While We Wait: Part 6

[~Darkening~]

As for the conversation about your first days, I must say that I enjoyed going back over Kam's NES and looking over my first stint. That flamer0war with Tommy_toon was particularly enjoyable. If I could ever get my hands on medication strong enough to produce such results once more, the world would be a much scarier place.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Meh. A percentage of the population is increasingly getting volatile, and instead of having logical reasons for such, it is more often than not something that doesn't even relate to the issue at hand of the discussion.

Logic is way over rated as a tool for human interaction.

 

[silver 2039]

I see eventually that this percentage, driven to the point by personal conflict, will seek a way to remove their source and by this will more than likely head for greener pastures. It wouldn't have to be a large number of people for this to happen; a small group could be successful in establishing a offshoot if devoted fully instead of existing between two forums.

The Union must be preserved we will crush them.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Logic is way over rated as a tool for human interaction.

Logic is a perfect tool, it's just difficult to apply. Factors like love are no less logical than enlightened self-interest. It's a pet peeve of mine when people set up straw Vulcans and decimate them with misapplications of logic. A true Grand Unified Theory for human interaction must have well-applied logic at its base, with stuff like love and hate properly accounted for.

 

[~Darkening~]

Posted by Birdjaguar
Logic is way over rated as a tool for human interaction.

......Do you realize who you're speaking to ? Me and logic don't get along to well; we're actually still feuding over that well. That aside, my comment was aimed at the ones (on both sides, seeing another comment that was posted) who point out personal flaws and attacks, and avoid keeping their words to the issue at hand. There is nothing logical, whether over rated or not, about throwing yourself in the mud.

 

[Symphony D.]

(on both sides, seeing another comment that was posted)

Yes, you're right, using the Socratic method of inquiry, asking clarifying questions, using examples and analogies, and pointing out and diagramming logical fallacies and counterexamples is highly illogical, Captain. I'll admit to getting my digs in but at least I do better than to go "Blargh, you are wrong because I say so, and you also smell," whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[~Darkening~]

You smell. You're wrong. I can admit that. Otherwise, I did my whole little dance and jig for you a couple days ago and I don't feel like doing it again to be ignored. So I'll sit this dance out again.

Yeah-*sigh*. My hands are muddy now. I feel dirty.

 

[Symphony D.]

You smell. You're wrong. I can admit that.

I didn't know you were adding a Hypocrite of the Year Award to your survey this go-around.

 

[~Darkening~]

Sorry if I can't magically edit. I apologize and promise to work on becoming faster.

 

[Birdjaguar]

......Do you realize who you're speaking to ? Me and logic don't get along to well; we're actually still feuding over that well. That aside, my comment was aimed at the ones (on both sides, seeing another comment that was posted) who point out personal flaws and attacks, and avoid keeping their words to the issue at hand. There is nothing logical, whether over rated or not, about throwing yourself in the mud.

I was not pointing at you, just that part of your post. Yes, I agree, and your bit about the mud quite makes the point well too.

 

[Symphony D.]

Sorry if I can't magically edit. I apologize and promise to work on becoming faster.

Whether you feel guilty or not is no concern of mine--you still said it and didn't delete it. Welcome to the Mud Hole, and enjoy your stay. Our cookies are better than Moral Superiority Hill's anyway.

 

[Sheep]

I have logical reasons, I have stated them numerous times. Just because my logical reasoning is not what you want it to be, doesnt make it any less logical or any less reasonable.

I will be one of the mods who will opt out of any such scheme and agree with Amon completely about how while you may have 'good intentions' with this, we all know which road is paved by good intentions.

No one can rate their own work objectively, and mods might advocate their NES on what they're aiming for, rather than what they've achieved.

Now on this note I must say that I do not believe anyone can rate anyone else's work objectivley, not to mention for what is the reason why we do this? If it is for the purpose of helping the newer nesers in choosing a nes to play, then you would need to do this at the start of a nes, which also brings to attention the fact that how can you rate something that hasn't really started.

If it is further in or towards the end of the nes, how is this to help players form an opinion on wether to join the nes or not? Its over and done with or close to it by this point, why would they want to join?: Sure it might be a great nes and all, but its over and done with.

Lastly I also take note that many of the names that are being mooted as possible reviewers come from the same clique of persons, and thus would in reality only offer variations of the same theme in their reviews.

These are all reasons as to why I feel that mods actually listing what they want from a nes, what they hope to achieve, what the type of nes they wish to protray and the like is a much better guide to a nes itself then a review cooked up by someone else who may or may not have had any part of the nes, may have bias and may have personal disliking to the mod in question. At least with mod himself writing it the bias is already known, of course he is going to talk it up, but it still achieves the same result as everyone who thinks this is a fantastic idea is trying to achieve.

