Someone explain the appeal of Old Man Henderson?

[Mistborn]

Dean I think just you crossed the line from amusing hyperbole to cringeworthy nerdrage, and this is coming from Lord "your irony meter just exploded" Mistborn.

[Zak S]

Now sure I -could- ask you to write out a complete version of your social trading rules which you obviously can't do.

"But addressing your points is hard and I am very stupid. I would rather hurl random insults and/or simply abstractly declare victory."

While it is legal for you to be stupid and to mask your stupidity with blind rage and misdirected attempts at wit it is not advisable. Your presumed goal of knowing more about games is not served by it.

I could point out that your rulings were to be judged by Phonelobster and failed AMAZINGLY by the only metric he chose and thus were failures in the eyes of the person you were exclusively providing the ruling for.

Again, to answer by way of cutting and pasting things you allege to have already read:

If you've read anything I wrote up until this point you'll know as a dead certainty that the entire benefit and point of a ruling is it provides local (as opposed to centralized) control over the game. If PL's request had been "satisfy me, the phonelobster, with no test at the table" I would have told him, straight up, that since I don't play with him I couldn't do that.

If PL were to ask for a ruling that PhoneLobster and random Gaming Den jackals would like… then that would have been a different task. And one that would stretch the definition of ruling, since we aren't in a game together and I have no grounds to judge the situation.

There's a greater point here, thought, which was What in god's name does anybody think that proves anyway? I made a rule and it works but you don't like it because of obscure objections. Therefore…what? You've succeeded only in proving a basic premise behind rulings--that different groups want different outcomes. NOT that my rule does not provide the outcome I designed it to provide.

A game where a player is not necessarily always rewarded with in-game currency for their character being altruistic is desirable to me (and does not violate lobster's request as stated) and would seem to underscore the point of altruism and at least at every table I play at (the only ones I could make a ruling for) wouldn't stop players from behaving altruistically (references available upon request).

If that isn't a way of dealing with morality in game that you like then that's a taste issue your table needs a different set of rules than mine. That's all you've proved. You haven't proved I'm dumb or irrational or bad at making rulings, just that I'm not you. Which I never claimed to be.

[Dean]

Dean I think just you crossed the line from amusing hyperbole to cringeworthy nerdrage

well my group liked it so unless you want to call them on the phone I think you should apologize

[Ancient History]

No - it is only proof that it works for your sample group, who may or may not have an eye to trying to exploit it yet. But let me try and explain this from the perspective of your third point.

They are not a "sample" they are the target (and only audience). If they were a sample group then your ideas would hold water but they aren't so they don't.

Type whether you grasp this distinction or not.

If your home group is the sole intended audience, then:

1) Why did you publish the rules?

2) Why are you having a shitting fit over people tearing them apart?

If you're happy with how they work, then just ignore everyone when they explain why they don't work. Don't try to justify why they work for your group and no one else's if you don't give a fuck about it.

You have just given the entire justification for using at-the-table house rules over published rules. You are making my argument. what fits one group may not fit another.

And hey, if it works for you I am happy you are happy. But it doesn't mean that the rules are objectively good. Which brings us to the next point.

One tiny moving part here-- "objectively" is (when properly used) a measure of whether a game rule matches the designer's purpose for the designer's audience. That can be evaluated

No. We're going for adjective definitions 3 & 4. The whole thing about rules is that you cannot know the designer's intention, you can only see the rules that they have written, and evaluate by the math whether or not they work. Your goal as a designer is not something that comes into consideration. If it works for you and does what it needs to for you, that is great but I can't know that; I can only see whether or not it works, period.

I think any time you publish a rule or game material, whether it be in a book or "official" gaming product or a blog or a forum post you're writing to a given audience that larger than you and your mates. You don't have to write a rule or material that works for everybody, but you should try to at least make it as mechanically correct as you can and usable by the intended audience.

When you ask for no money your "intended audience" only has to be "people who are like me". It is only when you ask for money from people that you are under an obligation to provide things for them you yourself might not need.

You don't owe your audience anything; this is true. However, neither do they owe you anything. Which again begs the question: if this is just material for your group, internal to you, then why argue it?

Correct me if I'm wrong here: you made up some homebrewed material (as ya do); you decided to share them with the world through your blog (as ya do); people took a look at those rules (you have a very nice blog, btw), and then tore them apart because they disagreed...and you came along and started complaining about it and claiming people were lying about you and what you'd said.

I can understand that you don't want to be misrepresented on the internet, but let's cut to the chase: many people on this forum think your social rules are flawed as written, and your defense of that is (I'm paraphrasing) that it works for your group and that's the sum total of the people you mean for it to work for, so you don't care.

