Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lmaoboat]

Now you guys are just debating each others' debating, like some sort of meta-debate.

[G-Flex]

Assuming bad faith is not a good way to make progress in an argument.

Progress?  Have you not been reading this thread?  There IS no progress.  It's also not much of an assumption, but rather one of the only things process of elimination has left me with.

If there's no progress, and you don't think there can be progress, why not just walk away?

Technically, I was saying that the only concievable method of this still being good faith is simple inability to communicate like a normal human.

This is needlessly insulting, and forcing every single ounce of the blame for an argument going bad on the other person is almost never honest or productive. There are some points where I probably could have explained myself better, but I'm not going to take "you're either being an ass on purpose or can't communicate like a normal human" as something that isn't needlessly personally insulting just because an argument has gone bad and we continue to disagree.

As I've said before, you are clearly not open to discussion, you are either incapable of or unwilling to make any sort of reactions to or concessions to other points of view, as has been stated by others in this thread.

Yes, I am; some of what praguepride mentioned about his ideas caused me to seriously adjust my own ideas for an implementation. I've also been discussing this with other people in a more productive manner than what this thread has achieved.

This, in turn, means that there will BE no progress.

Then walk away or something.

What I said in the last time I left this thread still holds true: You hold completely different values for this game than we do, and are unwilling to aknowledge that this will continue to set us at cross purposes, to the point where it seems a forgone conclusion that we are never going to agree.

That's great, but I feel like you and praguepride are assuming that your values are the only ones that anyone holds.

Once it became clear you were impervious to such arguments, and would continue repeating the same things ad infinitum, this whole thing became quite tedious, and my responses were out of something like common courtesy to at least read what someone had been writing.

Don't even try telling me that you've been "courteous" about any of this.

When you go about saying that we are disagreeing only because we are incapable of understanding your argument, that just goes straight out the window.

I never said that, I said that you kept replying to the same arguments with the same statements. My feeling that people were asking me to make points I had already made does not mean that I think misunderstanding is the only source of disagreement. I'm aware that there are other things at work here, like differences between people of what makes the game fun.

If it was satirical of what I was saying, then it was poor satire, as it doesn't really make a very good analogy (as I've just shown).

Saying that what I had said is either not satire or not good satire because you don't recognize it is a little like saying that Star Wars must be a terrible movie because you've never seen it, and if it were good, it would be popular, and if it were popular, you would have seen it, therefore, it must be a bad movie.

I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. I was saying that the satire didn't work, that the points the satire was making weren't very cogent or applicable.

Now then, remember, to maintain character, you have to blithely ignore my multiple mentions of things like "metaphors" or my direct use of similie in that last paragraph.

I wasn't arguing that you weren't using metaphor, I was arguing that the metaphor wasn't very good, even in a satirical fashion.

I'm not sure why. You were making a point (satirically) against what I was saying, so I further explored it seriously, including the differences between the examples in your strawman and what I was actually saying. The fact that you were being "satirical" doesn't change that. The way I figure, you were satirizing what I was saying by using an example that seems to follow the same logic as what I was saying, but with more obviously silly reasons, and I was trying to examine whether or not that actually held water.

What?  Are we saying we are capable of recognizing metaphor, now?  Isn't that breaking character a little?

"Breaking character"? What?

[...]

Now, where, exactly, in that is recognition of metaphor?  What was the comparison I was making?  How was I making a satirical remark?  Please, prove to me that you can point it out.

The comparison was, I believe, between the skill specializations I was mentioning, and the subtleties involved in artwork that would better off not being represented. I was examining the differences in the qualities here that would lend them to being compared in the first place.

No, I am concluding that, for whatever reason, you are impossible to reason with.  You are incapable of communicating like a human, which either means you are a synthetic lifeform that can't quite pass the Turing Test, have some kind of language disability, or else are simply faking it so as not to have to engage in conversation like a human, and hope that by blithely ignoring other people's arguments, or pretending not to understand them, you can eventually "win" by default when everyone else has given up on arguing with you.

Considering as you are capable of passing yourself off fairly well in other conversations, I'm guessing the latter is the most likely explanation.

I don't have a language disability, I'm not trying to ignore everything (to the effect that I've responded to the same thing multiple times), haven't been "faking" anything (I've been arguing in earnest for the duration of this conversation, aside from maybe a few irritated quips here and there, if I made any), and I don't think that "I win by default because everybody else gave up" is a very good way to conclude an argument and would not try to achieve that as a goal. The fact that I don't do this in other conversations should be a hint.

If I tend to go on and on and on despite an argument not being productive, that's not because I'm trying to win by out-frustrating everybody else, or getting them to give up, or anything like that; it's because I don't like to leave arguments mid-stream. You can consider it a character flaw to not leave an argument when there's an extraordinarily low chance of anything good coming of it, and I certainly would say I possess it, but at this point, in this conversation, I think we're all guilty of that.

In other words, I can tell you that none of your bullshit personal attacks on me or assumptions of bad faith are true in the least, so you're obviously interpreting me wrong on some level. On the other hand, you seem to be incapable of ever admitting you've ever done anything the least bit wrong, up to and including stating that somebody must have a psychiatric disorder if they're trying to argue with you sincerely about something.

