Print

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

[G-Flex]

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?

It feels like you're intentionally interpreting my arguments here in the way that makes the least possible sense, but I could say that about  much of what you say.

There are suggestions which are well in line with what DF's design goals are, and there are suggestions which aren't. There's still a lot of variability in that range. There are also suggestions regarding specific implementations, and suggestions are also a good way to gauge what the community's priorities are in terms of planned features, which is much of the point of the Eternal Suggestions poll.

I mean, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to say what you don't like about the game or its design philosophy, but that the game's design philosophy should still come into play when discussing what would be good for a game; something can be fun, but not good for this game's goals, for instance. Such is the case with all games.

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.

Okay, you're doing it again. That's not helping.

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.

"Eyelashes and pupil dilation" are basically the worst examples you could possibly find, take up barely any code (appearance modifiers seriously only require basically one line in a raw file), and there's just about no way they'll make the game perceptibly slower.

As far as examples that aren't intentionally the worst you could find are concerned, the player does not have immediate control over things like, say, most of worldgen history, or, to generalize further, anything that any creature or civilization does that is not under the direct control of the player. Obviously, that's not all "useless bloat", and if you think it is, then you have design goals in mind that stand out so far from those that describe what Toady is actually trying to do with this game that you might not even bother, because apparently it's just not a game you even like the concept of.

To generalize further, one of the stated and more general design goals of DF to simulate a dynamic fantasy world and the stories that tend to occur in them; this requires all kinds of stuff the player has no immediate or direct control over, as is made obvious by... well, just look at the dev goals yourself.

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

Your definition of "positive benefit" seems to differ from mine, from Toady's (apparently), and from many other people's.

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

Making the system conceptually similar to what it is now, but with extended features and more robust skill interaction is not "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 have no idea what you mean by this and it seems like a non sequitur. That quote was in response to "we'd get to this meta-argument place if we just kept talking long enough", which you said was probably rare in my case. I have no idea how what you just said relates to this at all.

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?

You're not making sense again. Saying "one of the people being unreasonable here is you" is not the same as saying "you're the sole reason this argument is bad" or that you're the only person being unreasonable. In that previous post, I never stated or implied that you were the sole cause of problems here.

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?

The things you're quoting aren't even supporting what you're saying at all. I never said that all arguments I have with people end with them agreeing, or even end favorably. That never fucking happened, much like, above, I never claimed that you were the sole cause of problems.

You are reading things that are not there. I am not sure how you manage this.

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.

Of course it's a strawman. All you're doing right now is building strawman and accusing me of saying things that I didn't say, but are sort of close to what I said if you squint really hard and ignore certain words.

And yes, saying "you must either have asperger's or be acting in bad faith" is shitty and despicable.

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

Evidently, I'm not the only one having communication problems here, since you're quoting things and then stating that those quotes say things they do not actually say.



Seriously, please don't put words in my mouth again. How hard is that?

Let's break it down further in case you don't understand yet:

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?

You're using this as evidence, apparently, that I said "you're the sole source of every problem in this argument". I didn't. I implied that "one of the people being unreasonable here is you". Saying that you might be part of some of the problems in this thread is not the same as saying that you are the only cause of all of the problems. I never stated that you are the only person culpable, just asking you if you've considered that you might be one of them.

[NW_Kohaku]

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.

Alright, then, let me say it straight: I put that Chewbacca Defense thing up there in jest, and qualified it with the possibility that you do have a serious mental illness that wouldn't be funny.  As I've said before, I was not accusing you of having a crippling mental illness.

I haven't retracted it because, really, I don't see a point.  You seem to believe what you want to believe.

While it may not qualify as a "mental illness", however, I do believe there is something very strange with the way that you interpret what you read.

And no, none of this was ever acting as if I'm saying "you're just insane", because then there would be truly no point in this.

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.

OK, so should I react to this "accusation" of "idiot troll" now?   I love how much this conversation resembles a snake eating its own tail.

This is why we're still at this - You're not realizing the subtext of what people are saying, nor of what you, yourself, are saying.