And I accept that is true! I accept that it probably does work well for your group and they probably have a lot of fun with it and I am glad for them and for you for that. But it doesn't change the fact that very many people disagree with the rules you have written, they feel that there are mechanical flaws to it, and you haven't addressed those mechanical flaws in anything like enough detail to prove that they work. That it works for your group is not a proof that it works, just as an engineering "eh, it fits" isn't a mathematical proof. I can have a million apples hit me in the head and that doesn't prove gravity, but I can write an equation for an apple hitting me in the head and we can objectively evaluate whether or not the equation does a good job of describing the observed behavior. And all that game design amounts to is doing that in reverse; writing down the rules and then seeing if the results work out like we want them to.

However incorrect your objections are, they do have the virtue of being relatively new and not idiotic, so I am going to thank you for that and add these answers to the Big Repeating Stuff I Already Said post.

While I appreciate that, the reason you're getting called quite so many names on this forum is because nothing I've said really is new, I'm just trying to phrase it in a different way so you can maybe understand where we're coming from and why your particular behavior is not making your point.

[Zak S]

If your home group is the sole intended audience, then:

1) Why did you publish the rules?

In which case are you discussing? If you're asking about phonelobster's challenge this can (again) be answered with reference to something I just wrote and you theoretically just read all about:

" My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort. "

Phonelobster lied, I corrected him. The rules are not intended to be used by people who won't benefit from them in this context, merely to demonstrate that, yeah, I have the same ability to make rulings that most halfway decent GMs have.

2) Why are you having a shitting fit over people tearing them apart?

" My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort. "

If you're happy with how they work, then just ignore everyone when they explain why they don't work. Don't try to justify why they work for your group and no one else's if you don't give a fuck about it.

If someone says "these don't work for me" and it's size S and they're size XXL that's a true statement. Like "this suit doesn't fit me.

If someone says "this doesn't fit people" and it's size S, they are lying. Objectively.

I can only see whether or not it works, period.

I was merely trying to figure what "objectively good" could possibly mean to you here.

What does that mean to you then? If a rule leads to an outcome regularly and that outcome is desirable to some of the audience and undesirable to the other side of the audience what (and this is not a rhetorical question) is your diagnostic for if it's "good" or not?

if this is just material for your group, internal to you, then why argue it?

Every time someone says "it doesn't work" they are lying. That means someone who knows nothing either way but wants to learn about games might inadvertently come here and (in honest ignorance) believe it. Because it's stated as fact. That's a bad outcome.

Correct me if I'm wrong here: you made up some homebrewed material (as ya do); you decided to share them with the world through your blog (as ya do); people took a look at those rules (you have a very nice blog, btw), and then tore them apart because they disagreed...and you came along and started complaining about it and claiming people were lying about you and what you'd said.

Incorrect: someone read a description of a small part of what I do at my table, misdescribed it, I corrected them for the benefit of the above-decribed naive reader.

I can understand that you don't want to be misrepresented on the internet, but let's cut to the chase: many people on this forum think your social rules are flawed as written, and your defense of that is (I'm paraphrasing) that it works for your group and that's the sum total of the people you mean for it to work for, so you don't care.

Incorrect--my argument is:
1. Their judgment is suspect because when obvious logical fallacies were pointed out in their arguments (like: Superman) they didn't even acknowledge them.
2. You can't say they're "flawed" if they do everything they are meant to do. Which they do.
3. I do care what they write because I've met a lot of cool, interesting people on the web talking about games and that conversation is interesting, but they often find these conversations long after they've concluded and trace back the people involved so allowing a lie about how a game I run to stand gets in the way of that process. So they should not lie. when they say the rule "doesn't work" it's like saying a tailor makes suits that don't fit.

Again this revolves on people pretending their opinion is fact. It is an objective fact that there are "trap" options (mechanically identical but inferior) options in certain games. It is a lie that the rule I provided when asked "doesn't work". It is an opinion that someone doesn't like a given (predicted) outcome of that rule or think it's fun.

they feel that there are mechanical flaws to it, and you haven't addressed those mechanical flaws in anything like enough detail to prove that they work.

If there is a single mechanical objection I have not covered nobody has seen fit to type out what that is. I, in fact, made every effort to address every single objection, even the dumb ones.

If you see a missing one type that now.

What really happened is the mechanical objections people did make (superman, apples, etc) were so easily explained that they probably got embarrassed that they'd made them and stopped typing and just assumed that somewhere in the barrage of (mostly repetitive) objections other people made that there was something somewhere that stuck. But there wasn't. If you see an objection that stands, name it.

My rule failed to please phonelobster--but it did what he asked me to do. If he wanted a different rule he could ask again more clearly rather than pretend that I have lost the argument by saying I failed to meet secret requirements.

