Battlefield spell + retreating? - Page 11

llamabeast · #**101** July 13th, 2008, 04:38 AM

K isn't a cheater Zeldor, that's not reasonable.

Endoperez · #**102** July 13th, 2008, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Zeldor said:
I suggest a simple new rule for MP games:

"Player K is banned"

I am sure I wouldn't want to play with cheater. And as game admin I'd ban all cheaters.

Behave!

If you were a game admin, your first responsibility would be to ensure that everyone would know what is considered breaking the rules.
If you failed to do that, the blame would be your own.

K is arguing about whether or not a house-rule is necessary. Has he said that he will use MoD and retreat even though it has been clearly prohibited in the game he is playing? If he hasn't, I think you should apologize.

K · #**103** July 13th, 2008, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Zeldor said:
I suggest a simple new rule for MP games:

"Player K is banned"

I am sure I wouldn't want to play with cheater. And as game admin I'd ban all cheaters.

Very mature. If you can't win the argument, attack the reputation of the person arguing.

Would you believe that I've never cast MoD in a multiplay game? Or that I always follow the rules set up in the game? In fact, I've never broken a NAP, traded unfairly, or lied in MP. Ask people who've played with me.

As an example, in order to clarify these issues I set up a game called DarkParadise on llamabeast's server with rules explicitly saying what is possible in order to promote fair play and protect everyone's reputation.

triqui · #**104** July 13th, 2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

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 · #**105** July 13th, 2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

AdmiralZhao said:
No, I've dismantled all of *your* arguments and have given an affirmative offense. Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to show that people shouldn't not disobey this rule.

The burden of proof is on you because you are the one asking people to refrain from a certain style of play by playing by a houserule.

By the way, there is no such thing as an "affirmative offense." Since that's not your first logical error, I'm not sure you even know how to dismantle an argument because clearly that has not happened despite the fact that I clearly labeled them with numbers and everything.

So, if everyone is done with the personal attacks on me and my abilities, I'd like to let this thread die. I never imagined I'd convince any of the die-hards, but I wanted the arguments to be in the boards for posterity.

K · #**106** July 13th, 2008, 05:33 AM

Quote:

triqui said:

Quote:

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.

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.

Zeldor · #**107** July 13th, 2008, 05:42 AM

Using exploits is cheating. Supporting the use of exploits is too. He is willing to use the biggest bug in that game so he is a cheater. Simple. I wouldn't want him in my game and have a risk of him finding a new bug and calling it strategy. Maybe he is even willing to support .2h file hacking and saying that if game creators didn't want it to happen they'd protect that files better?

K:
Yeah, right. I am sure attorney general and supreme court support you. They didn't say theu support us so it is logical they are on your side.

llamabeast · #**108** July 13th, 2008, 05:50 AM

Zeldor, "using exploits is cheating" is only an opinion. If you feel that way, make sure to play in games where exploits are banned. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

In any case, K is a very honorable player. He just has a different attitude to exploits to many others.

triqui · #**109** July 13th, 2008, 05:54 AM

Quote:

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

K · #**110** July 13th, 2008, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Zeldor said:
K:
Yeah, right. I am sure attorney general and supreme court support you. They didn't say theu support us so it is logical they are on your side.

Ok, here's a quick lesson on the court system:
If you are asking the court to do something(give you damages, injunctions, convict someone, change law, etc.), then the burden of proof is on you. Usually, it is the plaintiff who is asking the court to do something.

If the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof, or the defendant can show that the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof(by disproving even one element of their argument, for example), then the court will rule against the plaintiff and the defense wins. It works that way in every court in the land (USA).

Now on to our problem: the community is being asked to do something(play by a houserule). Therefore, the burden of proof is on you and I only need to disprove elements of your argument so that you don't meet your burden.

Xietor can tell you all about it, if he cares to.