Battlefield spell + retreating?

[triqui]

K said:

I don't have to prove that a majority support my position. The mere fact that there is no proof that a majority do support you is enough to defeat your proposition. The result of no explicit rules to the contrary is to support using the baseline rules, either explicitly or implicitly.

But he is way closer to find a majority than you are. He is basing his argument on the fact that 7/37 already agree with him, while a whole total of 0/37 agree with you. You act like if "I have not been defeated *yet*" is a proof that "I am winning", which is not. That's like a Goverment that faces a 10 million people demonstration in it's 40 million country against a law and defending that it's not a proof of the law unpopularity becouse "30 millions did not demonstrate". Then they are bassically assuming that those who did not demonstrate are not only not disliking the law, but they like it, which is a huge quantum leap in logic.

Bassically it's the same we have here. 7/37 are upset enough with the law as to demonstrate. And you claim that the 30/37 which arent upset as to demonstrate, actually like the law.

[K]

triqui said:

But he is way closer to find a majority than you are. He is basing his argument on the fact that 7/37 already agree with him, while a whole total of 0/37 agree with you. You act like if "I have not been defeated *yet*" is a proof that "I am winning", which is not. That's like a Goverment that faces a 10 million people demonstration in it's 40 million country against a law and defending that it's not a proof of the law unpopularity becouse "30 millions did not demonstrate". Then they are bassically assuming that those who did not demonstrate are not only not disliking the law, but they like it, which is a huge quantum leap in logic.

Bassically it's the same we have here. 7/37 are upset enough with the law as to demonstrate. And you claim that the 30/37 which arent upset as to demonstrate, actually like the law.

The argument was "everyone in MP plays by this houserule." That was one of the arguments that people were trying to use to support their position that it is a fair rule and everyone should play by it.

I don't have to prove that people agree with me. I just have to show with the evidence that this argument was flawed, which the data clearly shows.

[triqui]

I don't have to prove that people agree with me. I just have to show with the evidence that this argument was flawed, which the data clearly shows.

I disagree with the first part but agree with the second. You showed that particular argument is flawed. However, that does not proof at all that MoD is desirable, or balanced, or even liked by the community.

You are acting with an admirable logical refuting ability (which i happen to like a lot, being a logical-whore myself). But you look like the lawyer of O.J. Simpson: you arent looking to proof the innocence of your client, just trying to discredit whatever "proof" the attorney gives you. So in the end, you might "win" the "judge decision" and get a "non guilty judgement" , but no one will think your client is innocent. And that might even include your client's advocate

[Tifone]

Really, people, behave. Think about the other as a PERSON and not as MERE WORDS, ok? It is more difficult to act mean to people than to words.

I don't agree with K, and IMHO it is evident now he's using low-level logical flaws and the politicians' ways of talking to bring the right to his side. I may be wrong of course.

But really, there is no Orwellian psychocrime here. He can say and think whatever he wants, like everybody else can until hurting someone.