That it works for your group is not a proof that it works

Incorrect and unrigorous thinking:

That it works for my group is proof that it works for my group--as that was it's remit.

That it works for my group is not proof that it works for all groups.

If you have a third definition of "works" then type what that is now and do not use abstractions like "isn't clunky".

If "works" means "trolls on the Gaming Den can't think of imaginary inconsistencies that can be brushed away like cobwebs" that's not workable.

If "works" means "for most people" no RPG has ever worked (RPGs are not popular).

If "works" means "for most players of RPGs" then that's just the Left-Handed scissors argument.

If "works" means it "leads to outcomes everyone thinks are fun" then no rule works.

So what, by you, does "works" mean? (Again: not a rhetorical question.)

Because to me, "works" means (narrowly) "It does the thing I designed it to do and that thing is fun" (preferably better than known alternatives) or (widely) "it does anything that any group anywhere wants done, whether or not that was intended, and that thing is fun" (preferably better than known alternatives).

As for the rest of what you say: the typical case of Forum Veteran Bias where people who are repeatedly, objectively, checkably incorrect are trusted over newbies who provide facts to back up what they say is hardly worth pointing out.

[Red_Rob]

*Sigh*

I know I'm just inviting a multiquote tl:dr extravaganza, but what the hell.

Zak did actually reveal why his system works for him; his players are very undemanding when it comes to rules. ... -snip- .... And if they do notice a rule produces screwy results they aren't really bothered enough to mention it.

You're lying: I never said that. Also: your assertion that nobody ever notices "screwy results" is a guess based on your (incorrect) assumptions. Do not dream up imaginary scenarios and then posit them as fact.

On the (again) very first page that this came up, Red Rob:

... -snip- ...
-the players can appeal--and, in my local case--this never results in arguments or fights . If discussion of new rules does result in fights at your table, then maybe you need a heavier ruleset.

The fact that you ignored something so central to the conversation should bother you and make you question why you're so lazy and dumb. Then you should now type something like "Oh, my bad, I'm a terrible fucking person and piled on for no good reason, I will try to be better in the future".

No Zak, I didn't say your group couldn't complain about your rulings like you were some iron fisted tyrant, I said they couldn't be assed to. Having watched a few of your videos I can say that your group environment is not exactly a crucible of game design where every flawed mechanic is cross-examined for long term stability. So it is no wonder that rulings that hold up fine under that kind of scrutiny wither and die when subjected to the considered opinion of a couple dozen math nerds and optimisers.

We get that your group is happy with your "eyeball a number, looks okay at a glance" ad hoc rulings, we just don't agree that they are suitable for public consumption.

[Zak S]

No Zak, I didn't say your group couldn't complain about your rulings like you were some iron fisted tyrant, I said they couldn't be assed to.

First and most obvious mistake. I said:

... -snip- ...
-the players can appeal--and, in my local case--this never results in arguments or fights . If discussion of new rules does result in fights at your table, then maybe you need a heavier ruleset.

I guess (in order to make this clear to you) I should have written "and, in my local case, when this happens, which it does, Red Rob, these disagreements occur, Rob, it never results…" although I figured the fact that these moments of disagreement which do not erupt into fights actually occurred was implied in the sentence.

So you are wrong in saying "they couldn't be assed to". Stop lying on the internet. Or making dumb guesses backed up by nothing.

Having watched a few of your videos I can say that your group environment is not exactly a crucible of game design where every flawed mechanic is cross-examined for long term stability.

More obvious objections:

1. Videos of some of my players playing. And how many years ago was that? So they've not only become more familiar with the game, but we've all gotten a chance to see what the long-term effects are because we've been running the same campaign continuously since those videos. It's not like they don't complain when something gets annoying or like they haven't gotten to play with anyone else besides me running the game. Even if they don't want to explain why they don't like an outcome, I'd know the undesired outcome is there.

2. Name a rule you saw that you think doesn't work. Don't abstractly gesture toward it and pretend it's there.

3. Even then you might still have a point if someone were proposing a different system that would work better for our group, too. But they aren't. There are costs to every other way of doing things, enumerated above. If a system only works better when your players aren't like my players, it cannot be said to be in any way superior to the one that works for us, merely different.

So it is no wonder that rulings that hold up fine under that kind of scrutiny wither and die when subjected to the considered opinion of a couple dozen math nerds and optimisers.

First: it didn't "wither and die". Every objection was met. If it was not name the actual objection you have. It's grotesquely disgustingly intellectually dishonest to claim there are flaws you can't even name.

Second: if you think my game doesn't stand up to math nerds and optimizers, you clearly keep forgetting about the online game. I play with tournament-winning optimizers and people who work for the game companies and people who wank about D&D math all day long on their blogs.