 I'm arguing in good faith, if a little annoyed, and feel like I've been able to express myself to at least a somewhat reasonable degree of clarity, nor do I have any particular disorders related to human communication. These accusations are a serious low-blow and in incredibly bad faith themselves, and I'm seriously considering reporting you for it if you continue (I might as well tell you, I guess), especially the Asperger's bullshit, not for a cheap and shitty way out of this argument, but because it's an incredibly low and despicable thing to do.

I argue with people on the internet probably more than is healthy, and plenty of those arguments wind up being productive whether I agree with the other person or not. If that isn't the case right now, have you ever possibly considered that one of the people being unreasonable here is you, especially if the alternative is a bunch of weird accusations that I know for a fact are false?

[NW_Kohaku]

Now you guys are just debating each others' debating, like some sort of meta-debate.

And now we have brought up the topic of debating the debating of the debating.  Someone should really engrave someone engraving this.

It's a little pointless to talk about derailing this discussion now.  This thread was permanently derailed somewhere in page 1 or 2 when talking about sub-skills and reworking the interface, instead of a (relatively) simple split of skills.  The past four or so pages have pretty much ended all real debate, and simply been about G-Flex.  The absolute nail in the coffin was way back when the other threads opened up that carried on the original purpose of this thread, while abandoning this thread entirely.

----

Oh, and look, G-Flex responded while I was typing.  Well, no point in holding up this reply to read all that.  Especially since there's little reason to read it.

[G-Flex]

If you don't want to read a reply to something you say, it's probably best not to say it in the first place, especially when what you say is loaded with what amounts to using accusations about someone's character or a mental disability as cheap argumentative tactics.

[NW_Kohaku]

If you don't want to read a reply to something you say, it's probably best not to say it in the first place, especially when what you say is loaded with what amounts to using accusations about someone's character or a mental disability as cheap argumentative tactics.

Honestly, I should have left this conversation alone way back about 3-4 pages ago, when it became absolutely clear that nothing would be accomplished.

Still, the thing about the Internet is knowing what is worth reading and what isn't, or what is worth caring about, and what isn't.  And Praguepride (loved the red text one) and Lmaoboat are worth reading, at least.  If, however, it achieves nothing but frustration, like reacting to your arguments as if a serious discussion was taking place, then it isn't.

Assuming you aren't doing this as some sort of elaborate means of trolling, I hope you'll realize that, as well, because, as I've said over and over again, we're at cross purposes here, and as such, no agreement will ever take place.

Oh, and if you're going to bite into that "mental disability" thing like a starving dog, and never let it go, keep in mind, you were throwing that one around, too.  Glass houses and all.

[G-Flex]

I was? When? I never at any point in this thread seriously had the idea that anybody was saying what they were saying due to some sort of psychiatric disorder or mental disability, so I don't know why I would have said that, unless I was just pissed off and meant it in jest.

As far as being "worth reading" is concerned... I don't get it. I've identified the design goals that things like subskills would achieve, and have been trying to think of a workable solution, and I think I did a pretty damn decent job. Anyone I've explained it to outside this thread seems to think so, aside from people who simply don't want the extra micromanagement (which I think is possible to circumvent anyway; it's just a separate issue).

The only advice anyone's given me personally, so far, about this thread being such a train wreck is that I was unreasonable in thinking that some people here are actually worth my time and effort discussing things with. I'm inclined, at this point, to agree.

[NW_Kohaku]

I was? When? I never at any point in this thread seriously had the idea that anybody was saying what they were saying due to some sort of psychiatric disorder or mental disability, so I don't know why I would have said that, unless I was just pissed off and meant it in jest.

Read: "I didn't do it, except when I did."

As far as being "worth reading" is concerned... I don't get it. I've identified the design goals that things like subskills would achieve, and have been trying to think of a workable solution, and I think I did a pretty damn decent job. Anyone I've explained it to outside this thread seems to think so, aside from people who simply don't want the extra micromanagement (which I think is possible to circumvent anyway; it's just a separate issue).

You still don't get it, though.  We're disagreeing with the goals, not the methods.  As I've said in nearly every single post in the past five pages, but which you still seem not to acknowledge, as long as we want different things, we aren't going to agree to a single means of achieving our (cross) goals.

Oh, and talking about having a possee of conveniently invisible friends who will back you up means essentially nothing.  For one thing, I have as little reason to agree with them as I do with you, especially when they aren't making the case for their beliefs personally.  For another, it's pretty easy to make such a claim without any truth to back it up.  After all, few people would suggest anything here if they thought they were a lone freak with an opinion nobody else in their right mind would agree with.  Saying you know "someone" who agrees with you only puts you on the same level as everyone else with two cents to throw into the forum.

The only advice anyone's given me personally, so far, about this thread being such a train wreck is that I was unreasonable in thinking that some people here are actually worth my time and effort discussing things with. I'm inclined, at this point, to agree.

