New low in argument styles

[Username17]

So in the "kvetching about The Wish and The Word" thread, someone argued that you can't get an item of Wish out of Wish because that would require it to supply the effect of Wish, which is a 9th level arcane spell and outside its ability to duplicate under the spell duplication provision.

Well, there's several things wrong with that. First, the item creation provision does not require that you meet any prereqs of the item except XP cost (and even then, not if it's a spel-like ability, but that's another story). Second, the spell duplication provision only limits the spell duplication provision - there's no 8th level spell that gives you a +1 inherent bonus to your stats, for example.

But the most obvious thing wrong with that line of argument is that by that line of reasoning Wish can't do anything, since to have any effect at all it would be performing the effect of Wish - which is a 9th level effect.

---

So I think that wins. Arguing that a spell can't do what it says because it says that it has the capability of reproducing a lower level spell and it is the same level as itself is the single dumbest argument I have ever read. Ever.

-Username17

[User3]

I think they may be too stupid to argue with.

Really.

How anyone can misinterprete a simple exclusion clause like "any one of the following" is quite beyond me.

[Username17]

You may be right. Anyone who comes out and says that there is a difference between "levels in a spellcasting class" and "caster levels" is probably beyond help.

I wonder what they think the wording o "Magic Missile" means?

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

1101337084[/unixtime]]

I wonder what they think the wording o "Magic Missile" means?

-Username17

Ooooh,, I'd love to get into an "it's an "OR" not an "XOR" argument about that last sentance, but the benefit of being able to retarget secondary missiles after finding that the primary target has SR is too trivial to bother.

[The_Hanged_Man]

I once gamed w/ a guy who claimed that Magic Missile was an AoE spell b/c of that 'other targets w/in so many feet' language. No lie. He doesn't post on the boards, though, AFAIK.

[Dragon_Child]

Lovely... now I (aka Chibi-Ryu) have two warns. Why? I said that Autumn was biased, stembolt should be banned, someone was a liar for making overly general statements, and, here's the kicker: for being mean to a guy who thinks the options of a Wish spell are related.

[User3]

I thought really hard about reporting stembolt, actually -- he went way over the top in terms of responding by attack rather than by argument. But I ultimately decided it wouldn't actually do any good. I suppose it was just as well, in retrospect -- I probably would have gotten a warn for it.

--d.

[Josh_Kablack]

1101874618[/unixtime]]Lovely... now I (aka Chibi-Ryu) have two warns. Why?

Trolling.



C'mon, it's not like you didn't see at least one warn coming.

[Dragon_Child]

Get this - I'M NOT TROLLING. Or rather, I wasn't warned for ANY of my troll posts. All of the ones I made on this subject were dead serious.

(BTW, PM Josh)

[Josh_Kablack]

Whoa- they didn't like get you for a "pattern of disruptive behavior" or something deserved like that..?

[Username17]

Heck, they got me for being "overly confrontational" and "having a bad attitude". Apparently you are overly confrontational if other people consistently argue with you, which basically just means that you make big points or unpopular ones, and back them up well.

So essentially, if your viewpoint is not popular with a certain segment of the WotC board, then you will get warnings about it, and eventually be banned. But don't worry, if you are willing to switch screen names, they are totally OK with you coming back again and again. So you can find a poster you don't like, make a fake name and get into an argument with him. If the guy in question isn't Iku Rex, Roxx or Tarkin (all of whom seem iimmune to banishment, no matter how often they go after people, apparently because they do so in the name of Skip Williams being incapable of doing wrong), you can get their screen name banished along with yours and go back to a screen name you care about and have calm discussions.

By maintaining a small fleet of alternate personas to post under while you are angry, you can get away with anything. You just have to be willing to be dishonest, and they are cool with that. They even encourage it. More than once they have reminded me that I'm able to come back any time I want to as long as I don't admit my connection to my old name - which just happens to be my actual name.

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Pssht.

Now. I may do several things that ruin any sort of credibility that I may earn, but at the very least I don't stopp to such things. When I insult someone, I want them to know that it's me insulting them.

[Naar]

All this internet drama is hilarious; it reminds me of why I stopped reading the Wizards boards in the first place.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Well, if you don't wish to participate, you don't have to. No one is forcing you to read these threads, so can your high and mighty attitude.

[MrWaeseL]

nevermind.

[Naar]

If you're talking to me, Count Arioch, I'm on your side (and a little puzzled by your comment). I was referring to the reaction on the Wizards boards. Thanks for making my work days more fun, Frank and K.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

In that case, I apologize. I misunderstood you, and assumed you were talking to me. Sorry about that.

