Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...

[Kaelik]

But as politics proves, that doesn't work either. Politicians are all about playing to a crowd and trying to sway them, but you don't see them going out there with super aggressive insults and constantly calling their opposition idiots. While they do point out flaws in their opponents policies/history they don't go to the levels of insulting here. This is because just throwing out a bunch of insults doesn't sway you support. Politicians have done plenty of research on what works and what doesn't and just going pure aggro insults on your opponent isn't an effective strategy. I don't care if you're trying to convince the other person or trying to influence an audience. It's not effective.

You are confused. Politicians are not trying to convince their constituents to agree with them on every policy. To do that for a majority of constituents in literally impossible. Republican Congress men are trying to get homophobes, sexists, racists, and fundies (but I repeat myself) to vote for them. But they are also trying to get libertarians and poor blue collar people who used to have factory jobs to vote for them, and they are also trying to get hispanic Catholics to vote for them. You don't do that by convincing all those people to be non racist Catholics, and you don't do it by convincing them all to be homophobic fundies. You convince them to vote for you by showing that you agree with them about some things (agree not convince because there is no reason to try to convince anyone of anything) and that you are the kind of nice guy who would totally care about their opinions on other issues, and would act with respect.

Politicians are not trying to convince people of positions, they are trying to convince people they are nice people. Of course they don't use effective methods for actually convincing people, they leave that to pundits and shit, and they try to show they are nice people.

[Zak S]

Zak S, why are you still here? It's clear you're not convincing anyone that you're right. So why stick around?

Again: a question I already answered--and asking it shows you aren't reading, I am not here to convince you of anything--I am here in case some poor soul from outside the forum stumbles on the Gaming Den and naively believes it isn't a den of snakes.

I am just here to fact-check you guys when you lie. And point out how disingenuous your "research" is.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I think Zak might have a scorching case of USI

[Mistborn]

Who knows, it might be possible to spread some important den concepts elsewhere, unless the goal is to keep the design concepts here an insular secret.

The problem is that shitmuffin is more representative of RPG fans then we'd like to admit. To the average RPG fan making decisions based on a sober understanding of the rules equivalent to racism or taunts about their dead lover and/or family member. Banning insults really does stifle debate about RPGs, because when you tell the average RPG fan that the rules of a game they like are bad they will feel like your are insulting them personally. Then the shit hits the fan and the mods ban the people they dislike. The absence of overt hostility from us isn't going to change this, because our ideas alone already cause the tribalistic fucks that populate RPG fandom flip our.

I think Zak might have a scorching case of USI

In one of the previous threads Frank web diagnosed Zak with narcissism and I'm inclined to agree with him.

[Dean]

It is extremely likely that he is a literal clinical narcissist. Ignoring even how easy it would be to assign his behavior to the 9 primary signs of narcissism he actually demonstrates a lot of the much lesser known behaviors of clinical narcissists like using legal or medical terms he doesn't understand which happened in this very thread, and being unable to recognize hypocritical behavior like how he told Kaelik that trolling on the internet was a crime that should be punished by the actual death of a person and then in a different thread told us he didn't care about the argument he was in and was basically just trolling.

He's fun to read though.

[Kaelik]

I do so because I see a lot of wasted talent in some posters here. some people here may have a good message, but they do everything possible to make sure that message won't get heard in a positive light and will convince the minimum number of people.

To very briefly address this, TGD is not most our first forums. We have all posted on other forums with hugbox mods. He have all followed the rules there. We have all watched those rules do absolutely nothing to make it easier to convince anyone of our ideas. We have all watched those rules, quite in fact, prevent us from conveying our disagreement with second parties to third parties. I personally was banned for telling someone to reread my post after they "subtly" called me a murderous psychopath for describing specifically the action of accruing combat bonuses from an in character perspective. What happened to them? No warning of any kind, continued posting for years.

When you say that if we were only nice it would somehow not be a problem and we could convince other people you are completely full of shit.

[Mistborn]

like how he told Kaelik that trolling on the internet was a crime that should be punished by the actual death of a person and then in a different thread told us he didn't care about the argument he was in and was basically just trolling.

I remember that

(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.

and then he has the nerve to call us a den of snakes

[Cyberzombie]

The problem is that shitmuffin is more representative of RPG fans then we'd like to admit. To the average RPG fan making decisions based on a sober understanding of the rules equivalent to racism or taunts about their dead lover and/or family member. Banning insults really does stifle debate about RPGs, because when you tell the average RPG fan that the rules of a game they like are bad they will feel like your are insulting them personally. Then the shit hits the fan and the mods ban the people they dislike. The absence of overt hostility from us isn't going to change this, because our ideas alone already cause the tribalistic fucks that populate RPG fandom flip our.

Banning insults to rules is bad for RPG debate. I hate the rule at the WotC forums where they actually restrict "edition warring", which basically equates to the idea that you can't say you think 4E sucked. That restricts discussion. Restricting people so they can't call others idiots or swear at them doesn't actually prevent any kind of debate. In fact it increases the ratio of meaningful debate versus insulting drivel.