Heh, not terrible advice.  In fact, I gave it to you.

Of course, it might not have been such a waste of time if you were communicating like a normal human.

[G-Flex]

I was? When? I never at any point in this thread seriously had the idea that anybody was saying what they were saying due to some sort of psychiatric disorder or mental disability, so I don't know why I would have said that, unless I was just pissed off and meant it in jest.

Read: "I didn't do it, except when I did."

There's a difference between saying something jokingly and out of frustration, and suggesting that it is actually the truth and must be the case. A big, big difference. So no, I did not do that. If I said something like that in jest, then I shouldn't have and I apologized, but I never meant it seriously. You, on the other hand, meant it as a serious accusation. There's a difference.

You still don't get it, though.  We're disagreeing with the goals, not the methods.

But the goal is to have a workable system of skill specialization.

Basically, in my system generalization caps at Professional level. So a Legendary Bedmaker would be the ONLY profession that would be able to make masterwork beds. What's more, because each dwarf only has ONE specialization at > Professional levels, if you want a masterwork bed you'd only be able to do it with a dwarf who specialized in bedmaking. Now THAT is an actual impact in the game that individualizes dwarves. Because there is a limit to what each dwarf can do.

Obviously, he also wants a system for skill specialization that individualizes dwarves. This is the same thing I'm trying to achieve.

You arguing that there should be differentiation in skills. Fine, NK & I agree with that. We want skills to be more personal and individual on a dwarf by dwarf basis.

Here too. Obviously, the design goals here have some pretty damn big similarities.

Oh, and talking about having a possee of conveniently invisible friends who will back you up means essentially nothing.  For one thing, I have as little reason to agree with them as I do with you, especially when they aren't making the case for their beliefs personally.

The only real reason I even mention other people is because you and/or praguepride have stated that nobody would like my idea or find it useful or fun. Obviously, if other people do, that's not true. It's not like I'm saying that other people liking the idea necessarily makes it better or that you'd agree with their logic.

For another, it's pretty easy to make such a claim without any truth to back it up.

Of course it is. I haven't given names (especially for that piece of advice I listed in the last post) because I think it would be sort of sketchy for me to implicate other people who spoke to me personally, and as far as the people on IRC are concerned, most of them just don't bother with the forum because they know better than me that it won't do any good. Makrond showed up at some point, I think, because he was frustrated by it on my behalf, probably knew it would be worthless to take it seriously, so made a frustrated quip about it and left.

So, yeah, for the most part, I guess I could be making that up, but I'm not. I know you probably don't trust me on that, but it's the truth.

Again, I normally wouldn't even bring that up, except the idea that nobody else agrees with me was specifically mentioned.

The only advice anyone's given me personally, so far, about this thread being such a train wreck is that I was unreasonable in thinking that some people here are actually worth my time and effort discussing things with. I'm inclined, at this point, to agree.

Heh, not terrible advice.  In fact, I gave it to you.

For the record, they were talking, at least in part, about you.

Of course, it might not have been such a waste of time if you were communicating like a normal human.

You keep saying that and I'm not even sure what you mean by it. How does one communicate like a "normal human" aside from what I've been doing? Does understanding how satire and metaphor actually work (i.e. requiring a comparison that's actually valid within the relevant parameters) mean I'm not acting like a normal human?

[NW_Kohaku]

Oh, and boy am I glad I went back to read this.

If there's no progress, and you don't think there can be progress, why not just walk away?

I already addressed this in the other posts, but simply put, I think the best solution is always just a change of perspective.

Ultimately, it does no harm to me to read this so long as I simply abandon a mindset that would lead to frustration, and just enjoy the thread for what it is.

This is needlessly insulting, and forcing every single ounce of the blame for an argument going bad on the other person is almost never honest or productive. There are some points where I probably could have explained myself better, but I'm not going to take "you're either being an ass on purpose or can't communicate like a normal human" as something that isn't needlessly personally insulting just because an argument has gone bad and we continue to disagree.

And yet, you do so, yourself.  In fact, that was what convinced me to stop trying.

That's great, but I feel like you and praguepride are assuming that your values are the only ones that anyone holds.

Of course not.  It just means that my values are the only ones I will advocate for.  If what you are arguing for has no bearing on my goals, I simply state I am ambivalent on the subject.  When you propose something that actually goes against my goals, I have reason to argue against it, however. 

When you will not back down from your goal, and I will not back down from mine, there is no real hope of negotiation.  As much as I know metaphors are lost on you, it's like an argument over homosexuality - if someone believes that equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be a goal, argues another who believes that homosexuality is innately wrong, and must be convinced to not be homosexual anymore, you are never going to reach agreement.

If it was satirical of what I was saying, then it was poor satire, as it doesn't really make a very good analogy (as I've just shown).

Saying that what I had said is either not satire or not good satire because you don't recognize it is a little like saying that Star Wars must be a terrible movie because you've never seen it, and if it were good, it would be popular, and if it were popular, you would have seen it, therefore, it must be a bad movie.

I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. I was saying that the satire didn't work, that the points the satire was making weren't very cogent or applicable.

