Shadzar Fallacy

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:21 am

I don't like Thing X, so Thing X should be made so I like it, and be able to say honestly 'I like Thing X'.

this may seem obvious how this is illogical, but often it is used to force a direction of design.

here are some reasons why this if a wrong statement:

1. Thing X isnt made for everyone to like.
2. Everybody doesnt have to like Thing X for Thing X to exist.

This fallacy is often used in RPGs, especially D&D even to design with.

The fact that an edition of a game can become stagnant, and the manufacturer needs to create a new product, does not excuse the use of this fallacy.

the manufacturing process that alters a design, does not support this fallacy.

________________________
discuss...

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:28 am

shadzar is english your first language

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:34 am

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

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:36 am

I don't understand. Are you invoking the Shadzar Fallacy on yourself?

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:42 am

No one take the bait. shadz is just making a last-ditch effort to get another thread focused on him. Go back to the IMHO forum. Good.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:45 am

I am so confused. No one who made 3e thinks that 2e doesn't exist, or that 2e absolutely must by the rules of logic be changed to 3e.

But just like I don't like the feeling of bleeding, so I don't stab myself, if someone gave me the power to change D&D, I would change it to be more like what I want. It's not a fallacy to do so, it's just something you do because you want the things you want.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:45 am

I think this thread is missing "does it exist" in the title.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:54 am

Wrathzog wrote:I don't understand. Are you invoking the Shadzar Fallacy on yourself?

no i just named it, unless it already exists named somewhere else.

but you see the claim often in context of people posting, and can see it in the birthing of edition wars.

when one side claims something didnt work so it needed to be changed for them, when in fact it really didnt. within D&D, they could always change it, nobody else needed to be forced into the same line of thinking to agree with them by changing it.

it can go ALL the way back to OD&D.

Bihlbo · Post by **Bihlbo** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:54 am

shadzar wrote:
I don't like Thing X, so Thing X should be made so I like it, and be able to say honestly 'I like Thing X'.

Sounds like socialists in America. There really are better places to live if you're into that.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:24 am

Bihlbo wrote:
shadzar wrote:
I don't like Thing X, so Thing X should be made so I like it, and be able to say honestly 'I like Thing X'.
Sounds like socialists in America. There really are better places to live if you're into that.

well more it seems there are people that think something being changed for them to like, means everyone else will just adopt to liking it as well, which isnt true.

there are people that judge a thing based on its own "virtues" rather than just because it is popular, or that a single other person likes it.

again, a reason it can be a cause for edition wars, the people using the fallacy to begin with.

it tries to objectify the subjective.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:30 am

still not a fallacy

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:40 am

to think in order for others to like something, you must also like it IS a fallacy.

but this isnt as general as that one.

would you prefer it worded thusly?

for others to like Thing X, I must also like Thing X

it loses the aspect of needing to change it to say it that way though.

the REASON behind the change is so that someone who doesn't like it, can like it.

thus, that is an illogical statement. it assumes everyone MUST agree with everyone else.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:43 am

Bihlbo wrote:
shadzar wrote:
I don't like Thing X, so Thing X should be made so I like it, and be able to say honestly 'I like Thing X'.
Sounds like socialists in America. There really are better places to live if you're into that.

Socialist nations tend to discourage immigration. Heavily. I'd love to move to Sweden, but there ain't no chance of that every happening.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:07 am

fectin wrote:still not a fallacy

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:11 am

Great, now name a single example of anyone ever believing or arguing that.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:17 am

Kaelik wrote:Great, now name a single example of anyone ever believing or arguing that.

Mike Mearls. (see Legends and Lore articles)
Bill Slavesik "D&D shouldnt be about this but that, and now that it is about that, I like it."

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:40 am

shadzar wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Great, now name a single example of anyone ever believing or arguing that.
Mike Mearls. (see Legends and Lore articles)
Bill Slavesik "D&D shouldnt be about this but that, and now that it is about that, I like it."