And there are always going to be some people that are just never going to listen. There are still lots of people out there who believe in Creationism for instance, and discount evolution, regardless of how much evidence is brought forth, yet will blindly accept creationism without evidence because that's what they want to believe.

You'll never sway everyone to your side, but you'll sway more people being calm and civil rather than coming off as an ass. All the professions that actually try to convince people for a living know that. Being an asshole doesn't help.

[Kaelik]

All the professions that actually try to convince people for a living know that. Being an asshole doesn't help.

If only there were some sort of profession that tries to convince a third party as their actual profession...

Oh wait, there is, and you are wrong. Insulting your opponent is not always the right strategy, but it often is.

[fectin]

Restricting people so they can't call others idiots or swear at them doesn't actually prevent any kind of debate. In fact it increases the ratio of meaningful debate versus insulting drivel.

That's a nice theory, but the observed results don't back it up.


Also, supporting Kaelik's claim, here is an especially asinine letter whch benefits from asininity: (N quite SFW) http://totalfratmove.com/breaking-read- ... ff-a-roof/

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You'll never sway everyone to your side, but you'll sway more people being calm and civil rather than coming off as an ass. All the professions that actually try to convince people for a living know that. Being an asshole doesn't help.

It doesn't matter what the other person thinks or if you sway them. At all. All that matters is that you harass the other person into not saying certain things, their compliance is not needed.

Discussions work better when you stop addressing the other person's points and just pile on the insults until they stop.

[DSMatticus]

I think it's interesting that it takes a long time for Shitmuffin to get himself into full gish-gallop mode like he's in now.

It's not so much a matter of time as opportunity. Leress jumped into the conversation, and Zak immediately abandoned the argument that even though some people will hate fancy pants everyone loves a violin solo (and a bunch of other stupid, but I'm sticking to one point at a time because that is your best chance of shutting down a gish gallop) to instead start an argument with Leress about how rules aren't broken if there exist examples of people failing to take advantage of their brokenness. And when I pointed out that I've seen people play 3.5 fighters, reductio ad absurdum fighters are balanced, he just ignored me entirely to keep arguing with Leress (and later Kaelik and GnomeWorks and whoever else) on a bunch of different things.

He's doing exactly what I called him on on page 16, he just needed more people to argue with him about more things before it could be effective:

Aside to everyone still seriously trying to argue with Zak: you can't argue with Zak the way you're trying to. He's running a gish gallop of moved goalposts, strawmen, lies, and fallacies. And when you rebut him, he will just change the topic through cherrypicking or barely connected tangents (or straight up ignore it) and then come back to the exact same point later as though it hadn't been rebutted and demand you start the process of rebutting him all over again.

You are (collectively) trying to argue with him by addressing each individual piece of bullshit. Given that at each step of this iterative process there is more bullshit than the previous step AND that Zak S is in fact a bullshit necromancer who will reanimate his defeated arguments, the task you have set for yourself is impossible. You're doing nothing but letting Zak run around the battlefield until his "animate bulllshit" cooldown wears off and he can take you back to square one.

The best way to handle a gish gallop is to demonstrate that the person making it is not arguing in good faith. Instead of letting them make a bajillion arguments, pick an argument they've made and force them to defend it (and nothing else) until they destroy their own credibility with an insane/incoherent/deceitful defense or admit that they were wrong. Repeat for second, third, and nth arguments until it's obvious that the person in question has no credibility. I.e. stop taking his fucking bait and make him defend his shitty points until he can't anymore.

Actually, if you want to get technical, he's still doing what I called him on on page 17 of the Your Rule Sucks thread. Here's a fun little snippet:

You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

[a bunch of people point out that nat 1 failure on ability checks is not something ability checks have had in almost all (and likely actually all) published D&D rulesets]

Is there a point here? Are you suggesting we play R.A.W. ? LOL. I mean, seriously, I thought you were claiming to be a grown-up.

Remember how when he fucked up what prior restraint meant, he tried to lie his way out of admitting fault? It's not a new thing. There he is trying to mock virgil for fucking up the rules, and then when it was pointed out to him that he was actually the one who had fucked up the rules, apparently he meant his house rules all along. Which is obviously not true, because that would imply Zak is a One True Wayist asshole who thinks the only Real D&D(tm) is his D&D and he runs around the internet making fun of people who think D&D is anything else for not knowing the real rules he invented.

[Cyberzombie]

That's a nice theory, but the observed results don't back it up.

Also, supporting Kaelik's claim, here is an especially asinine letter whch benefits from asininity: (N quite SFW) http://totalfratmove.com/breaking-read- ... ff-a-roof/

That's not a letter that's going to convince people, it's a letter intended to bully.