Now then, remember, to maintain character, you have to blithely ignore my multiple mentions of things like "metaphors" or my direct use of similie in that last paragraph.

I wasn't arguing that you weren't using metaphor, I was arguing that the metaphor wasn't very good, even in a satirical fashion.

I'm not sure why. You were making a point (satirically) against what I was saying, so I further explored it seriously, including the differences between the examples in your strawman and what I was actually saying. The fact that you were being "satirical" doesn't change that. The way I figure, you were satirizing what I was saying by using an example that seems to follow the same logic as what I was saying, but with more obviously silly reasons, and I was trying to examine whether or not that actually held water.

What?  Are we saying we are capable of recognizing metaphor, now?  Isn't that breaking character a little?

"Breaking character"? What?

This.  This made my day.  It is so full of unintentional hilarity, and I'm only sorry you can't see it.

Now, where, exactly, in that is recognition of metaphor?  What was the comparison I was making?  How was I making a satirical remark?  Please, prove to me that you can point it out.

The comparison was, I believe, between the skill specializations I was mentioning, and the subtleties involved in artwork that would better off not being represented. I was examining the differences in the qualities here that would lend them to being compared in the first place.

OK, here's where there's the breakdown.

First off, let's look again at what you actually said.

Regarding art, that gets more into a notion of styles, and different dwarves depicting different things in different ways, which goes far beyond practical considerations. The way you're describing things is more about differences in styles than about drawing different things; you're describing artwork that evokes different styles/emotions entirely. After all, if you felt like it, you could draw a goblin in a glorious, sympathetic manner or a dwarf in a menacing, snarling manner. It's less about knowing how to draw different objects (if you know how to draw a dwarf you'll know how to draw a goblin, assuming you know what the two look like, unless you're an artist of EXTREMELY specialized technical skill, and specialized in a really weird way), and more about knowing how to draw them to different effect.

Granted, there's some truth to what you say there anyhow, in that for vastly different things (landscapes vs. people, abstract shapes vs. historical events), you might be good at one and not at others. Of course, it's also possible to, say, draw a historical person in a really bizarre and abstract manner, too, so that only goes so far. The situation is weird with art, because damn near anything is possible, since the purpose is purely aesthetic and largely arbitrary. I'm honestly not sure how I'd handle specialization for that sort of thing.

Where, exactly, was that glimmer of recognition?  It certainly looks like you are taking this COMPLETELY unironically at face value.  So is this just Proof by Assertion?  You obviously recognized it all along, but then acted like you didn't?

Anyway, your new conclusion is close, but not close enough.

Nobody wants an art specialization because the player has no direct control over what art is produced.  It makes no impact on what a player wants to do.  It is useless data put in for the purpose of creating useless data.  Why would a player care what kind of creature a dwarf has more experience sculpting?  Why should a player care if a dwarf has more table experience than cabinet experience?  All he wants is his statues. All he wants is his furniture.  Yes, this goes back to the same "either you force them to care, or it's useless data" argument.  Yes, we're still trying to argue it to you.  And yes, you're still not acknowledging it.  And yes, that means this argument has gone nowhere.  And yes, that means this whole thing has pretty much guaranteed we'd get to this meta-argument place if we just kept talking long enough, which I'm guessing is probably a rarity in your case, or you'd have seen this one coming.

If I tend to go on and on and on despite an argument not being productive, that's not because I'm trying to win by out-frustrating everybody else, or getting them to give up, or anything like that; it's because I don't like to leave arguments mid-stream. You can consider it a character flaw to not leave an argument when there's an extraordinarily low chance of anything good coming of it, and I certainly would say I possess it, but at this point, in this conversation, I think we're all guilty of that.

In other words, I can tell you that none of your bullshit personal attacks on me or assumptions of bad faith are true in the least, so you're obviously interpreting me wrong on some level. On the other hand, you seem to be incapable of ever admitting you've ever done anything the least bit wrong, up to and including stating that somebody must have a psychiatric disorder if they're trying to argue with you sincerely about something.

 I'm arguing in good faith, if a little annoyed, and feel like I've been able to express myself to at least a somewhat reasonable degree of clarity, nor do I have any particular disorders related to human communication. These accusations are a serious low-blow and in incredibly bad faith themselves, and I'm seriously considering reporting you for it if you continue (I might as well tell you, I guess), especially the Asperger's bullshit, not for a cheap and shitty way out of this argument, but because it's an incredibly low and despicable thing to do.

I argue with people on the internet probably more than is healthy, and plenty of those arguments wind up being productive whether I agree with the other person or not. If that isn't the case right now, have you ever possibly considered that one of the people being unreasonable here is you, especially if the alternative is a bunch of weird accusations that I know for a fact are false?

I can only react to this with amusement.  Yes, clearly, because "I am accusing you of being the source of all these problems", and you have talked with other people without it hitting this point before, then obviously, I am the source of all these problems.  (Irony.) Clearly, you are not having this kind of argument with anyone else on the Internet.  Not even, say, another person in this very thread.