Neither of those is an example of people believing that no one else can like something they don't like. You have failed.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:43 am

and that isnt what the original post says either. a key part is the reason to change SO someone who doesnt like it, can like it.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:45 am

Wait, is shadzar actually so retarded that he needs someone to explicitly state, "I would prefer and would more enjoy if the following changes were enacted, but it is perfectly permissable for someone to prefer and enjoy the current state of affairs," every time a statement based on preference is made?

srsly?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:55 am

it isnt about how you want play, but how it is designed.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:23 am

how is this a fallacy

as in, "I like X, so I think D&D should be more like X, and that would make me want to play D&D more"

is that a fallacy

that is not a fallacy. that is my opinion.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:39 am

twisting words doesnt help...

"i think" is not present in the initial.

"should be made" is the concept.

what you are saying with just deals with an emotional reaction to Thing X.

the fallacy is dealing with saying Thing X MUST BE made for you to like it.

examp,es, one with a pre-existing alternative, and one without:

"I don't like the Prius. The Prius should be made more like the Volt, so I can like the Prius."

"I dont like the Prius. It should be changed, so I can like it."

both assume the person speaking somehow MUST like the Prius. This one person's view is what drives the design of the Prius.

IF it is the Prius manufacturing being told this by their boss, then that is business.

IF a customer is telling the Prius manufacturer this, while the Prius is selling quite well, then that single customer view has no meaning.

it looks at designing by probable vocal minority.

where it deals with edition wars, is the inherent concept. that a group couldnt like what was, so had to be changed for them...not the change effected will cause that focus to appear and be used to incite edition wars.

designing by virtue to get someone who doesnt like something to be able to like it, as opposed to designing it for its function.

it doesnt say that a washing machine with the opening on the bottom is functionally flawed at some level and should be redesigned to make it work.

it goes along more these lines:

"i dont like white washing machines, so washing machines should be made blue for me to like them."

that doesnt say an option to have a blue washing machines, but washing machines period, so that it becomes binary.

because someone or a few dont like white washing machines, it doesnt mean all washing machines should be made blue so they like them.

the fallacy was gnomes not a playable race in 4th.

the fallacy was recognized, and fixed when gnomes were added as a playable race.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:57 am

oh I think I see what shadzar is trying to communicate. basically he is saying that D&D shouldn't change for a vocal minority because he wants to preserve D&D's traditions, especially those aspects of D&D that aren't a mechanical mess. of course this isn't really a fallacy but in that jumbled mess of text there is a fragment of a cogent thought.

though I'm sure he's going to argue for THAC0 at some point

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:05 am

You've got it exactly right, PR, but what he doesn't realize is that argument, such as it is, works both ways; D&D shouldn't stay the same for a vocal minority, either. If THAC0 is better replaced by 3e's AC to most players, then it should be. The vocal minority does not get catered to, and by and large, the customer base and producers are both better off for it.

There is nothing inherently superior about the "original" or "old" design, so if D&D's owners feel like it could better serve its customers by changing said designs, it should, always.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:23 am

but a chair is a chair, while D&D isnt always D&D already....

how far can you remove a thing form its original, before it no longer resembles the original, and needs a new name?

Is Thing X, still Thing X at that point?

this has NOTHING to do with trademarks or copyrights either, they are moot.

a chair is a chair, and object made for a single person to sit on. though it has many variations shapes and designs, it remains what it is.

at what point does your obverse then no longer contain Thing X, or D&D?

when does a chair stop becoming a chair?

"i dont like a chair, it should be made for 3 people so i can like it."

when that was done, it was no longer called a chair, but a sofa, couch, whatever...

so how long should you hold onot a name for something that which the name no longer pertains to?

The Gaming Den

Shadzar Fallacy

Shadzar Fallacy

Re: Shadzar Fallacy

Re: Shadzar Fallacy

Re: Shadzar Fallacy