OOTS #1157 - The Discussion Thread.

[Ganbatte]

No it wasn't.

Keltest (I think was him?) did so extensively, so yes, yes it was. Not sure why you would claim otherwise.

You really think none of them would think to ask any of this?
Really? Then what are you doing?

Indeed, I think I'll start ignoring some such repeats
Also I'm not fond of multi-quote towers of text.

You’re arguing against straw men here.
NOBODY said Hel’s plan was flawless. NOBODY.
Hel is clearly a foolish, vain, easily tricked god, and her plans are often not very well considered (unless Sphinx Pox as a backup plan sounds like a good idea).
If you’re trying to argue with the people who believe that Hel’s plan is infallible, then you’re not actually arguing with anyone at all.

Then we're both in agreement that the vampire's belief that the plan will work is to be taken with a grain of salt, and thus doubting it is perfectly legitimate.

[Fyraltari]

Keltest (I think was him?) did so extensively, so yes, yes it was. Not sure why you would claim otherwise.

Because neither you nor Keltest were convincing as your arguments and questions were countered and answered. "We already discussed this" is not the same as "we already settled this". Simply pointing out that the #1155 exist and got to 40 pages over this nonsense as if it supports your position in any way is not an argument.

Indeed, I think I'll start ignoring some such repeats

As long as you don't then behave as if you had successfully made your case.

Also I'm not fond of multi-quote towers of text.

And I'm not fondd of you mispelling my username, so I will go on not caring.

[Classtoise]

It is holy Ale.
And yes they have some of that

sch

This is similar to my idea; Durkon casts Hallow. It doesn't affect anyone directly, and still suppresses the effects on everyone possessed. The mental control would be suppressed within the Protection from Evil affects. Even if we assume Durkon can't use the (optional) effect to cast Death Ward or Dispel Magic on any Alignment the Vampires all share, the Protection from Evil portion should work out from 40 feet. It's not fool-proof, and it's not everyone, but depending on how tightly packed everyone is, it might be enough of a push to take away a supposed advantage. And two or more Clerics is 80+ feet protected.

[Ganbatte]

Because neither you nor Keltest were convincing as your arguments and questions were countered and answered.

You don't need to have convinced everyone in order to say you eviscerated an argument, but merely stated and explained one's position extensively to the point nothing new can be added.
That's what it means to say you eviscerated an argument, settlement and universal agreement is not part of it and I never claimed anything like that.

This feels like another case of misusing terms like before with doubts and conclusions.

As long as you don't then behave as if you had successfully made your case.

Dunno, I got some to agree, some to disagree. I'd say it was pretty succesfull overall.

[Aveline]

Indeed, I think I'll start ignoring some such repeats
Also I'm not fond of multi-quote towers of text.

Now I'm certain you aren't arguing in good faith.

[Ganbatte]

Now I'm certain you aren't arguing in good faith.

How come? Explain?

[Fyraltari]

You don't need to have convinced everyone in order to say you eviscerated an argument, but merely stated and explained one's position extensively to the point nothing new can be added.
That's what it means to say you eviscerated an argument, settlement and universal agreement is not part of it and I never claimed anything like that.

No, you don't, you need to have arguments that cannot be reasonably refuted. You did not, and do not have those.

This feels like another case of misusing terms like before with doubts and conclusions.

There was no such thing. Your doubts are the conclusions I was referring to.

Dunno, I got some to agree, some to disagree. I'd say it was pretty succesfull overall.

Again, getting people to agree with you does not make you right.

[Aveline]

How come? Explain?

Because you're using some scorecard in lieu of actual arguments and are plainly saying how you don't like thorough rebuttals.

[Dion]

That's what it means to say you eviscerated an argument...

Now I think you’re just trying to get a free argument out of us.

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

[Dion]

Then we're both in agreement that the vampire's belief that the plan will work is to be taken with a grain of salt, and thus doubting it is perfectly legitimate.

No, I think the vampires actually 100% believe the plan will work.

[Ganbatte]

Because you're using some scorecard in lieu of actual arguments and are plainly saying how you don't like thorough rebuttals.

No, that's a strawman. I'm fine with through rebuttals so long they're readable and to the point. I'm plainly not fond of towers of multi-quoted texts which require another multi-quoted tower to respond to, likely to generate a third of double that size in response leading to endless confusion and bickering.

I've had more than enough of my fair share of forum posting to know how such things make it harder and harder to have an actual discussion and likely to lead to misunderstandings and missing of one's points constantly, so that's when I raise my hands and say "Sorry, but sorry, shorter please".

Which by the way is the reason why I'm always cutting down size and trying to be as concise as possible.

Now I think you’re just trying to get a free argument out of us.
I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Claiming that an argument has been eviscerated is not claiming that an argument has been settled or has convinced everyone.
That is all, and I believe even you would agree on the difference.

Fyraltari claimed something I didn't say and so I corrected and explained why not.

No, I think the vampires actually 100% believe the plan will work.

The vampires, yes.