(And of course, even if I didn't: a thing is not "broken" just because some people outside the target audience would rather play a game where the setting is more optimistic than mine. That's like saying someone failed to paint something because a math nerd likes blue and it's orange. The fact that you are a math nerd does not make your taste better, it makes your judgment of math better--and nobody's raised any plausible objection to the math.)


So wrong on both counts. Now you go "Wow, I was dumb to assume all that, I withdraw everything I just said. Rather than pretend I see mechanical flaws, next time I actually try to point one out before I shoot off my big mouth".

You have failed utterly. Try harder.

We get that your group is happy with your "eyeball a number, looks okay at a glance" ad hoc rulings, we just don't agree that they are suitable for public consumption.

Two lies here:

1. People aren't saying "this rule doesn't fit them" or "it doesn't fit most people" they're saying "it doesn't work". This is a lie. You may not subscribe to that lie, but many here have said that: they are wrong, and lying.

2. Public consumption is irrelevant here. I never said "Most players, no matter how stupid, will be able to use these rules" any more than I would claim that for left handed scissors. I said "These left-handed scissors work". That's it. They are fit for anyone left-handed in the public.

[Mistborn]

First: it didn't "wither and die". Every objection was met. If it was not name the actual objection you have. It's grotesquely disgustingly intellectually dishonest to claim there are flaws you can't even name.

If every objection was met then why are you incessantly bleating about how unfair we're being by applying real standards to your output. Probaly because you haven't met any of the objections to your system. The whole reason a social currency system would exist is to throw a bone to altruistic PCs and your system by your own admission does literally the opposite of that.

[Zak S]

If every objection was met then why are you incessantly bleating about how unfair we're being by applying real standards to your output.

Name the "real standard" you're applying.

The whole reason a social currency system would exist is to throw a bone to altruistic PCs

If that was part of the remit then phonelobster failed to articulate that in his challenge. Here it is:

Some people around here want a "Social Currency" system. A way of representing and recording gratitude, fear, and honorable debts.

Stated requirements include that in the event of gathering large amounts of "Fear Currency" by winning a war that a bunch of high level characters can give it to a 1st level Herald and he can go make the high level enemy generals surrender by cashing it in.

However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom.

So, you are wrong. Address that or do not write anything again

and your system by your own admission does literally the opposite of that.

That is a lie. Quote me saying it does the "opposite". It in no way does the opposite--it rewards altruism frequently. To quote what I just wrote:

-"it doesn't reward altruism" (a lie--actually it very often does in every situation except a single edge case where it doesn't--when a potential patron of the PCs is 100% totally sure they will never ever need the PCs to save the world they live in or their continued good will for any reason and is 100% they'll never see them again and nobody is watching.)

So here you are Mistborn, having lied openly in a public forum. I understand that because this is the internet there are no consequences for you in your real life, but it is strange that nobody goes "Wow, what a tremendous fuck, stop talking. Everything you say is shit."

Why is anyone putting up with your bullshit?

[Mistborn]

Why is anyone putting up with your bullshit?

Mostly because you make me look good by comparison.

Also a system where mercenary PC have a better guarantee of rewards does not "throw a bone" to the altruist PC. How do you not get that, the whole point of that system is the mercenary gets paid(in cash) and the party paladin at least gets some intangible social credit. This has been explained to you like a billion times.

[Zak S]

Also a system where mercenary PC have a better guarantee of rewards does not "throw a bone" to the altruist PC.

I just addressed this, completely. To re-post what you failed to read the first time:

MISTBORN: "
The whole reason a social currency system would exist is to throw a bone to altruistic PCs"

"

ZAK:
"
If that was part of the remit then phonelobster failed to articulate that in his challenge. Here it is: "

"
Some people around here want a "Social Currency" system. A way of representing and recording gratitude, fear, and honorable debts.

Stated requirements include that in the event of gathering large amounts of "Fear Currency" by winning a war that a bunch of high level characters can give it to a 1st level Herald and he can go make the high level enemy generals surrender by cashing it in.

However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom.
"

I addressed the challenge given, not the one you imagine was given.

Again: you have failed a grotesquely simple test of logic.

[Ancient History]

Okay, I'm skipping a few quotes because I think we need to get to the heart of the matter here and I'm having to do a lot of digging to find the links to this shit.

If someone says "these don't work for me" and it's size S and they're size XXL that's a true statement. Like "this suit doesn't fit me.

If someone says "this doesn't fit people" and it's size S, they are lying. Objectively.