Oh, but surely he's another fluke.  Surely, everyone who's dropped out of a discussion with you did so out of complete and total agreement with you.  Surely, Praguepride and myself are the only two people on the Internet who are the holdouts.

Oh, right, and I never said you had Aspergers.  Look it over again.  I said that "unless you had Aspergers", as in it was an outside possibility.  What I said was that you were arguing in bad faith to try to outlast the opposition.

---

OH! And we get another G-Flex post before I complete this one!  It's like multithreading! Twice the data, but with a race condition that necessarily nullifies one!

[G-Flex]

This is needlessly insulting, and forcing every single ounce of the blame for an argument going bad on the other person is almost never honest or productive. There are some points where I probably could have explained myself better, but I'm not going to take "you're either being an ass on purpose or can't communicate like a normal human" as something that isn't needlessly personally insulting just because an argument has gone bad and we continue to disagree.

And yet, you do so, yourself.  In fact, that was what convinced me to stop trying.

I have never seriously suggested things remotely similar to "you can't communicate like a normal human".

That's great, but I feel like you and praguepride are assuming that your values are the only ones that anyone holds.

Of course not.  It just means that my values are the only ones I will advocate for.  If what you are arguing for has no bearing on my goals, I simply state I am ambivalent on the subject.  When you propose something that actually goes against my goals, I have reason to argue against it, however.

When you will not back down from your goal, and I will not back down from mine, there is no real hope of negotiation.  As much as I know metaphors are lost on you, it's like an argument over homosexuality - if someone believes that equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be a goal, argues another who believes that homosexuality is innately wrong, and must be convinced to not be homosexual anymore, you are never going to reach agreement.

Another thing I should mention here is that this isn't even necessarily about our goals, it's about the goals of the game, which neither of us control and a lot of which is already established, well, in excess of anything we're talking about. Much of what I've been arguing is from the perspective of what Toady is already clearly attempting to achieve with the game, not simply what I want from it myself.

This.  This made my day.  It is so full of unintentional hilarity, and I'm only sorry you can't see it.

You're not saying anything with any sort of content to it here, you're just laughing at the opponent without explaining why.

Nobody wants an art specialization because the player has no direct control over what art is produced.  It makes no impact on what a player wants to do.  It is useless data put in for the purpose of creating useless data.

There is much, much more to this game than that which the player has immediate control over, and many of these things have plenty of specific data associated with them. This is not a bad thing, is not useless, and will not go away.

Why should a player care if a dwarf has more table experience than cabinet experience?  All he wants is his statues. All he wants is his furniture.  Yes, this goes back to the same "either you force them to care, or it's useless data" argument.  Yes, we're still trying to argue it to you.  And yes, you're still not acknowledging it.

I have acknowledged that this argument exists and have made several arguments against it.

Also, saying that "all the player wants is his statues" is extremely oversimplistic. They want statues, yes; they also care (or should ideally care) what quality of statues. Players already care (and should care) about which dwarves are good at what tasks; giving this finer granularity does not change the overall concept.

And yes, that means this argument has gone nowhere.  And yes, that means this whole thing has pretty much guaranteed we'd get to this meta-argument place if we just kept talking long enough, which I'm guessing is probably a rarity in your case, or you'd have seen this one coming.

If you think me being engaged in a debate for far too long is a rarity, then you're obviously not a very good judge of my character, but we've established that.

I can only react to this with amusement.  Yes, clearly, because "I am accusing you of being the source of all these problems", and you have talked with other people without it hitting this point before, then obviously, I am the source of all these problems.  (Irony.) Clearly, you are not having this kind of argument with anyone else on the Internet.  Not even, say, another person in this very thread.

I didn't say you're the sole source of every problem in this argument. That's a terrible strawman. I said that it's like that you're part of what has gone wrong with it, and that you are to some degree culpable.

Oh, but surely he's another fluke.  Surely, everyone who's dropped out of a discussion with you did so out of complete and total agreement with you.  Surely, Praguepride and myself are the only two people on the Internet who are the holdouts.

Of course not; I would never make such a claim. Like anyone else, I've been in arguments where I've acted irrationally, or where people have just gotten pissed off and quit. Again, you're making really bad strawmen out of what I'm saying; I said that I'm capable of arguing rationally on the internet.

Oh, right, and I never said you had Aspergers.  Look it over again.  I said that "unless you had Aspergers", as in it was an outside possibility.  What I said was that you were arguing in bad faith to try to outlast the opposition.

Er, yes, I acknowledged that: That you were claiming that either I was acting in rather bad faith or have a psychiatric disorder. Like I said, this is an extremely shitty thing to do.

You've also made continued accusations that I cannot (or do not) "communicate like a normal human". Hell, you haven't even been qualifying that statement lately.

[NW_Kohaku]

There's a difference between saying something jokingly and out of frustration, and suggesting that it is actually the truth and must be the case. A big, big difference. So no, I did not do that. If I said something like that in jest, then I shouldn't have and I apologized, but I never meant it seriously. You, on the other hand, meant it as a serious accusation. There's a difference.