[Fyraltari]

Claiming that an argument has been eviscerated is not claiming that an argument has been settled or has convinced everyone.

Then why bring it up? All you are saying is "we already discussed this". If you meant to follow it by "So we should drop the subject because neither of us is convincing the other" then do so.

[Aveline]

No, that's a strawman. I'm fine with through rebuttals so long they're readable and to the point. I'm plainly not fond of towers of multi-quoted texts which require another multi-quoted tower to respond to, likely to generate a third of double that size in response leading to endless confusion and bickering.

I've had more than enough of my fair share of forum posting to know how such things make it harder and harder to have an actual discussion and likely to lead to misunderstandings and missing of one's points constantly, so that's when I raise my hands and say "Sorry, but sorry, shorter please".

Which by the way is the reason why I'm always cutting down size and trying to be as concise as possible.



Claiming that an argument has been eviscerated is not claiming that an argument has been settled or has convinced everyone.
That is all, and I believe even you would agree on the difference.

Fyraltari claimed something I didn't say and so I corrected and explained why not.



The vampires, yes.

You are literally using a multi quote tower post to say how much you don't like other people using them. Bad faith.

You are deliberately using final words like "eviscerated" to describe something you're tired of discussing, to avoid making an argument. Bad faith.

You are claiming that a long discussion has a decided result, and what's more, that that result is in your favor, then telling people to just read the thread instead of disagreeing with you. Bad faith.

[Ganbatte]

No, you don't, you need to have arguments that cannot be reasonably refuted. You did not, and do not have those.

Nope. It quite literally means "to take everything out", and ends there. The rest is an extra you're trying to inject where it doesn't belong.
Anyway we're arguing semantics now, so I'm gonna no longer care about what you believe "to eviscerate an argument" means. Agree to disagree.

Either way it was already discussed in depth back then.

There was no such thing. Your doubts are the conclusions I was referring to.

Doubts are uncertain possibilities, what if's yet to be confirmed, they're not conclusions. Again your definitions are skewed.

Again, getting people to agree with you does not make you right.

Obviously. Thing is, I never claimed to be right.

Then why bring it up? All you are saying is "we already discussed this". If you meant to follow it by "So we should drop the subject because neither of us is convincing the other" then do so.

You brought it up, and like before I refused to repeat stuff already repeated way too many times by me and Keltest (?).
See whatever meaning you want in it, but I'm not gonna spend energy saying stuff already said in plenty.


*see now how this is already looking bad, Aveline?

[mjasghar]

The irony
I wonder if people actually read what they post?
Imagine saying you don’t want to continue with an argument and then continue that argument for 5 pages or even 40
Here’s the thing - if you have won an argument about an issue in the past then you wouldn’t get people saying no you didn’t
If you had won that argument you would have those people saying you were right then
None of that has happened

[Ganbatte]

You are literally using a multi quote tower post to say how much you don't like other people using them. Bad faith.
You are deliberately using final words like "eviscerated" to describe something you're tired of discussing, to avoid making an argument. Bad faith.

I'm addressing multiple people at once, Aveline, since the forum rules do not allow multiple subsequent posts.
Try doing that without using two or three quotes, not an easy task... and not enough for a tower.

Also eviscerating is a synonym to shorten "exposing every facet of something", so I'm not sure what you mean by "final words" here.
Are synonyms final words? If they are nobody told me.

You are claiming that a long discussion has a decided result, and what's more, that that result is in your favor, then telling people to just read the thread instead of disagreeing with you. Bad faith.

False. Never claimed a decided result, never claimed that result was in my favour.
I see three accusations here, ironically enough none of which made in good faith.

The irony
I wonder if people actually read what they post?
Imagine saying you don’t want to continue with an argument and then continue that argument for 5 pages or even 40
Here’s the thing - if you have won an argument about an issue in the past then you wouldn’t get people saying no you didn’t
If you had won that argument you would have those people saying you were right then
None of that has happened

Indeed, none of that has happened. Because I never once said I won that argument.

I wonder if people actually read what they read?

[Silent Wrangler]

And how does that help Hel in any way? Evil isn't one big happy family all after the same things--heck, we even have an example of that within Team Evil itself, where Redcloak and Xykon's objectives are distinctly different.

Well, IF TE move into position to threaten the last gates, gods will have to pull the plug, thus giving Hel influx of dwarven souls.

[Dion]

Nope. It quite literally means "to take everything out", and ends there.

Eviscerate means to deprive something of its essential content.

Which, to be honest, is something I actually agree you’ve done to this argument.

[Ganbatte]

Eviscerate means to deprive something of its essential content.

Which, to be honest, is something I actually agree you’ve done to this argument.

Now I think you’re just trying to get a free argument out of me.

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

[Kish]

Well, IF TE move into position to threaten the last gates, gods will have to pull the plug, thus giving Hel influx of dwarven souls.