You're assuming here that the rules are able to be evaluated by a given metric. For example, some groups like True20, other groups like OGL d20, some groups like BRP or GURPS. Insofar as these are all rulesets that may or may not match the style of a given group better than others, it is a true statement to say that just because your group doesn't use rules X doesn't mean rules X doesn't work.

The issue is less about size than, well, if the shirt unravels when you pull a thread, or if it has three arm holes. Which brings us to the next point:

I can only see whether or not it works, period.

I was merely trying to figure what "objectively good" could possibly mean.

What does that mean to you then? If a rule leads to an outcome regularly and that outcome is desirable to some of the audience and undesirable to the other side of the audience what (and this is not a rhetorical question) is your diagnostic for if it's "good" or not?

The objective evaluation of a rule generally has to do on whether it is functional (i.e. does it work?) and whether it is broken (i.e. does it do something that upsets the game, such as given a character an overwhelming advantage). I'm not going into great detail here because honestly, I am not great at finding loopholes in the rules.

But let's consider the skill system for the d20 System Reference Document. The basics are pretty straightforward: you have X ranks in a skill, you roll d20 and add your X ranks and Y bonus points against a variable target number Z, and if d20 + X + Y > Z, you succeed! Otherwise, you fail. So on the surface, it looks very functional, but there are some complications. For example, your skill ranks are capped by class and level, so that restricts your possible range of achievable target numbers somewhat; and especially at low levels the d20 roll is a very large variable compared to your skill ranks and bonuses. However, there is no (or relatively limited) cap on bonuses, and with the correct build a character at relatively low levels can reach very high target numbers without relying on the luck of the dice. This itself isn't necessarily broken...until you get to a skill like diplomacy. Diplomacy has static TNs, and while they are large, they are not so large as to be outside the effective range of a character that specializes in Diplomacy. The effect being that a character built in that specific way can literally talk their way out of almost any situation...including convincing Monsieur Dragon that he doesn't want to eat you, and instead wants to be your new best friend and fuck-buddy.

Now, that may or may not have been the intent of the designer; we don't know. It might have been a mistake or an overlook or the result of multiple designers not paying attention; it could have been the plan from the beginning. But the long and the short of it is that there is potential for a character to use this rules system to effectively break the game. It won't happen at every table, and maybe a gamemaster will see it happen once and then institute a ruling so that it never happens again, but it can objectively be called bad game design that such a flawed system made it into the game.

if this is just material for your group, internal to you, then why argue it?

Every time someone says "it doesn't work" they are lying.

No. But it does say that whomever it is has looked at the system and either determined it doesn't work, or can't figure out a way to make it work. You might argue the first and you might clarify for the second.

A lot of the time when people at the Den say "it doesn't work," they literally mean that it is unlikely and perhaps impossible to play the rules as written, and people don't. One of the standard examples of this were Matrix Perception Tests in Shadowrun 4th edition; according to the rules you were supposed to make a separate dice-roll for each icon in the node with you...and there could be potentially hundreds of icons. It was very clear even reading the Matrix playthroughs that the people who wrote the rules didn't follow them slavishly, but ignored the ones that they couldn't be arsed with. That is fine for people to do at their table, but it is considered objectively bad to write a bunch of rules that people can't follow.

Incorrect: someone read a description of a small part of what I do at my table, misdescribed it, I corrected them for the benefit of the above-decribed naive reader.

Okay, this goes back to here.

The crux that I believe Archmage was getting at is effectively similar to the D20 Diplomancy issue in effect earlier; the mechanics aren't the same, but the basic result - the possibility of gamebreaking if the rule was abused (coupled with the inherent vagueness or subjectivity that Magical Tea Party thread was implying). He maybe didn't phrase it in terms of numbers and dice rolls, but it's still just a straight critique that came from an understandable place. I mean, look at the portion of the post he originally quoted:

That means Clarence is gonna start saying Yes if he isn't already: Do 20s do double damage? Yes. Does that stack with my strength bonus? Yes. Does it stack with my magic sword bonus? Yes. Is this a magic sword? Yes. If I get extra attacks per round can I decide after the first attack who the target of the second attack is? Yes. Can I trip him with just a to-hit roll against dex? Yes. Disarm? Yes. Fighting retreat? Yes. Keep holding this rope with no save even though I just got hit by a fireball? Yes. Can I tell about how many hit points he has? Yes. Can I carry that while I do that? Yes. Do I get a bonus because I'm on a horse? Yes. Do I get a bonus because they're already fighting someone? Yes. Do the troops believe me? Yes. Will they follow me? Yes. Did I intimidate the palace guard? Yes. Can I keep the wizard from casting a spell if I hit him this round? Yes. In every case: if the answer wasn't already yes, it is now. Because you're a goddamn 5th level fighter, ok?