Oh, so when you do it, it's a joke, and it's my fault for misinterpretting it.  When I do it, it must be a purposeful attack.  When I say something you misinterpret, it's because I'm poor at communicating.  If you say something I don't interpret the way you want it interpretted in this point in time, then it's also my fault.  Convenient, no?

But the goal is to have a workable system of skill specialization.

Not for me it isn't.  I don't want skill specialization or sub-skills.  That's sort of why I spent 8 pages of thread arguing against them.

I'm really hoping it gets through at this point, because I'm not sure it gets any clearer than this.

Basically, in my system generalization caps at Professional level. So a Legendary Bedmaker would be the ONLY profession that would be able to make masterwork beds. What's more, because each dwarf only has ONE specialization at > Professional levels, if you want a masterwork bed you'd only be able to do it with a dwarf who specialized in bedmaking. Now THAT is an actual impact in the game that individualizes dwarves. Because there is a limit to what each dwarf can do.

Obviously, he also wants a system for skill specialization that individualizes dwarves. This is the same thing I'm trying to achieve.

I hate to break this to you, but Praguepride is not my sockpuppet, we aren't bosom buddies, nor do we have a Thelma and Louise death pact to stick together until the end.

I'm not agreeing with him on every issue.  I am disagreeing with him on what should be implimented, if not a sub-skill system.  That's something for another thread, however. Frankly, I'm rather fine with simply reorganizing a system like the one we have now.

Oh, and talking about having a possee of conveniently invisible friends who will back you up means essentially nothing.  For one thing, I have as little reason to agree with them as I do with you, especially when they aren't making the case for their beliefs personally.

The only real reason I even mention other people is because you and/or praguepride have stated that nobody would like my idea or find it useful or fun. Obviously, if other people do, that's not true. It's not like I'm saying that other people liking the idea necessarily makes it better or that you'd agree with their logic.

Then why do you put it in a manner like this:

As far as being "worth reading" is concerned... I don't get it. I've identified the design goals that things like subskills would achieve, and have been trying to think of a workable solution, and I think I did a pretty damn decent job. Anyone I've explained it to outside this thread seems to think so, aside from people who simply don't want the extra micromanagement (which I think is possible to circumvent anyway; it's just a separate issue).

That's not stating that you disagree that we are are overstating the popularity of our point of view, that is a statement that we are somehow strange or at fault for having argued with you.

Incidentally, just in case you still haven't noticed, I'm one of those people who don't want the extra micromanagement.  Which is why I've stated I don't want extra micromanagement or extra pages of useless data in virtually every single post I've made.

For another, it's pretty easy to make such a claim without any truth to back it up.

Of course it is. I haven't given names (especially for that piece of advice I listed in the last post) because I think it would be sort of sketchy for me to implicate other people who spoke to me personally, and as far as the people on IRC are concerned, most of them just don't bother with the forum because they know better than me that it won't do any good. Makrond showed up at some point, I think, because he was frustrated by it on my behalf, probably knew it would be worthless to take it seriously, so made a frustrated quip about it and left.

So then, your preferred method is to only find the people who agree with you, and tell your ideas to them?  Then you say that that is the only successful way to argue?  That's not an argument... Nor is hopping on to make an insult before leaving an argument.  This actually implies you're actually a bit worse at convincing people who disagree with you to take on your point of view than you seem to think you do.

So, yeah, for the most part, I guess I could be making that up, but I'm not. I know you probably don't trust me on that, but it's the truth.

I prefer not to work in certainties, I just keep it in mind that you may or may not be truthful.

Incidentally, while this may be getting off topic (HA!), you might want to look at recent politics, and Bart Stupak's threats to derail healthcare for a reason why one shouldn't take arguments about having "a dozen people backing you up", when they aren't named, and have made no effort to put anything at stake to follow through on that other person's threats.

For the record, they were talking, at least in part, about you.

Of course they were. 

We are, as I have stated time and time again, at cross purposes.  To try to argue to me your ideas for implementing something I don't want in the first place is as pointless as trying to argue to me why I should eat more chocolate ice cream when the only flavor I really like is vanilla.

You keep saying that and I'm not even sure what you mean by it. How does one communicate like a "normal human" aside from what I've been doing? Does understanding how satire and metaphor actually work (i.e. requiring a comparison that's actually valid within the relevant parameters) mean I'm not acting like a normal human?

Technically, it's the not understanding fairly direct metaphors part, but I'm sure that's what you meant, yes.

I'm going to cut off the obvious reply to this, and say that yes, people understand those things.  Why not? I'll even go the ironic route and say "everyone but you".

---

WHEE!  Yet another pre-reply reply!

But now, I've been sitting down riding this merry-go-round for a couple hours in a row, so I think I'm going to hop off and stretch my legs for a bit, so don't think you have to hold up just for me.

[kotekzot]

Why am I so tempted to shout "RETARD FIGHT" while reading this thread?

[NW_Kohaku]

Why am I so tempted to shout "RETARD FIGHT" while reading this thread?

Because it's the Internet?

