02-11-2021, 07:42 PM
Ian: "Can you explain why this is core to CTF gameplay? It seems as though it is a relatively minor thing to me, and would not change much in terms of actual gameplay."
Ian, for context, I was not aware that the obsidian property currently in the game is an unintended consequence of past coding projects. I, like many others, only learned about this fact after I had issued my initial comments--when Jacob elaborated on how exactly the obsidian property became a feature of the game in the first place. With that said, I can now better understand why certain people want to remove that aspect of CTF. At the same time, I do think that there is a bit of a reasoning flaw affecting the argument you and others have raised with regards to Jacob's explanation from yesterday.
To quote Cheesse, for context, you all believe that "the property of obsidian allowing rockets to pass through ... is an odd, unexpected quirk of the game, and it should be removed." In other words, some of you argue that just because Jacob didn't intend to include obsidian property to CTF, it is therefore not a core feature of the game and should therefore be removed. The problematic, necessary assumption of this point is that over the many months, if not years, obsidian property has been an element of CTF, people supposedly haven't significantly adapted their play styles to account for this aspect--that the game hasn't been substantially affected by obsidian property. That element clearly has affected gameplay to a substantial degree, hence why we're currently debating its removal--hence why you, just yesterday, Ian, bemoaned how games grinded to a halt due to obsidian pillaring. If, truly, obsidian property isn't some feature that does "not change much in terms of actual gameplay," what then is the point of your proposal, Ian? If it doesn't affect CTF gameplay, why are we wasting our time discussing whether to get rid of something so supposedly inconsequential?
Ultimately, without repeating myself too much here, my point--in short--is this: Jacob may certainly not have intended to include obsidian property to CTF, but insofar as it has been a widely known aspect of the game for several months or years that has long, seriously impacted the way people play this game--as we have all mentioned previously--then one must consider that feature a core element. And if obsidian property is not some element of CTF that has serious consequences on the way people play--if it is not a core element--then this discussion is pointless.
---
Ian: "I will not accept this premise. First, demonstrating that 'there aren't any other reasonable solutions' is fairly near impossible. As it stands, I have the most reasonable proposal that has been proposed and I believe it to be a fair solution. However, if I accept your premises, you could conceivably always imply that there is 'another reasonable solution' and we just haven't found it yet. That would kind of make the discussion moot. Second, as for 'if you can prove that to me, Ian,' it is not my burden to provide other counterexamples to my own proposition--currently my proposition is the best possible one out of all of those proposed, because no one else has proposed anything reasonable except just not making the change (which it seems like you are in agreement that the change might be better than the way it is now, or are least ambivalent about it)."
Firstly, my initial comments that you reference in this part of your response aren't "premises" to any actual arguments. They are, if you couldn't already tell, good-faith, conditional offers of support for your plan. There is a reason I have not voted in this poll yet; it is because I have not yet confidently made up my mind. And if you do want my full backing, then you should know what to do. That is, secondly, the burden of proof is actually on you to convince others to support your proposal--the initiative that you have introduced and so strongly championed.
Thirdly, I did not necessarily ask you to provide any "counter-examples" to your own plan; in fact, what I did ask of you was to prove to me how other possible counter proposals were not as appealing as the removal of obsidian property. Unfortunately, in your response, I still have not yet received a good answer to my question. Simply telling me that you have the "best" solution to a problem because it happens to be the only proposal someone has raised is an incredibly unconvincing argument. Indeed, this point, too, suffers from an incredibly flawed line of reasoning. On the one hand, just because your plan is sufficient for addressing an issue--assuming that it even is--does not mean that it is the only viable proposal nor even the most appealing. If you are not willing to complete the basic task of strengthening your own argument--your own proposal--and instead want to tell me that it somehow is not your job to do so, that you don't have to carry the burden of making your idea sound that much more appealing to an undecided member, then that is certainly within your rights, just as it is within mine to not support your plan.
And finally--fourthly--I could certainly act like a bad-faith actor and reject your proposal on rather circular grounds--on the notion that there's always some better, nebulous idea out there. That is very true. I'm just a little saddened that you would seemingly assume that I would behave that immaturely, considering that I've been willing to listen your idea and even support it. It seems to me that this concern of yours isn't at all timely--appropriate--when no one has actually engaged in that kind of bad-faith argumentation. If I engage in that kind of circular reasoning, do feel free to let me know. Believe me, I think we'll all know when that kind of tactic gets exhausting and petty. But make no mistake, me asking once for you to address possible counter arguments is not unwarranted on my part and in fact is probably something you should have done initially--just as good writers tend to do when constructing argumentative essays.
