next »

[LemonScented]

Supershigi has pretty much hit the nail on the head. bvanevery seems to be unwilling or unable to accept his logical fallacy either because he is a troll or because he's not aware of the nature of his wrongness. It has a name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[bvanevery]

Supershigi has pretty much hit the nail on the head. bvanevery seems to be unwilling or unable to accept his logical fallacy either because he is a troll

Anyone who thinks I'm a troll, after the amount of intellectual work I've put into this, doesn't deserve my response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I suppose it would kill you to actually argue your case.

[LemonScented]

You suppose wrong; I simply don't see the point in elaborating on my previous post. But if you insist on having yet another person spell it out for you...

Your definition of "emergent gameplay" differs from the commonly accepted one. You have provided no specific alternative definition which you think is more suitable, and no reason why such a definition would be more suitable than the commonly accepted one and should replace it. Without these things, there can be no basis for a rational debate. Any example of emergent gameplay put forward by anyone else can be dismissed by you as not being real emergent gameplay in the same way that you could assert (fallaciously) that no true Scotsman dislikes haggis.

Incidentally, your other thread amused me. In that one, you seemed to be trying to define collaborative storytelling as the only real form of emergent gameplay, and to start a collaborative storytelling session as an example. As it happens, I agree that collaborative storytelling is an example (although by no means the only one) of emergent gameplay. However, the moment that bento_smile stepped in and played by the rules in order to highlight their absurdity, you considered that to be a breach of those very rules and declared his attempt to find emergence in your game to be invalid. The irony was almost painfully funny.

Anyone who thinks I'm a troll, after the amount of intellectual work I've put into this, doesn't deserve my response.

And yet you posted one. I guess the jury is still out. Are you trolling, or are you able to address your logical fallacy?

[Landshark RAWR]

Either way, he is only going to disagree you for the sake of disagreement.

[bvanevery]

Your definition of "emergent gameplay" differs from the commonly accepted one. You have provided no specific alternative definition which you think is more suitable,

I have, which is why this is tiring.  I can't make any of you actually read what I wrote.

In that one, you seemed to be trying to define collaborative storytelling as the only real form of emergent gameplay,

So, it's clear that I can exactly spell out why a game and a thread exists, at face value, incorporating all necessary motivations and definitions, and you will instead say it "seems" to be something else.

However, the moment that bento_smile stepped in and played by the rules in order to highlight their absurdity, you considered that to be a breach of those very rules

because they were a breach of the rules.  If you don't understand that, you basically can't read.  There was also nothing absurd about what was being posted at the time.  The narrative treatment at the time was serious, not farcical or a meta-commentary on TIGSource debates.  It was a game in progress and a couple of asshats showed up to clown it.  There were already implicit rules about not being an asshat, especially the "don't go into la la land" rule, but I made it explicit because I knew some asshat like yourself would want to argue that you were engaged in some kind of legitimate in-game activity.  I originally made the "don't go into la la land" rule because I assumed someone would come along who didn't read all that much, didn't pay that good attention to what had come before, and would just start writing something irrelevant off the cuff without dealing other people's previous input.  I was trying to curtail sloppy continuity, not shut people down entirely.  I didn't think about the possibility of someone showing up to deliberately poke holes in the game, just to be a jerk, but the rule works for that too.

[Bandages]

My opinion is more objectively true than yours.

[supershigi]

@LemonScented: That was very well put my friend ^_^

Supershigi has pretty much hit the nail on the head. bvanevery seems to be unwilling or unable to accept his logical fallacy either because he is a troll

Anyone who thinks I'm a troll, after the amount of intellectual work I've put into this, doesn't deserve my response.

It doesn't matter how much "intellectual work" you've put into something if you aren't even willing to try digesting other people's arguments and responding to them in a mature manner.  The difference between a ranting monologue and a discussion is that you actually consider the other side's perspective and respond to it when you're having a discussion.  We have considered what you're saying, and some of us have even taken the time to sort through and seriously consider all of your posts here; we see some of your points, but we also see a lot of issues that you refuse to address. 

You however have not done this at all.  You only see your side and are blinded to any other perspective.  You're trying to use eloquence in order to make your arguments seem complex and intellectual so as to cover up for the fact that your position is in many ways logically bankrupt.  And you're kind of being rude about it.  So if anyone thinks you're a troll, there's a pretty good reason for it.  Continuing to respond by saying things like, "you didn't read what I wrote," looks like a pretty hollow response at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I suppose it would kill you to actually argue your case.

Likewise, I suppose it would kill you to actually read and digest what others have almost unanimously written and actually respond to it (rather than dismissing it on the basis that it doesn't fit your definition).  The thing is, LemonScented and many others have argued their case... quite well in fact.  You on the other hand don't actually participate in discussion; sure you post a lot, but it's all in the form of a ranting monologue.  You just reiterate your unadulterated perspective on the matter without taking into account anyone else's opinion but your own... this is not a discussion.