Also, weren't you the one who just this day or yesterday stated that someone should be ashamed of the way that they used the words "gay" and "retarded"?

[G-Flex]

Oh, so when you do it, it's a joke, and it's my fault for misinterpretting it.  When I do it, it must be a purposeful attack.  When I say something you misinterpret, it's because I'm poor at communicating.  If you say something I don't interpret the way you want it interpretted in this point in time, then it's also my fault.  Convenient, no?

No, it's not "convenient". I've been taking the "you either have asperger's or are acting in bad faith" accusation seriously for a while now and you've given absolutely no indication whatsoever that you meant it in jest. You've acted for several posts now as if it was a serious accusation, so no, it's not my fault if you were just joking, because if you were just joking, you would have said so by now instead of acting as if you were serious.

On the other hand, if I had made a similar statement in jest at some point (and I'm still not entirely sure I have), and one of you treated it seriously, I wouldn't act as if I still meant it earnestly, because that's an idiot troll move and I hope it's not what you're doing.

Not for me it isn't.  I don't want skill specialization or sub-skills.  That's sort of why I spent 8 pages of thread arguing against them.

I'm really hoping it gets through at this point, because I'm not sure it gets any clearer than this.

I'm probably going by what praguepride said here, then. If what he said wasn't true, then okay?

I hate to break this to you, but Praguepride is not my sockpuppet, we aren't bosom buddies, nor do we have a Thelma and Louise death pact to stick together until the end.

I wasn't assuming he was your sockpuppet, but I took what he said as, er, being true.

Then why do you put it in a manner like this:

As far as being "worth reading" is concerned... I don't get it. I've identified the design goals that things like subskills would achieve, and have been trying to think of a workable solution, and I think I did a pretty damn decent job. Anyone I've explained it to outside this thread seems to think so, aside from people who simply don't want the extra micromanagement (which I think is possible to circumvent anyway; it's just a separate issue).

That's not stating that you disagree that we are are overstating the popularity of our point of view, that is a statement that we are somehow strange or at fault for having argued with you.

No, that was me disagreeing that I'm incapable of communicating effectively, or, as you put it, "like a normal human". I obviously must be capable of communicating what I'm saying, or else nobody would know what the hell I'm on about, but people, in general, seem to when I explain it to them.

The "nobody agrees with you"/"nobody cares" point is separate from this.

Incidentally, just in case you still haven't noticed, I'm one of those people who don't want the extra micromanagement.  Which is why I've stated I don't want extra micromanagement or extra pages of useless data in virtually every single post I've made.

Right. I don't like excessive micromanagement either, which is why I had tried to formulate something which involves the least amount possible while still being workable, and why I stated that it's almost certainly something for which we'd have to wait until the micromanagement in the game gets less bad in general, e.g. better dwarven labor management tools built-in.

For another, it's pretty easy to make such a claim without any truth to back it up.

Of course it is. I haven't given names (especially for that piece of advice I listed in the last post) because I think it would be sort of sketchy for me to implicate other people who spoke to me personally, and as far as the people on IRC are concerned, most of them just don't bother with the forum because they know better than me that it won't do any good. Makrond showed up at some point, I think, because he was frustrated by it on my behalf, probably knew it would be worthless to take it seriously, so made a frustrated quip about it and left.

So then, your preferred method is to only find the people who agree with you, and tell your ideas to them?  Then you say that that is the only successful way to argue?[/quote]

I didn't say any of that at all, and I have no idea how in God's name you're reading that into what I said. It should be sufficient to say that no, I don't think either of those things are true, and that I don't know where you got the impression that I do. All that quote is about is why I wasn't naming names, and to some degree, why a lot of people I talk to don't bother with the forum much.

That's not an argument... Nor is hopping on to make an insult before leaving an argument.

Of course it's not.

This actually implies you're actually a bit worse at convincing people who disagree with you to take on your point of view than you seem to think you do.

Er, what implies that?

So, yeah, for the most part, I guess I could be making that up, but I'm not. I know you probably don't trust me on that, but it's the truth.

I prefer not to work in certainties, I just keep it in mind that you may or may not be truthful.

That's fair enough, but one reason I do try to act in good faith in arguments and not... well, anything you've previously accused me of, is so people can be confident I'm not lying my ass of when I say things. One complaint about me that you won't ever hear is that I do that for the sake of an argument (or much else).

Incidentally, while this may be getting off topic (HA!), you might want to look at recent politics, and Bart Stupak's threats to derail healthcare for a reason why one shouldn't take arguments about having "a dozen people backing you up", when they aren't named, and have made no effort to put anything at stake to follow through on that other person's threats.

Sure, but again, I wasn't even saying anything like "I'm right because people agree". I was saying "Other people find value in this, so your claims that nobody does are wrong, and I've been able to communicate this effectively to other people, so your claims that I'm incapable of doing so are wrong".

We are, as I have stated time and time again, at cross purposes.  To try to argue to me your ideas for implementing something I don't want in the first place is as pointless as trying to argue to me why I should eat more chocolate ice cream when the only flavor I really like is vanilla.