[Zherog]

1101882368[/unixtime]]So essentially, if your viewpoint is not popular with a certain segment of the WotC board, then you will get warnings about it, and eventually be banned. But don't worry, if you are willing to switch screen names, they are totally OK with you coming back again and again. So you can find a poster you don't like, make a fake name and get into an argument with him. If the guy in question isn't Iku Rex, Roxx or Tarkin (all of whom seem iimmune to banishment, no matter how often they go after people, apparently because they do so in the name of Skip Williams being incapable of doing wrong), you can get their screen name banished along with yours and go back to a screen name you care about and have calm discussions.

By maintaining a small fleet of alternate personas to post under while you are angry, you can get away with anything. You just have to be willing to be dishonest, and they are cool with that. They even encourage it. More than once they have reminded me that I'm able to come back any time I want to as long as I don't admit my connection to my old name - which just happens to be my actual name.

-Username17

It's my understanding that this is no longer true, actually. Supposedly, when you get a warning now it applies to all of your screen names - the one that "got in trouble" and all the others. They made the change for exactly this reason.

[User3]

Heck, they got me for being "overly confrontational" and "having a bad attitude". Apparently you are overly confrontational if other people consistently argue with you, which basically just means that you make big points or unpopular ones, and back them up well.

Frank, regardless of whether you were right or wrong in the old WotC board threads, you did consistently write in an anti-social, rude, and inflammatory way. Your legacy at the WotC boards is as memorable for that as is your sagacious and creative rules knowledge. Had you chose a more appropriate and clever method of social decorum, you may never have been banned ... or alternately your legacy would be more remembered for your numerous strong points than for your confrontational tantrums.

Keep in mind, I'm a fan of yours.

[Username17]

It's my understanding that this is no longer true, actually. Supposedly, when you get a warning now it applies to all of your screen names - the one that "got in trouble" and all the others. They made the change for exactly this reason.

Holy crap. That was fast. Really fast. As of yesterday, the official line was exactly the same as it was when I was a poster there.

You're invited to continue the conversation (through other people as you're doing now) in your own ways. Or, if you make a new screen name and no one checks to see if it's you, you could exlemplfy these issues yourself. I can only do so much myself.

-Username17

[Zherog]

I don't see how the two points conflict. I said when you receive a warning, it counts against all your existing screen names - not just the one that earned the warning. Autumn is saying that you (as the "owner" of a banned screen name) are free to create a new account.

Members who have been banned have (generally) always been able to re-register with a new name - with the caveat that they cannot identify themselves.

So, you are free to go to WotC right now and create an account with the name F.T. You can't, however, have a sig that says, "Yo! I'm Frank, and I'm back!"

If you would like, I can talk to some wizo's I know and see if this info is correct. I'm thinking it's an excercise in futility, though, since you have (on numerous occassions) indicted you have no desire to return to the WotC boards.

[Username17]

Members who have been banned have (generally) always been able to re-register with a new name - with the caveat that they cannot identify themselves.

I understand that this is a concession to the realities of the internet. They can't stop you from doing that, since you could just create a redirect account and create a new board account. If you never said "I am So and So", they'd never know. So to an extent, it is pointless to try to make that against the rules, because they couldn't do anything about it even if it was.

But that's not the point. Making immoral behavior legal because you can't stop it is like sending the Sudanese Genocidaires candy because you lack the resources to put an end to it. Encouraging people to post from FakeName@redirect.com is not a good idea, even if you couldn't stop them from doing it. They are encouraging spammer tactics.

Sure, you could pull that sort of thing on this board as well, but we don't tell people to do it to us.

I said when you receive a warning, it counts against all your existing screen names - not just the one that earned the warning.

But by the same logic that created the abilty to make infinite restarts - they can't enforce that. A fake name, is, well, a fake name. They have no ability to track it once it's outside the system. I could make a new account even if it was against the rules - simply because my email is now at ucsc.edu instead of cruzio.com.

It doesn't make any sense to tell people to use spammer tactics with one breath and then pretend t try to stop them with the other - once you've let that genie out of the bottle they can't even find you anymore.

-Username17

[Zherog]

That's very true - you can take steps to make your new account (or your MuP) look like it doesn't belong to your "main" account. So let me rephrase what I said...

When you receive a warning, that warning now applies to all accounts that share that e-mail address.

Further, continued abuse of the, "you are free to create a new account" rule will result in an IP ban. Now, of course, there's ways around that, too.

[Maj]

IP bans are dangerous because there are often multiple people who use the same sets of them. The AOL network, for example, often recycles the same sets of IP addresses among its users, so when I went to IP ban a spambot on Nifty, I ended up banning at least five of the posters there because they were on the same network.

The same thing has happened with my eMail address - some schmuck got my IP banned so I can't send eMail to certain people unless I route it through my majik.be server.

IP bans are tough to manage [well]. They seem to work best as a threat rather than an actuality.