[bvanevery]

Likewise, I suppose it would kill you to actually read and digest what others have almost unanimously written

Argumentum ad populum

and actually respond to it (rather than dismissing it on the basis that it doesn't fit your definition.

You are repeating yourself over and over again, which is the working definition of talking past someone.

[supershigi]

Argumentum ad populum

See, this might actually be relevent had all of the aforementioned cases not been about entirely separate examples of emergent gameplay that were well-written and clearly thought out.  The fact that you refuse to respond to them does not mean everyone who commented was operating under a sheeplike mentality.  It does however mean that you are unable to defend your case with anything other than "you didn't read what I wrote."  Sorry, we did read it.

You are repeating yourself over and over again, which is the working definition of talking past someone.

Wow, your arguments just keep getting weaker and weaker.  Are you or are you not going to respond to the presented cases and defense of the current definition?  We've responded to you.  If you now choose to ignore everything we've said, then you are the only one who is talking past anyone... but then again, I guess it was pretty obvious from the get-go that you weren't interested in brainstorming about the merits of game design... you were more on a crusade to attack a popular game, and you found a convenient way to make it look as though it was about something else.

[bvanevery]

You are repeating yourself over and over again, which is the working definition of talking past someone.

Wow, your arguments just get weaker and weaker.

You were right a post ago.  This is not an argument.  At this point it is listening to you say the same thing over and over again, with many more words than needed.  I will refrain from engaging you further.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

supershigi is on fire

[gimymblert]

You are repeating yourself over and over again, which is the working definition of talking past someone.

Wow, your arguments just get weaker and weaker.

You were right a post ago.  This is not an argument.  At this point it is listening to you say the same thing over and over again, with many more words than needed.  I will refrain from engaging you further.

You are the one not listening

[Bandages]

Argumentum ad populum

See, this might actually be relevent had all of the aforementioned cases not been about entirely separate examples of emergent gameplay that were well-written and clearly thought out.  The fact that you refuse to respond to them does not mean everyone who commented was operating under a sheeplike mentality.  It does however mean that you are unable to defend your case with anything other than "you didn't read what I wrote."  Sorry, we did read it.

You are repeating yourself over and over again, which is the working definition of talking past someone.

Wow, your arguments just keep getting weaker and weaker.  Are you or are you not going to respond to the presented cases and defense of the current definition?  We've responded to you.  If you now choose to ignore everything we've said, then you are the only one who is talking past anyone... but then again, I guess it was pretty obvious from the get-go that you weren't interested in brainstorming about the merits of game design... you were more on a crusade to attack a popular game, and you found a convenient way to make it look as though it was about something else.

[Snakey]

This has got to be the most absurd threads I've read in a while.

Given that we've decided that D&D is considered to be emergent, what happens if someone was to make a D&D game where a human being is the game master and gets to make all the key decisions? [Oh wait! Someone has already done this, they happen to be a small company called BioWare who made Never Winter Nights in which humans can play the role of the game master].

I suppose, you'd then say that it wasn't a computer game and rather it was just a tool on a computer to simulate a table top game.

Otherwise this thread has been pretty pointless; because we're not even arguing about the same thing. You've already declined to accept the general opinion of what emergent game play means, so all you're doing now is trying to convince people that you're definition is correct? If so, you're failing pretty hard.

After all, I can argue that a dog isn't a dog and that it is a cat. All I have to do is stick fingers in my ears and go "La la la la la la". You can deny the second part, but the first part is more or less what's going on.

[gimymblert]

@Bvanevery
You want procedural gameplay actually?

[bvanevery]

@Bvanevery
You want procedural gameplay actually?

It doesn't matter what I want, or what I say.  This thread has degenerated into nothing but drama.  I'm not bothering with it anymore.

[Bandages]

ITT a guy makes and then later gives up on a flawed argument about game design

Life goes on

[Xion]

goodness this is all too funny. I fear I may inadvertently swallow my fig newton amidst this fit of chuckles.

[TheLastBanana]

Bvanevery, I really hope you realize that every time you start a thread taking an unpopular side of an argument, tell everyone that their arguments don't count for whatever reason, then leave claiming there's too much drama, you're looking more and more like Bucky Katt.

[moi]

Given that we've decided that D&D is considered to be emergent, what happens if someone was to make a D&D game where a human being is the game master and gets to make all the key decisions? [Oh wait! Someone has already done this, they happen to be a small company called BioWare who made Never Winter Nights in which humans can play the role of the game master].

What will they think up next? D&D ON PAPER ?!?!?!121212