And while bully tactics can achieve goals in silencing people, that's all it does. It's not going to get people to agree with your point of view, it's just trying to discourage freedom of speech by intimidation tactics. The KKK will probably tell you how effective burning crosses on black people's lawns is at scaring them and how many black voices they've silenced through bullying.

But it doesn't convince the masses, and it doesn't convince the individual. To most, it shows your position is weak, because you're not brave enough to stand on the merits of your case or the argument. Instead you must rely on silencing the other side with intimidation tactics. That's what the creationists do, they don't want evolution taught in schools because creationism falls apart when exposed to actual arguments.

Only weak arguments need to rely on silencing the opposition.

[fectin]

Yes, it's terrible how that lawyer was trying to convince someone to shut up and go away, and all he managed to do was convince them to shut up and go away. A clear failure of persuasion right there.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

And while bully tactics can achieve goals in silencing people, that's all that matters.

FTFY

[MGuy]

Wow. I remember posting in this thread on page 4 and coming back yesterday it took me about all this time to catch up. I was actually wondering if someone would put him on the spot to show his rules and Leress did it. It worked out exactly how I assumed it would straight up refusal. I'm going to bet, considering how bad his rulings have been so far, that seeing all his actual rules would be very interesting and while I do think that 'some' of his rules exist in some form his refusal to show them suggest (to me) that they might as well not exist. It has been quite a ride so far and I am almost surprised that Cyber at any point decided to stick his dick in the shit hit fan in order to defend some odd position about "Rules will never be perfect" and "concern trolling".

I'm glad that people have given intermittent breakdowns of the conversation because honestly, it does help. I am admittedly saddened that we will probably never get to see all of his rules. The breakdown of all his rules would be a far more entertaining read than the Zak that has continued to shoot himself in the foot over and over again.

[DSMatticus]

Cyberzombie's last post: "being mean to me on the internet is comparable to attempting to silence minorities through violent intimidation." What's next? "You know who else was mean to people on the internet? Hitler."

Exactly zero people are trying to silence you. Fuck you for pretending that disrespect is persecution. At this point, it would genuinely be ethically wrong to extend respect to you, because you are a shitty person who says shitty things. It is completely unacceptable to misappropriate condemnation of racism and there is no amount of scorn we could heap on you that would cross the line.

[Kaelik]

That's a nice theory, but the observed results don't back it up.

Also, supporting Kaelik's claim, here is an especially asinine letter whch benefits from asininity: (N quite SFW) http://totalfratmove.com/breaking-read- ... ff-a-roof/

That's not a letter that's going to convince people, it's a letter intended to bully.

Let me explain how it works since you are not a lawyer. That letter goes over all the relevant evidence especially as how it relates to the actual way the negligence is determined. That letter makes a convincing legal argument, and that convincing legal argument alone is nice, but the mean things he says are pretty much essential to that argument. The tone is slightly meaner than strictly necessary, but since he has to convince an opposing lawyer to convince a client to drop a suit, calling attention to the argument is in fact essential, because actually, we get like 30 of those things a fucking day and we skim most of them because we know what they are going to say. Writing like that probably helped his client a lot, and not because he bullied anyone. If the client never read that letter it would still serve it's purpose.

[Voss]

Oh good. Scare tactics about bullying. That'll class up the place.

[Krusk]

Zak. Question.

How would I play in a game similar to one you ran. Not one where you dm-ed, because I imagine you are far away, but one that was very similar from a players perspective.

[PhoneLobster]

How would I play in a game similar to one you ran. Not one where you dm-ed, because I imagine you are far away, but one that was very similar from a players perspective.

Read everything he has said on your internet. Put that information into your heart. But only some of it because parts have now been superceded.

Read everything in his totally real secret notebook put that in your secret notebook in your soul. But that is not everything because much of it requires question time and clarifications.

Read everything in his mind and put that in your brain. But not the trap options, because that makes you a terrible person who you will now need to kick out of your own game Justin Bieber style.

Read everything on the random pieces of paper lying around the houses of Justin Bieber and his close person friends. Put that in your... liver or something.

Finally and least imporantly buy his book and put that in your bookshelf. But never open it. Because cracking open rule books in game OR in advance has already been established to be BAD for that style of game.

Now you are ready to play D&D like Justin Bieber.

[Leress]

Okay, Zak I would like to see your entire skill resolution system that you use for your games? Since that is where to critique lies.

[Wiseman]

Zak S, why are you still here? It's clear you're not convincing anyone that you're right. So why stick around?

Again: a question I already answered--and asking it shows you aren't reading, I am not here to convince you of anything--I am here in case some poor soul from outside the forum stumbles on the Gaming Den and naively believes it isn't a den of snakes.

I am just here to fact-check you guys when you lie. And point out how disingenuous your "research" is.

[Archmage]

This thread is bananas. Can we go back to talking about bananas? That was the most insightful discussion happening here.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

This thread is bananas. Can we go back to talking about bananas? That was the most insightful discussion happening here.

So Archmage, do you like mmmmmmmmmm... bananas?