And for numerous reasons its actually better. It saves on arguments, it saves on headaches and most notably if someone after reading the overview by the mod and reading the nes decides that its not for them, they dont have to join, but it will provide information to those who do choose to join, what to ACTUALLY expect.

On the mod's behalf then all they have to do is follow through on what they said they would do (within acceptable limitations given the unpredictable nature of nesing in general), which will actually provide some discipline to some of those mods who lack it and will also provide feedback on the proposed course of action.

Of course some people here will dismiss this just because I have suggested it, but it is a far superior option to the divisive approach being espoused at the current time by those who champion any form of a rating system.

 

[~Darkening~]

You know Symphony, I am a hypocrite. And a liar. And unstable. And a fool. And an idiot. Want to add anything to the list? Feel free. See if I care. That said, despite knowing that you'll just ignore it, I will post two very simple points.

One.) Read my comment again please and then come back. As far as I was aware, we were not having a conversation. We were not in the throes of an argument, with neither of us resorting to the personal attacks to avoid the issue. Seeing this, my comments against you have nothing to do with what I originally said. This is where you fail. Feel free to mistake my words, but don't pretend that I'm wrong because you fail at reading.

Two.) Do you have any clue why I posted that little piece? Honestly? Just as much as those partake the role of the village idiot, so do you. No matter who it is, you find something to attack them on and do such a with a gusto that it's unreal. Now, before you open your mouth, I don't care about that. You are you and that's none of my business. The reason I posted that piece was because you had the mind to actually comment on others, when you are guilty of the same exact thing. Just as I did the same to Sheep for criticizing you for something he was guilty of. Feel insulted if you want. Again, see if I care.

EDIT:

Posted by Sheep
I have logical reasons, I have stated them numerous times. Just because my logical reasoning is not what you want it to be, doesnt make it any less logical or any less reasonable.

Emotions do not equal logic.

 

[Sheep]

No I agree emotions are not logic, but different viewpoints will bring about different logical decisions based on differing logical assumptions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

These are all reasons as to why I feel that mods actually listing what they want from a nes, what they hope to achieve, what the type of nes they wish to protray and the like is a much better guide to a nes

And for numerous reasons its actually better. It saves on arguments, it saves on headaches and most notably if someone after reading the overview by the mod and reading the nes decides that its not for them, they dont have to join, but it will provide information to those who do choose to join, what to ACTUALLY expect.

If mods actually wrote such a short descriptive parargraph about their games, that would increase the probablility of of theNES being better than almost anything else new mods could do as preparation. And yes it would make it easier for players to choose whether or not to participate. It is a small, but powerful tool.

 

[Sheep]

And also one that doesn't cause too many disagreements.

 

[Symphony D.]

One.) Read my comment again please and then come back.
[...]
Seeing this, my comments against you have nothing to do with what I originally said. This is where you fail.

OK.

Meh. A percentage of the population is increasingly getting volatile, and instead of having logical reasons for such, it is more often than not something that doesn't even relate to the issue at hand of the discussion. Arguments that have nothing do with anything are brought up, doing little more than fanning the flames.

That aside, my comment was aimed at the ones (on both sides, seeing another comment that was posted) who point out personal flaws and attacks

So, when you were referring to people on this forum in general, myself included (since I am on one side), as using personal flaws and attacks and not using logic, and I call that assumption into question (with logic, citing previous usages of logic), and you respond (with a personal attack), those two things are unrelated? I'm asking.

Two.) Do you have any clue why I posted that little piece? Honestly? Just as much as those partake the role of the village idiot, so do you.

This is also unrelated to the idea of personal attacks as well? I'm asking. I don't want to fail again. I just want to know why when logical devices are used, for some reason they don't count. Maybe you can explain that to me?

The reason I posted that piece was because you had the mind to actually comment on others, when you are guilty of the same exact thing.

I have admitted this on some half-dozen occasions, yes. The difference as I understand it is that my arguments consist of more than just opinions and logical errors. You are quite free to correct that perception if you find it fallacious.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Now on this note I must say that I do not believe anyone can rate anyone else's work objectivley, not to mention for what is the reason why we do this?

You're saying that a third party can't objectively rate a NES, but the mod himself can? That seems backwards.

If it is for the purpose of helping the newer nesers in choosing a nes to play, then you would need to do this at the start of a nes, which also brings to attention the fact that how can you rate something that hasn't really started.

If it is further in or towards the end of the nes, how is this to help players form an opinion on wether to join the nes or not? Its over and done with or close to it by this point, why would they want to join?: Sure it might be a great nes and all, but its over and done with.

If your NES is over by the time it's clear what sort of NES it is, then I must say you're doing it wrong. You're right in that you can't judge a NES from the beginning, of course. Only NESes that were well under way would have to be reviewed.

Lastly I also take note that many of the names that are being mooted as possible reviewers come from the same clique of persons, and thus would in reality only offer variations of the same theme in their reviews.