---
I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
Ian, for context, I was not aware that the obsidian property currently in the game is an unintended consequence of past coding projects. I, like many others, only learned about this fact after I had issued my initial comments--when Jacob elaborated on how exactly the obsidian property became a feature of the game in the first place. With that said, I can now better understand why certain people want to remove that aspect of CTF. At the same time, I do think that there is a bit of a reasoning flaw affecting the argument you and others have raised with regards to Jacob's explanation from yesterday.
To quote Cheesse, for context, you all believe that "the property of obsidian allowing rockets to pass through ... is an odd, unexpected quirk of the game, and it should be removed." In other words, some of you argue that just because Jacob didn't intend to include obsidian property to CTF, it is therefore not a core feature of the game and should therefore be removed. The problematic, necessary assumption of this point is that over the many months, if not years, obsidian property has been an element of CTF, people supposedly haven't significantly adapted their play styles to account for this aspect--that the game hasn't been substantially affected by obsidian property. That element clearly has affected gameplay to a substantial degree, hence why we're currently debating its removal--hence why you, just yesterday, Ian, bemoaned how games grinded to a halt due to obsidian pillaring. If, truly, obsidian property isn't some feature that does "not change much in terms of actual gameplay," what then is the point of your proposal, Ian? If it doesn't affect CTF gameplay, why are we wasting our time discussing whether to get rid of something so supposedly inconsequential?
Ultimately, without repeating myself too much here, my point--in short--is this: Jacob may certainly not have intended to include obsidian property to CTF, but insofar as it has been a widely known aspect of the game for several months or years that has long, seriously impacted the way people play this game--as we have all mentioned previously--then one must consider that feature a core element. And if obsidian property is not some element of CTF that has serious consequences on the way people play--if it is not a core element--then this discussion is pointless.
---
Ian: "I will not accept this premise. First, demonstrating that 'there aren't any other reasonable solutions' is fairly near impossible. As it stands, I have the most reasonable proposal that has been proposed and I believe it to be a fair solution. However, if I accept your premises, you could conceivably always imply that there is 'another reasonable solution' and we just haven't found it yet. That would kind of make the discussion moot. Second, as for 'if you can prove that to me, Ian,' it is not my burden to provide other counterexamples to my own proposition--currently my proposition is the best possible one out of all of those proposed, because no one else has proposed anything reasonable except just not making the change (which it seems like you are in agreement that the change might be better than the way it is now, or are least ambivalent about it)."
Firstly, my initial comments that you reference in this part of your response aren't "premises" to any actual arguments. They are, if you couldn't already tell, good-faith, conditional offers of support for your plan. There is a reason I have not voted in this poll yet; it is because I have not yet confidently made up my mind. And if you do want my full backing, then you should know what to do. That is, secondly, the burden of proof is actually on you to convince others to support your proposal--the initiative that you have introduced and so strongly championed.
Thirdly, I did not necessarily ask you to provide any "counter-examples" to your own plan; in fact, what I did ask of you was to prove to me how other possible counter proposals were not as appealing as the removal of obsidian property. Unfortunately, in your response, I still have not yet received a good answer to my question. Simply telling me that you have the "best" solution to a problem because it happens to be the only proposal someone has raised is an incredibly unconvincing argument. Indeed, this point, too, suffers from an incredibly flawed line of reasoning. On the one hand, just because your plan is sufficient for addressing an issue--assuming that it even is--does not mean that it is the only viable proposal nor even the most appealing. If you are not willing to complete the basic task of strengthening your own argument--your own proposal--and instead want to tell me that it somehow is not your job to do so, that you don't have to carry the burden of making your idea sound that much more appealing to an undecided member, then that is certainly within your rights, just as it is within mine to not support your plan.
And finally--fourthly--I could certainly act like a bad-faith actor and reject your proposal on rather circular grounds--on the notion that there's always some better, nebulous idea out there. That is very true. I'm just a little saddened that you would seemingly assume that I would behave that immaturely, considering that I've been willing to listen your idea and even support it. It seems to me that this concern of yours isn't at all timely--appropriate--when no one has actually engaged in that kind of bad-faith argumentation. If I engage in that kind of circular reasoning, do feel free to let me know. Believe me, I think we'll all know when that kind of tactic gets exhausting and petty. But make no mistake, me asking once for you to address possible counter arguments is not unwarranted on my part and in fact is probably something you should have done initially--just as good writers tend to do when constructing argumentative essays.
---
I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
-
x1
-
-
x1
- pen23
-