...and then you come along and post:

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

Well given the number of times you posted 'Yes' in the original blogpost, I can sort of forgive Archmage for having that concern. Maybe he misunderstood what you were driving at and maybe he didn't, but that's more of an issue where you could have clarified the original blogpost better. I really think the crux of the issue is later when for some reason the argument moved to the definition and use of the term "magical tea party," and then back around to some social system rules. Which led us to:

Incorrect--my argument is:
1. Their judgment is suspect because when obvious logical fallacies were pointed out in their arguments (like: Superman) they didn't even acknowledge them.
2. You can't say they're "flawed" if they do everything they are meant to do.
3. I do care what they write because I've met a lot of cool, interesting people on the web talking about games and that conversation is interesting, but they often find these conversations long after they've concluded and trace back the people involved so allowing a lie about how a game I run to stand gets in the way of that process.

Again this revolves on people pretending their opinion is fact. It is an objective fact that there are "trap" options (mechanically identical but inferior) options in certain games. It is a lie that the rule I provided when asked "doesn't work". It is an opinion that someone doesn't like a given outcome of that rule.

We can argue the design philosophy of trap options if you really want to, but what it breaks down to is that you have two or more options and one is either objectively better or one is objectively worse than the others. I don't know if that's what you really want to discuss in this context, because it's not really supporting your point.

As to the rest...well, the Superman bit comes in twenty-three pages later. We can walk back through it if you really want to, but the thing is that the Superman example wasn't a logical fallacy. The issue Frank in particular was trying to hammer home is that the system isn't particularly suitable for most roleplaying games on its face, and in particular doesn't provide a sufficiently large incentive for many players to use it. Again, that's not lying, that's not even misinterpreting; that's just an honest critique.

And this isn't new ground we're going over.

they feel that there are mechanical flaws to it, and you haven't addressed those mechanical flaws in anything like enough detail to prove that they work.

If there is a single mechanical objection I have not covered nobody has seen fit to type out what that is. I, in fact, made every effort to address every single objection, even the dumb ones.

Well, you did do an example of no gratitude for Superman, and I'd like to go into that in more depth, but honestly I can't find the link to your original rules.

That it works for your group is not a proof that it works

Incorrect and unrigorous thinking:

That it works for my group is proof that it works for my group--as that was it's remit.

That it works for my group is not proof that it works for all groups.

If you have a third definition of "works" then type what that is now and do not use abstractions like "isn't clunky".

You're trying to argue that "if it is true in one case, then it is true in at least one case." It's the old one black sheep in Scotland joke, and that comes down to statistics, not elementary logic. This is where the issue of sample size comes in; you have a sample size of one group. That group uses the rule, the rule works for that one group. As far as you are concerned, all you care about is that one group, so the rule works 100% of the time for you. Key words there for you. The issue is that when you increase the sample size, gather more data points - in this case, the reactions and estimations of the Denners - the rule doesn't appear to work that often. It works for you, but there's not a lot of indication that it would work for anybody else. If there were a hundred other groups in the world and they all tried to use the rule and 99 of them had trouble with it, would you still claim that your rule worked and was good because it worked in at least one case?

If "works" means "trolls on the Gaming Den can't think of imaginary inconsistencies that can be brushed away like cobwebs" that's not workable.

If "works" means "for most people" no RPG has ever worked (RPGs are not popular).

If "works" means "for most players of RPGs" then that's just the Left-Handed scissors argument.

If "works" means it "leads to outcomes everyone thinks are fun" then no rule works.

So what, by you, does "works" mean? (Again: not a rhetorical question.)

Because to me, "works" means (narrowly) "It does the thing I designed it to do and that thing is fun" or (widely) "it does anything that any group anywhere wants done, whether or not that was intended, and that thing is fun".

For me, when I make rules, I want the rules to function as often as possible among the audience that will use them, without the need for modification. Ideally I want that to be 100% of the players 100% of the time. But really, I'll settle on 90% of the players 90% of the time, with the rest left to unusual and unforeseen circumstances (these are rough limits, you understand, not hard limits). Sure, players and game masters will probably modify them anyway, but I'd like it to be because they're being creative rather than "This rule isn't working quite right, let's patch it."

For your, since your audience is your sole group, and it works, you've succeeded. For everybody else...maybe not so much.

[Zak S]

a lot of stuff...But the long and the short of it is that there is potential for a character to use this rules system to effectively break the game. It won't happen at every table, and maybe a gamemaster will see it happen once and then institute a ruling so that it never happens again, but it can objectively be called bad game design that such a flawed system made it into the game.

Agreed. Find that loophole in any system I wrote and then you'd have a bad rule. Nobody's found that--they just keep insisting they have and when pressed for specifics they explode in invective.