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.

Miscommunication doesn't happen entirely between just "the" "two sides" of a debate.  I've been continuing this debate in one of the other threads with Praguepride.

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.

Seems funny to go back to the original argument now, what with everything else being so meta, but...

I disagree, I don't see a positive benefit for adding in micromanagement at this level, even when the micromanagement at other levels is removed.

If anything, as the game advances, it's only going to have more systems put in it.  Those systems are going to have more data, which requires more data management.  This game is only going to become more complex, and that complexity isn't necessarily wrong, but it should come only in places where it either does its work for the player, or seriously involves the player in a way that is engaging.

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?

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 because I try to read into and analyze things.  It's a necessary part of communication.

I see what you said as a bit of an involuntary slip that revealed a little bit more about the mindset you are holding.

Isolating oneself with people who you can agree with most of the time is comforting, to be sure, but it degrades one's ability to engage with people who don't share the same common values or same exact means of communication.

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?

The part above, that you think it a mistake not to stay with people who don't argue with you because they share your views, and see people who argue with you as "wasting your time". (Of course, it reflects more negatively on them, because you, at least, attempted to communicate with others.)

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).

I'm afraid any sort of "street cred" means little over the Internet.  Rather, treating people as if they are always absolutely acting in good faith only encourages acting in bad faith.  A meta view is required, if only to dissuade bad faith... Although that's getting a little abstract to the point of opacity, isn't it?

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".

I said it was off-topic.  That is simply an example of why such an argument should not hold much weight.  Another metaphor, if you will.

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.

See, again, that thing about "why have a Suggestion forum".

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.

You understood it (more or less) the second and third time around, once I had specifically underlined what parts to look for, and still blame the transmittor for not recieving properly.

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.

Odd, it's largely the same thing I've been doing here with you for the past couple hours.

Taking a step back, where it doesn't become personal, really makes a difference in perspective, doesn't it?

Since it's on topic, that step back is why I'm still here, instead of being frustrated.

[Kilo24]

I think this argument could serve better as private messages rather than taking up space in a thread with a purpose towards improving the game.

It hasn't degenerated completely, but it's still two people repeatedly misrepresenting each-others' arguments to what seems like no effective resolution.

[G-Flex]

Isolating oneself with people who you can agree with most of the time is comforting, to be sure, but it degrades one's ability to engage with people who don't share the same common values or same exact means of communication.

I don't do this, as a matter of course. If anything, I find it more interesting to be around people who aren't carbon copies of myself, which is why I've frequented at least two different Christian IRC channels (one basically fundamental protestant, and one very hardcore Catholic) before, as a relatively staunch atheist and science-dude (and for what it's worth, no, I wasn't there as a troll or to make trouble, and actually made some friends there).

The part above, that you think it a mistake not to stay with people who don't argue with you because they share your views, and see people who argue with you as "wasting your time". (Of course, it reflects more negatively on them, because you, at least, attempted to communicate with others.)

I have no idea how you're reading these character judgements from what I'm saying. I don't think it's a waste of time to argue with people who disagree with me, but some arguments are a waste of my time. And again, no, I don't strictly stick to people who already agree with me on everything. Hell, if I did that, I probably wouldn't be here and probably wouldn't go to the DF IRC channel either.

I'm afraid any sort of "street cred" means little over the Internet.  Rather, treating people as if they are always absolutely acting in good faith only encourages acting in bad faith.

This only works insofar as nobody ever actually having a reputation, which is not true in long-term persistent internet communities. People do have reputations, and they do matter.

I said it was off-topic.  That is simply an example of why such an argument should not hold much weight.  Another metaphor, if you will.

... Yes, but it doesn't hold weight for completely different reasons. Do you still not grasp that for a metaphor to be valid, the relevant parts of one subject have to be equivalent to the relevant parts of another? My point is that they weren't the same type of argument at all. "I have friends who back me up, so I'm right" is not the same argument as "I have friends who back me up, so obviously some other people agree/care". The metaphor does not stick.

See, again, that thing about "why have a Suggestion forum".

