Off-topic internet dispute

[DavidW]

On 8/18/2020 at 8:06 AM, subtledoctor said:

Not engaging anymore nonsense straw man arguments

I'd hitherto thought this was an interesting if sometimes frustrating conversation. I'm sorry you decided to conclude it with rudeness.

EDIT 8/20/2020: broken off from this thread.

[subtledoctor]

Are you kidding? Your failure to consider your own rudeness is only equalled by your failure to consider others’ viewpoints. I don’t go around antagonizing people; I only give back what is given to me. (This started because I had the temerity to say “I sympathize with people who think differently from me and I’m willing to consider their point of view as not unreasonable under the circumstances.”)

Edited August 18, 2020 by subtledoctor

[DavidW]

3 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Are you kidding? Your failure to consider your own rudeness is only equalled by your failure to consider others’ viewpoints. I don’t go around antagonizing people; I only give back what is given to me. (This started because I had the temerity to say “I sympathize with people who think differently from me and I’m willing to consider their point of view as not unreasonable under the circumstances.”)

I've just reread our entire conversation. I don't see a single point where I've been rude to you. And I have considered others viewpoints, at length, and explained at length why I disagree with them. (Except Jarno's observation about Breach being a L1-5 spell but not blocked, which I acknowledged and said I'd address.) But to call something "nonsense" (without explanation, moreover) is insulting under any interpretation, and to call something a straw-man argument, with its presupposition of bad faith, is worse if anything.

[subtledoctor]

  

On 8/17/2020 at 7:21 AM, DavidW said:

Are you seriously saying that the way to respond to that is to mod the game so that the misconception comes out correct, rather than to edit the wikis?

  

20 hours ago, DavidW said:

The developers of a CRPG based on a pen-and-paper tabletop RPG have an obligation to explicitly document every point at which they deviate from the pen-and-paper rules??!

 

13 hours ago, DavidW said:

There is a huge difference between 'make sure the manual is correct' and 'make sure you document every deviation from an entirely different manual, for a game in a different medium.' I for one am really relieved that they didn't waste time on the latter. They weren't sitting around drinking California cabernets instead of documenting lich abilities; they were coding something else.

I mean, I never said any of these things.  If that doesn't make them straw-man arguments, then define them however you like.   I think they are nonsense because they do not represent what I said.  You may find that rude.  You may generally find the things other people say to be rude, and never find the things you say to be rude; I can see why someone might have that belief, but I submit it is very subjective, and you shouldn't be surprised when others view it differently.

I'll reiterate if I must: hypothetical person "Joe Game Virgin" might happen upon BG2 since he likes AD&D.  He might confront a lich, and valiantly tear down the lich's protections and then pelt the lich with Vitriolic Sphere, Flame Arrow, Acid Arrow, and Fireball.  But those will have no effect.  Joe might check the combat log, and look for some telltale visual clue to a remaining magical defense, but will find none.  Joe will check the manuals, might check the literature that the manuals are based on literally copied from verbatim, etc.  None of that will help.  Joe will have to find out by trial-and-error what does and doesn't work against a lich.  Presumably Joe has been playing offline due to some weather hazard, but when his internet is restored, he might go to any number of places and see "liches are immune to spells below 6th level."  Ah-ha! says Joe.  Now he understands the rule, which is very simply stated and easy to understand.  He might see some other poor sap discussing liches and low-level magic and, feeling bad for the gent whose ignorance he shared so recently, say something like "no no - you see, liches are immune to spells below 6th level, so Improved Immunity cannot affect them."

Joe would be wrong.  But in two consecutive situations he was reacting to a situation in which he was deprived of relevant information.  I sympathize with Joe; nobody likes that.

You scoff (repeatedly).  You want to know what I think should be done about it, so you can scoff at that.  And while I may make idle remarks about things that could be done about it, I never said something must be done about it.  I merely said I sympathize with (the very hypothetical) Joe.  And I don't appreciate scoffing or mischaracterization of arguments.  It may be rude, it may invite rudeness, whatever.  More to the point, it does not convince me that my sympathy is misplaced.

[DavidW]

10 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I mean, I never said any of these things.  If that doesn't make them straw-man arguments, then define them however you like.   I think they are nonsense because they do not represent what I said. 

The nature of a discussion of something contentious is that the person you're talking to draws what seem to them to be consequences of what you've said, but that seem problematic. And you can respond to that by saying that the consequences aren't after all problematic, or by arguing that they're not actually consequences. 

So, for instance: you write a post that offers two ways forward, both of which involve modding the game (one much more drastically than the other) in response to what you call a consistency problem; when pushed as to why there is a problem at all, you repeatedly stress the fact that players' and wikis' descriptions of the lich are at variance with the way the game works. So I concluded, in good faith, that what you're saying seems to imply that player misconceptions are a reason for modding the game, and expressed considerable surprise (but did not 'scoff'). That still seems a reasonable inference to me, but at any rate there's nothing wrong or insulting about drawing it. If it's not what you meant to imply, it's open to you to explain why. And so on.

But to call something a 'straw man argument' is to say that is an intentional misrepresentation of someone's argument: that is, it's to accuse the person you're talking to of bad faith. And to call something 'nonsense', especially in the absence of any actual argument, doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to insult. 

So I don't see any way to interpret what you have been saying in these last two posts as a deliberate attempt to be hurtful and to accuse me of bad faith. That being the case I've no interest in responding to your reopening of the discussion; frankly I've no longer any interest in engaging with you otherwise on this site, given that you think I'm willing to intentionally misrepresent the person I'm talking to. Life is too short, and there are too many modders to have interesting discussions with who aren't going to intentionally insult me and who seem willing to assume that I'm not arguing in bad faith.

[Guest Polaski]

Gentlemen, there is no need to get this heated.

That's because If you were one in front of the other, talking, no clash would happen at all.

I would think that the issue came by how limited writing on a forum is.

And if someone misunderstand your words, there is no need to get mad. Just rephrase them or clarify them.

Anyway, good modding for both of you.

[subtledoctor]

Or just cultural differences, as far as what is considered rude or insulting. Which happens, and is why I generally don’t hold grudges. Life is indeed too short. But I can’t stop others from doing so. Free country, and all that. 

Edited August 20, 2020 by subtledoctor

[Jarno Mikkola]

12 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

to short.

That's a "too". or 2... if you go with a l33t ..

So, it turns out that I am not the only rude person, that's that because of their background. 

[DavidW]

I don't want to discuss this at any length, but neither cultural differences nor the vagaries of internet communication affect the basic point that once someone starts accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, there is little remaining point in trying to constructively engage with them.

[DavidW]

I've broken this unpleasant thread off from the lich immunities discussion, which was actually useful and which I want to be able to consult later. I've leave it unlocked in keeping with general G3 moderation policy.

[subtledoctor]

It's possible that "accusations of intellectual dishonesty" is a bit overstated.  (Not sure where intellectual honesty ever came up.)  You have been arrogant and derisive when engaging, and now arrogant and dismissive when disengaging.  That's a shame - I for one intend to be constructive around here, regardless what I may think of other members.

[DavidW]

An accusation of making straw-man arguments is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.