Battlefield spell + retreating?

[K]

JimMorrison said:
But you see, K's education is failing him right now, and he's not sure how to handle it, Edi, except soldier on.

The forms of rhetoric that he is taught, are meant to bully and impression the 90 IQ members of a jury into believing him. They are never meant to directly address reality, but rather to operate in that grey area between reality and perception.

Actually, it's designed to convince judges who are trained in logical argument and have decades of experience.

But, it was unfair of me to hold random people on the internet to that standard. It seems to only enrage people.

My apologies.

JimMorrison said:
He's just unwilling to admit that his jedi mind tricks won't work here. Also, he now must maintain that the primary reason the bug has not been fixed, is that our devs do not "consider it important enough", for if he capitulates on that point, his whole argument begins to deflate.


On the other hand, I claim unequivocal victory in this debate. You see, we have direct confirmation that MoD IS in fact a bug. Utilizing bugs for personal gain in considered exploitation - you are using something that is not working properly, to get results beyond what is intended. I think if you polled the Dom3 community on whether or not they support the exploitation of unfixed bugs in public MP games, your answer would be vastly, overwhelmingly, devastatingly -almost- unanimous. I would say it would be 100%, but you can vote however you like on the matter, K, it won't change reality, or anyone's perception of it. <3

You see, that's a moral judgment with no basis in a logical argument.

The devs have no right to tell people how to play the game. I respect their work so much that I've bought this game twice, but it ends there. At the end of the day, they wouldn't be the first devs to not understand the intricacies of what they have cobbled together. Just because they created something they did not intent doesn't mean that changing it will improve gameplay or enjoyment. The fact remains that the "battlefield and retreat" tactic is a "bug" that only affects new players who don't have the foresight or experince to know that they should build balanced armies.

Considering the number of bugs that still exist in this game, everyone is guilty of benefiting from those bugs. Passing moral judgment on them is illogical.

And that is the crux of our disagreement. I've been making logical arguments and you've been making moral arguments. Logical arguments have winners and losers by determining who has the stronger argument, and moral arguments have two losers (since there is no criteria for strength of argument and which should prevail).

Thank you. This has been very helpful.

[MaxWilson]

K said:
And that is the crux of our disagreement. I've been making logical arguments and you've been making moral arguments. Logical arguments have winners and losers by determining who has the stronger argument, and moral arguments have two losers (since there is no criteria for strength of argument and which should prevail).

Logical arguments have the same criteria for "winning" as moral arguments: can you convince your audience? You're aware that there's no way to prove that a logical proof is correct without an invoking a shared metalogic. In practice nobody reasons about their metalogic, they just declare victory, as both you and Jim have done, or come to an understanding, as great men do.

One of the first interesting experiences I had in this project at Princeton was meeting great men. I had never met very many great men before. But there was an evaluation committee that had to try to help us along, and help us ultimately decide which way we were going to separate the uranium. This committee had men like Compton and Tolman and Smyth and Urey and Rabi and Oppenheimer on it. I would sit in because I understood the theory of how our process of separating isotopes worked, so they'd ask me questions and talk about it. In these discussions, one man would make a point. Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. He would say it should be this way, and he was perfectly right. Another guy would say, well, maybe, but there is this other possibility that we have to consider against it.

So everybody is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead."

It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best---summing it all up---without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.

http://www.brics.dk/~danvy/lafb.html

-Max

[K]

MaxWilson said:

Logical arguments have the same criteria for "winning" as moral arguments: can you convince your audience? You're aware that there's no way to prove that a logical proof is correct without an invoking a shared metalogic. In practice nobody reasons about their metalogic, they just declare victory, as both you and Jim have done, or come to an understanding, as great men do.

Actually, that's wrong.

Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.

Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.

[MaxWilson]

K said:
Actually, that's wrong.

Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins.

[raises eyebrows]

-Max

[Sombre]

Riiiiight.

I haven't taken part in this thread. I just want to state for the record that K is apparently taking that I consier MoD + retreat even without any other spells to inflict damage to be an exploit and a 'lame' tactic and I have no interest in playing against someone who uses it.

[K]

Sombre said:
Riiiiight.

I haven't taken part in this thread. I just want to state for the record that K is apparently taking that I consier MoD + retreat even without any other spells to inflict damage to be an exploit and a 'lame' tactic and I have no interest in playing against someone who uses it.

Then play in a game that explicitly has rules against it. There are seven out of 37 playing now, so you won't be alone. You are just in the minority.

Heck, I might even join you. I follow all rules set by the admin. For the record, I've never taken the position that people should violate agreements.

I just advise you to take a little responsibility and don't expect people to read your mind about what you consider "lame."

[Gandalf Parker]

Lame is a term I can accept. Which I would still consider different than cheat.

I recommend that games specify at the beginning what can and cannot be done. Even if its to refer to something such as "nothing in Red in Edi's buglist"

Some games such as Velusians used a MOD to make somethings unusable. Would it be bettr to take MoD completely out of a game?

[DonCorazon]

Well at least 1 out of the 30 w/o explicit rules against it (Alexandria) had implict rules against it, which we have just made explicit.

We confirmed that we were all playing under the assumption that MoD - retreat was an abusive tactic and not in the spirit of the game.

In the future it probably makes sense to clarify up front as you never know who is in the game.

Ironically, check Figment, looks like MoD just got banned there too.

K, you're data set is shrinking!!!

[Sombre]

K said:
Then play in a game that explicitly has rules against it. There are seven out of 37 playing now, so you won't be alone. You are just in the minority.

Heck, I might even join you. I follow all rules set by the admin. For the record, I've never taken the position that people should violate agreements.

I just advise you to take a little responsibility and don't expect people to read your mind about what you consider "lame."

I don't remember asking for your advice. I probably won't be playing any games with you K, just based on the way you've acted in several threads I've read. It could happen we're in the same game though, where I'm sure we'd both follow the rules.

[Edi]

K said:
Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.

You are correct about arguments and evidence. This is especially true in science and the scientific method.

K said:
Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.

This is not entirely correct. Moral arguments can be logical ones, but one must first define a premise for them. It is entirely possible top construct a logically ironclad moral argument complete with evidence, but that argument will rest on some premise that is accepted as true. If the premise is successfully challenged, the whole argument comes down. For example, if we take the premise that suffering is generally a bad thing, it is very, very easy to construct logical moral arguments against wars of aggression, torture, bullying and a large number of other things and objective evidence is not hard to come by.

The problem with the MoD + retreat discussion seems to be that you and the rest of the forum have very differing standards of evidence. I for example take Illwinter's word on how MoD currently works with retreat vs how it should work as very strong evidence that the mechanic is broken to the point of being an abusive exploit while you obviously do not.