Erm, I responded to that too, but you seem to have ignored it. I typed out a fair bit about why it's possible to still have a reasonable suggestions forum even when/if the suggestions are restricted to things which are within the design goals Toady already has in mind (although, to be fair, it's not).



(EDIT)

I think this argument could serve better as private messages rather than taking up space in a thread with a purpose towards improving the game.

It hasn't degenerated completely, but it's still two people repeatedly misrepresenting each-others' arguments to what seems like no effective resolution.

This does seem to be pretty damn unrecoverable, but I find it rather difficult to not respond to somebody in an argument, especially if they start saying things about my character.

At any rate, PMs would work, but I don't think this thread itself is salvageable. I'm going to do a mod report since the OP is probably long gone by now, and hopefully it'll get locked or something.


NW_Kohaku: If you want to continue this, do it in a PM, I guess.

[kotekzot]

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"?

Yep, that was me. I don't use the word "retard" lightly, but this exchange, to my eyes, seems to have been born of severe mental dysfunctions.

[NW_Kohaku]

Still not setting aside time to read through the last G-Flex stuff...

I think this argument could serve better as private messages rather than taking up space in a thread with a purpose towards improving the game.

It hasn't degenerated completely, but it's still two people repeatedly misrepresenting each-others' arguments to what seems like no effective resolution.

Fair enough... I consider this thread to have long since been a lost cause, but there's certainly a case to be made for this to be prevented from bumping up, presumably pushing something that is still on-topic down the list. 

If Praguepride doesn't come back into this by the time I respond to this tommorow, I'll just put this in a PM.

Yep, that was me. I don't use the word "retard" lightly, but this exchange, to my eyes, seems to have been born of severe mental dysfunctions.

What, just because the same two people are having two seperate arguments at the same time, or just the way it's completely disintigrated?

Besides, do you really want to be throwing around accusations of mental incapacity, considering what some of this arguing has been about?  (I hear it's a shitty thing to do.)

[neek]

I've been reading this thread for a few days now, following its progress, and have contributed somewhat to its current state by having given my own two cents. I canceled Post Reply: Interrupted by Wall of Text for some very specific reasons, and going meta in the conversation did not seem very well appropriate. I think at this moment, however, I should say _something_ (though arduous as it is, being that I have to use two keyboards to type...): If you want to continue this sort of conversation, do the mature thing ad take it over PM.

You're well spoken and have good ideas, and so far the only thing I have not been able to comprehend is how any of the participants involved have allowed the thread to get to this point... but really? This is no place to throw around high school grade debate team bullshit, and this is no place to just assume, "You're wrong, I'm right; your failure to grasp that is infuriating rawr rawr rawr argumentum ad anum meum barbare merda!."

[edit] Someone beat me to the punch. Damn ninja, always coming in and stealing my thunder. Anyway, carry on.

[kotekzot]

Pretty much what neek said. Any possible argument has already been made, there's no need to rehash them any more.

[Kilo24]

Yep, that was me. I don't use the word "retard" lightly, but this exchange, to my eyes, seems to have been born of severe mental dysfunctions.

No, it just resulted from two people taking offense at what the other one said, and spiraled out from there.  Blatant idiocy is not so common a thing; assuming that it is tends to lead to worse arguments than this.

[ThreeToe]

G-Flex, NW_Kohaku, you are really making a mess of this thread.  Try to keep it under control and back on topic.

[immibis]

Try to keep it under control and back on topic.

I don't think a separate skill for making barrels is a good idea, because then it'd be slower to make barrels and other wood items, and both would be of lower quality overall.

[neek]

I think as a separate skill, it might divorce barrel-making from material; so a cooper will make a barrel from ANY material that a barrel can be made out of.

[teloft]

I think as a separate skill, it might divorce barrel-making from material; so a cooper will make a barrel from ANY material that a barrel can be made out of.

I think this is a good idea, to have skills for making some designs like a barrel. I do not know realy how the 2010 skill system will work, But if it is possible to do some average on more then one skill for like making barrels would be the way to go.