But, again, we're not deciding our own flavors of ice cream here, at least not entirely. We're talking about a type of ice cream whose flavor has already been mostly decided, and how to make that flavor taste best. Obviously different people will want different things with the game, but some of them will simply be at odds with what Toady wants.

You keep saying that and I'm not even sure what you mean by it. How does one communicate like a "normal human" aside from what I've been doing? Does understanding how satire and metaphor actually work (i.e. requiring a comparison that's actually valid within the relevant parameters) mean I'm not acting like a normal human?

Technically, it's the not understanding fairly direct metaphors part, but I'm sure that's what you meant, yes.

I understood the metaphor enough to analyze the actual comparison being made, with the exception of perhaps some portion of your intended message, probably because it was fairly off-base and convoluted.

Also, weren't you the one who just this day or yesterday stated that someone should be ashamed of the way that they used the words "gay" and "retarded"?

Giving credit where it's deserved here for this observation.

[NW_Kohaku]

Another thing I should mention here is that this isn't even necessarily about our goals, it's about the goals of the game, which neither of us control and a lot of which is already established, well, in excess of anything we're talking about. Much of what I've been arguing is from the perspective of what Toady is already clearly attempting to achieve with the game, not simply what I want from it myself.

Yes, because you clearly are world-class at understanding the intent of what people are trying to communicate.

Regardless, I really have to wonder what the point of a Suggestions forum is when someone is arguing that we are not here to advocate for what we think would make a better game, but to try to figure out what someone else, who already has ultimate power over what is going into the game, will want to put in.  Wouldn't he already know what he wants?  Why would we need a Suggestion forum to try to guess what he wants, and tell it to him?

No, no, I think I'll continue advocating for what I think would make for a good game.

This.  This made my day.  It is so full of unintentional hilarity, and I'm only sorry you can't see it.

You're not saying anything with any sort of content to it here, you're just laughing at the opponent without explaining why.

Oh, right, and I never said you had Aspergers.  Look it over again.  I said that "unless you had Aspergers", as in it was an outside possibility.  What I said was that you were arguing in bad faith to try to outlast the opposition.

Er, yes, I acknowledged that: That you were claiming that either I was acting in rather bad faith or have a psychiatric disorder. Like I said, this is an extremely shitty thing to do.

You've also made continued accusations that I cannot (or do not) "communicate like a normal human". Hell, you haven't even been qualifying that statement lately.

This.  The gap in communication is what I'm laughing at.  I'd make an effort to explain it, but that would take communication, now wouldn't it?  That's why the only option left to me is laughing at it.

There is much, much more to this game than that which the player has immediate control over, and many of these things have plenty of specific data associated with them. This is not a bad thing, is not useless, and will not go away.

Yes, there is much in the game that the player will have no impact on... and it's all pointless.  It's programming in eyelashes and pupil dialation.  It has no impact on anything, it takes up code and makes your game slower, but you can't see it, or do anything with it.  It is useless bloat.

I am against such things.  I am against overly complex systems that have no positive benefit.  I am against these sub-skill plans.

Also, saying that "all the player wants is his statues" is extremely oversimplistic. They want statues, yes; they also care (or should ideally care) what quality of statues. Players already care (and should care) about which dwarves are good at what tasks; giving this finer granularity does not change the overall concept.

No, no it doesn't change the concept.  That's why it's pointless.

If you think me being engaged in a debate for far too long is a rarity, then you're obviously not a very good judge of my character, but we've established that.

HA! Nice try. What I said was that you rely upon the Chewbacca Defense, however.

I didn't say you're the sole source of every problem in this argument. That's a terrible strawman. I said that it's like that you're part of what has gone wrong with it, and that you are to some degree culpable.

From a previous post of yours:

I argue with people on the internet probably more than is healthy, and plenty of those arguments wind up being productive whether I agree with the other person or not. If that isn't the case right now, have you ever possibly considered that one of the people being unreasonable here is you, especially if the alternative is a bunch of weird accusations that I know for a fact are false?

Now, tell me why what you said then wasn't what you really meant, and what you are saying now is what you meant all along?

Oh, but surely he's another fluke.  Surely, everyone who's dropped out of a discussion with you did so out of complete and total agreement with you.  Surely, Praguepride and myself are the only two people on the Internet who are the holdouts.

Of course not; I would never make such a claim.

It's hitting dead horse status at this point, so why bother quoting what you previously said again?

Like anyone else, I've been in arguments where I've acted irrationally, or where people have just gotten pissed off and quit. Again, you're making really bad strawmen out of what I'm saying; I said that I'm capable of arguing rationally on the internet.

Of course you, me, and everyone have acted irrationally at some point.  (Not the least of which being the repeated "shitty" and "despicables", or the "incapable of understanding" or...)  That's the Internet.

It is, however, not a strawman, I'm taking what you're saying, in context, and holding you to it.

Besides which, simply acting rationally is not the be-all end-all if you simply can't communicate with people. 

----

Oh look! Another response right before mine!  Are we taking synchronized breaks, now? 

How splendid, it seems like we're making real progress, then.