Yeah, that's definitely something that would have to be avoided. Multiple reviewers would be needed, of course, and there'd have to be representation from every NESing school of thought.

These are all reasons as to why I feel that mods actually listing what they want from a nes, what they hope to achieve, what the type of nes they wish to protray and the like is a much better guide to a nes itself then a review cooked up by someone else who may or may not have had any part of the nes, may have bias and may have personal disliking to the mod in question. At least with mod himself writing it the bias is already known, of course he is going to talk it up, but it still achieves the same result as everyone who thinks this is a fantastic idea is trying to achieve.

Not really. You can't exactly take a mod's statements about their own NES and then subtract a constant "self-talking up factor" to determine what the NES is really about. I'd much rather have a group of reviewers that are, on average, bias-neutral, than one reviewer who is definitely biased in one way or another. And, in any case, it's not like this would be a positive/negative review - as I advocate it, it would just be a way to determine what the NES's relative focuses are.

And for numerous reasons its actually better. It saves on arguments, it saves on headaches and most notably if someone after reading the overview by the mod and reading the nes decides that its not for them, they dont have to join, but it will provide information to those who do choose to join, what to ACTUALLY expect.

And how do they provide that information? In While We Wait? In the game thread itself? At the very least, discussion of the merits of various NESes should have a thread of their own, and that thread would need some sort of definite structure to it. It's not like reviewers need to be the only ones allowed to review a NES. It's just a matter of some respected members of the community having their own venue to talk about which NESes are built according to which basic design concepts.

On the mod's behalf then all they have to do is follow through on what they said they would do (within acceptable limitations given the unpredictable nature of nesing in general), which will actually provide some discipline to some of those mods who lack it and will also provide feedback on the proposed course of action.

What provides discipline and feedback is structured reviews and ratings. These things generally aren't self-imposed, but they could be opted out of, as you've said you'd rather do. I don't see what's so tyrannical here. Mods who don't mind being reviewed get reviewed. Mods that don't, don't.

 

[Sheep]

You're saying that a third party can't objectively rate a NES, but the mod himself can? That seems backwards.

And how do they provide that information? In While We Wait? In the game thread itself? At the very least, discussion of the merits of various NESes should have a thread of their own, and that thread would need some sort of definite structure to it. It's not like reviewers need to be the only ones allowed to review a NES. It's just a matter of some respected members of the community having their own venue to talk about which NESes are built according to which basic design concepts.

You would make a seperate thread for the mod reviews, in fact at least when you get the information from the mod, you know what to expect, so there would be no surprises about what type of nes they are signing up for.

Anything of a non-mod based review program I would not agree to and I know that a lot of the mods here would opt out of it also, making any such meassure null and void towards the effect you wish to do so.

 

[~Darkening~]

Okay. I'll bold it for you.

Posted by ~Darkening~
Meh. A percentage of the population is increasingly getting volatile, and instead of having logical reasons for such, it is more often than not something that doesn't even relate to the issue at hand of the discussion. Arguments that have nothing do with anything are brought up, doing little more than fanning the flames.

When something is brought up that has nothing to do with the conversation, that is unwarranted. I made no comment in that quote on personal attacks or anything aside from the few that are inserted in an argument. Attacks aside, I also mentioned the people who bring up old issues that are not at hand. That clear yet? Alright; I'll continue.

Posted by Symphony_D
So, when you were referring to people on this forum in general, myself included (since I am on one side), as using personal flaws and attacks and not using logic,

See? This is how you operate. First off, I didn't mention ANYONE. I dare you to try and prove that I ever referenced you in that post. I did not say that you only used personal attacks and avoided logic. I said when ever someone (yes- you included) resorted to inserting an attack in an argument, that was not logic.

Posted by Symphony_D
and you respond (with a personal attack), those two things are unrelated? I'm asking.

They are unrelated in the aspect that you attempted to catch me for. I was not in an argument with you. I am not bound to keeping attacks from my arguments when I am not in them. I'm going to try to streamline this for you:

Personal attacks in an argument do not make any point.
Personal attacks out of an argument makes the person look like a butt.

Like I said, I accept this. I am an ass. I don't like it, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. If you're going to attack me, I feel the justification to do such back. Aside that, we were not having an argument. I posted and you responded. That's the difference.

This is also unrelated to the idea of personal attacks as well? I'm asking. I don't want to fail again. I just want to know why when logical devices are used, for some reason they don't count. Maybe you can explain that to me?

No; It's not related. I said that when Sheep attempted to criticize you for something he was guilty of, I jumped on him. You attempted to use my words despite that you were guilty of such, and I responded much nicer than I did to Sheep. All I said was:

That aside, my comment was aimed at the ones (on both sides, seeing another comment that was posted) who point out personal flaws and attacks, and avoid keeping their words to the issue at hand.

You know what? Show me how I'm wrong. Show me where you don't bring up personal flaws in an argument. Do this and I'll apologize.