't you avoid this huge weakness in your character?"
At the same time, it's worth noting that if a player comes into a conversation specifying that he wants to blast things with spells like fireball, then it's not cool to put them down because they're not choosing haste over fireball. What would be acceptable would be suggesting ways to turn Glitterdust into a blasting spell (with say, metamagic trickery), which could help him have his cake and eat it to. Or suggest the player try a Psion instead since it's better at blasting by default. Or suggesting some feats to use to be a better blaster, or tips for picking their blasting spells; such as Spell X and Spell Y compliment each other, while spell Z deals less damage than the prior two but can stun opponents caught in the blast.
Should a player's situation be unusual for specific reasons (such as story/role-playing limitations and considerations, or house rules), then it would also be nice for the player to mention these things when asking for advice or opinions. It's better to have these sorts of things up-front, rather than brought up later in response to something else. Obviously this doesn't mean you should publish your whole house rule list with your post, but anything you think might be relevant would be nice.You are my God.