A lot of the time when people at the Den say "it doesn't work," they literally mean that it is unlikely and perhaps impossible to play the rules as written, and people don't.

If they mean "literally impossible to play the rules as written" about the rule I wrote, I prove them wrong twice a week. If they mean "unlikely" then that is them using the phrase "doesn't work" incorrectly and creating a dialect of their own. Judged by the standards of the english language they are lying.

The crux that I believe Archmage was getting at is effectively similar to the D20 Diplomancy issue in effect earlier; the mechanics aren't the same, but the basic result - the possibility of gamebreaking if the rule was abused (coupled with the inherent vagueness or subjectivity that Magical Tea Party thread was implying). He maybe didn't phrase it in terms of numbers and dice rolls, but it's still just a straight critique that came from an understandable place. I mean, look at the portion of the post he originally quoted:

That means Clarence is gonna start saying Yes if he isn't already…

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

Well given the number of times you posted 'Yes' in the original blogpost, I can sort of forgive Archmage for having that concern.

I cannot forgive him. Not even a little. Saying "the DM is gonna start saying yes" is not the same sentence as "I, the GM, always say yes".

If Archmage thought that, the appropriate thing to do is not assume he's correct and say it in public the thing to do is ask me.

But EVEN THEN I was super nice and gave my correction politely. I clarified and everything was fine until later in the thread people started being dicks and raising the many silly and inaccurate strawmen already enumerated.

We can walk back through it if you really want to, but the thing is that the Superman example wasn't a logical fallacy.

100% incorrect. In fact so incorrect I'm amazed that, at this late date, you even bothered to post it. People said that in this system altruists would not be rewarded. This is 100% not true, at all. As I explained several times.

Anyone who claimed that the system would not reward altruistic behavior was lying. Or they failed to read--at best. That is an objective fact. I listed many many many examples of how the system would reward altruism.

Did you not read them? Are you not reading the very things you're linking to? They were torn apart instantly.

Let's take a look at Frank's first huge mistake:

Your brief descriptions led me to believe that neither Superman nor the Man With No Name get social bonuses with the people they save, and that you can trade twelve apples for one castle.

That alone should disqualify anyone from ever believing anything Frank says ever again. When I pointed out the completely obvious reasons this wouldn't work, Frank said….nothing back about it. He just pretended this amazing bloated unbelievably dumb thing he wrote didn't exist and moved on.

If you have an objection to the rule for the second time again say what that is. Because I can't find a single example of someone voicing an objection to the rule that wasn't immediately met.

And even if you can't find one objection that stands in the thread--you can just go ahead now and make one. But….you won't. Because nobody will. Because I think everybody's realized by this point there aren't any mechanical problems with the rule and their only hope is to pretend there are while being vague about what those are.

honestly I can't find the link to your original rules.

Then why in god's name are you stupid enough to assume I'm wrong? Like you just claimed that someone's objection was rational, but you didn't even read the rule they were objecting to?

What is that about?

The issue is that when you increase the sample size, gather more data points - in this case, the reactions and estimations of the Denners - the rule doesn't appear to work that often. It works for you, but there's not a lot of indication that it would work for anybody else.

The only place that's objected to the rule is the Gaming Den. And the Gaming Den is not what I'd call representative of anything except the Gaming Den.

For me, when I make rules, I want the rules to function as often as possible among the audience that will use them, without the need for modification. Ideally I want that to be 100% of the players 100% of the time. But really, I'll settle on 90% of the players 90% of the time, with the rest left to unusual and unforeseen circumstances (these are rough limits, you understand, not hard limits). Sure, players and game masters will probably modify them anyway, but I'd like it to be because they're being creative rather than "This rule isn't working quite right, let's patch it."

For your, since your audience is your sole group, and it works, you've succeeded. For everybody else...maybe not so much.

Who cares? That still doesn't mean you (or anyone) gets to say it "doesn't work".

Again, you're entire argument devolves to "we can say left handed scissors don't work". But you can't, that would be lying. If you aren't just trolling you need to address that.

[Mistborn]

If that was part of the remit then phonelobster failed to articulate that in his challenge.

He mentioned gratitude and honorable debts in the challenge, so it's totally fair of me to harp on how your system handles those things poorly. Also in the challenge was a caveat that systems that allow apple stacking would be rejected and you response involved actual apple stacking in one the examples.

Find that loophole in any system I wrote and then you'd have a bad rule.

[Zak S]

He mentioned gratitude and honorable debts in the challenge,

Those are modeled. Gratitude is (mechanically identical to) a reward coming from the desire to stay in someone's good graces because you see they are both willing and capable of doing things that benefit you or at least impressing onlookers with the idea they should be rewarded.