If you'll be more specific about "move into position to threaten the last gate[s]," I might offer you a bet here. Are you saying the world will immediately be destroyed by the gods if Redcloak and Xykon go into the (for purposes of this hypothetical, assume the Gate is indeed just at the back of one of the caves in Monster Hollow like they currently think) correct cave? That it will be destroyed if they come within sight of the Gate?

[KorvinStarmast]

Now I'm certain you aren't arguing in good faith.

The problem with treating a discussion on this forum as a zero sum game is that one ends up with the old Monty Python "that isn't an argument that's just contradiction" problem for page after page.

I am not sure if this can be helped, but I thought I'd point that out.

[Ruck]

You are literally using a multi quote tower post to say how much you don't like other people using them. Bad faith.

You are deliberately using final words like "eviscerated" to describe something you're tired of discussing, to avoid making an argument. Bad faith.

You are claiming that a long discussion has a decided result, and what's more, that that result is in your favor, then telling people to just read the thread instead of disagreeing with you. Bad faith.

The irony
I wonder if people actually read what they post?
Imagine saying you don’t want to continue with an argument and then continue that argument for 5 pages or even 40
Here’s the thing - if you have won an argument about an issue in the past then you wouldn’t get people saying no you didn’t
If you had won that argument you would have those people saying you were right then
None of that has happened

kermittea.gif

[Gusion]

Why would it? Making a vampire, sure, seeing as it involves murder but being one? Again: vampires are really rare. Laws deal with known and maybe predictable issues. And the latter is not even that common: witness governments in RL scrambling to catch up to the issues the Internet causes.

Grey Wolf

Vampires are rare, undead are not.

I wouldn't expect rules directed at vampires specifically... but undead in general? Maybe.

Of course they're not followers of Loki here, but still.

[georgie_leech]

Vampires are rare, undead are not.

I wouldn't expect rules directed at vampires specifically... but undead in general? Maybe.

Of course they're not followers of Loki here, but still.

"Sir, it seems the Church of Loki is pushing hard on these Anti-Undead rules."

"I don't know how or why, but they're part of some scheme he's cooking up. Scrap the lot of them."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Vampires are rare, undead are not.

I wouldn't expect rules directed at vampires specifically... but undead in general? Maybe.

Common undead are non-free-willed, though. The laws don't apply to them as much as what you can do to them. "It shall not be murder if the individual attacked was an undead" kind of deal. But I can't imagine a law stating "zombies attending the meetings is illegal" in the same sense that no-one makes a law against rats being at a place - just that you are allowed to kill them if they show up.

Of course they're not followers of Loki here, but still.

Again: politicians. I wouldn't put it past them to worship Loki on the quiet.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

But I can't imagine a law stating "zombies attending the meetings is illegal" in the same sense that no-one makes a law against rats being at a place - just that you are allowed to kill them if they show up.

We have explicit bans on rats, actually - in restaurants and factories processing food - over and above the general lack of protection afforded to them. Not that zombies are so specifically inimical to the council's duties and process, in the way rats are to keeping food clean, that one would expect a specific prohibition.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

We have explicit bans on rats, actually - in restaurants and factories processing food - over and above the general lack of protection afforded to them. Not that zombies are so specifically inimical to the council's duties and process, in the way rats are to keeping food clean, that one would expect a specific prohibition.

Sorry, I didn't express that too well. While I can believe there are laws against rats in X spaces, I can't see the law stated as "the rats walking in are breaking the law" - i.e. I suspect that any laws that are in place against undead might allow the OotS to attack the vampires, but it won't turn the vampires to stone just for entering the chamber.

Yeah, I'm doing a poor job of this. it's clear what I mean in my head, but I'm not sure I can put it in words. It comes down, I feel, to the idea that, since common undead don't have wills of their own, the laws will not be written against their decision to go places, but instead, say, target the person that created them (so if you tried to raise the dead in the chamber, that might be against the law).

Grey Wolf

[Rogar Demonblud]

I believe your point is that it's not against the law for them to exist. Therefore, they are not punished solely for existing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I believe your point is that it's not against the law for them to exist. Therefore, they are not punished solely for existing.

More that because they aren't in possiession of their own will, the laws treat them more like objects, and thus the laws don't address what they are doing so much as what can be done to them?

I swear, this makes sense in my head, but I'm starting to suspect it doesn't actually make sense outside of it.

ETA: so, taking up the whole business with rats in restaurants: the law is that the restaurant owner is fined or the restaurant closes and loses its license. But the rats aren't assigned punishment by the law, because the law only concerns itself with individuals with free will. Others get punished, and tasks to remove the rats are assigned, but the rats are treated like you'd treat a sewage leak: disgusting, but not in itself guilty of anything.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

We have explicit bans on rats, actually - in restaurants and factories processing food - over and above the general lack of protection afforded to them. Not that zombies are so specifically inimical to the council's duties and process, in the way rats are to keeping food clean, that one would expect a specific prohibition.

Ya know, that seems needlessly specific. I'd imagine they could simple ban all non-human animals and call it a day, and let the ADA and/or other applicable laws handle the exemptions.