Also in the challenge was a caveat that systems that allow apple stacking would be rejected and you response involved actual apple stacking in one the examples.

Already talked about this, already annihilated it, cutting and pasting:

"it involves apple-stacking and lobster specifically asked for no apple-stacking" (Lobster left the term underdescribed in his question--if "apple-stacking" means someone can't keep getting bonuses by continually granting small favors--my system totally accounts for that. You can't because apples aren't going to be considered meaningful units of currency by all NPCs and also the NPC is often going to have competing interests that outweigh the cost of providing favors to the stacker. If PL meant something different which I did not understand him to mean, that is "A PC should not be able to curry ever greater favor with an NPC by giving them a supply of ever greater things of real value" then I guess you could call that "apple-stacking" but that's not how I understood the question. Oh well.

Again you have failed and are stupid.

Now, Lord Mistborn, is the part where you go "I'm sorry I wasted everyone's time with this meaningless crap."

[Ancient History]

A lot of the time when people at the Den say "it doesn't work," they literally mean that it is unlikely and perhaps impossible to play the rules as written, and people don't.

If they mean "literally impossible to play the rules as written" about the rule I wrote, I prove them wrong twice a week. If they mean "unlikely" then that is them using the phrase "doesn't work" incorrectly and creating a dialect of their own. Judged by the standards of the english language they are lying.

You're very big on this, so I feel the need to clarify: people can be mistaken without being liars. If they honestly believe something that is not true and say that, then that is a mistake, not a lie. Lying implies an intent to deceive which is absent here. As to the other bit...

The crux that I believe Archmage was getting at is effectively similar to the D20 Diplomancy issue in effect earlier; the mechanics aren't the same, but the basic result - the possibility of gamebreaking if the rule was abused (coupled with the inherent vagueness or subjectivity that Magical Tea Party thread was implying). He maybe didn't phrase it in terms of numbers and dice rolls, but it's still just a straight critique that came from an understandable place. I mean, look at the portion of the post he originally quoted:

That means Clarence is gonna start saying Yes if he isn't already…

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

Well given the number of times you posted 'Yes' in the original blogpost, I can sort of forgive Archmage for having that concern.

I cannot forgive him. Not even a little. Saying "the DM is gonna start saying yes" is not the same sentence as "I, the GM, always say yes".

Okay, you're basing a lot on a small turn of phrase here, and it is not actually helping your argument. The fact is on a straight read, it is easy to see how someone would take away the perception that the GM would just start nodding their head to whatever the player wants to do. The burden of clarification for that really rests on you; the original blog post probably could have been made more explicit if you meant something else.

If Archmage thought that, the appropriate thing to do is not assume he's correct and say it the thing to do is ask me.

Fuck that. He read it, he took away an understanding of what you wrote, and he posted about that. That is the correct sequence of events. Maybe he didn't take away what you wanted him to take away from what you wrote, but that's more on your ability to clearly express what you intended rather than on any conceptual error on his part, and it is unrealistic and bullshit for you to expect him to go out of his way to contact you and try to clarify. Did you ever call up Gary Gygax every fucking time you had a rules question in the D&D Cyclopedia? Because I seriously fucking doubt it.

But EVEN THEN I was super nice and gave my correction politely. I clarified and everything was fine until later in the thread people started being dicks and raising the many silly and inaccurate strawmen already enumerated.

Zak, I love your art and I own your books I am entertained by your blog and I even threw money at your girlfriend's cast thing, so please don't think I don't appreciate you when I say you can be a fucking dick and your post was no where near polite and I still don't think your correction actually made the point you thought it did - but Archmage himself seemed to just take it in stride. Yes, you later got into an argument with the Denners, but that's more because you kept posting stuff and putting your foot in your mouth. Yes, the Gaming Den is full of dicks, but they'd probably have forgotten about it if you hadn't kept the argument going. Hell, we're only arguing now because you've decided you had to make an issue of it again.

And hey, I understand you feel the need to protect your reputation online and address shit quickly. I just don't believe in this case you've gone about it very well.

We can walk back through it if you really want to, but the thing is that the Superman example wasn't a logical fallacy.

100% incorrect. In fact so incorrect I'm amazed that, at this late date, you even bothered to post it. People said that in this system altruists would not be rewarded. This is 100% not true, at all. As I explained several times.

Anyone who claimed that the system would not reward altruistic behavior was lying. Or they failed to read--at best. That is an objective fact. I listed many many many examples of how the system would reward altruism.

Did you not read them? Are you not reading the very things you're linking to? They were torn apart in seconds.

I'm trying to go back over 30-odd pages of he-said, she-said crap in an argument I initially stayed out of except to warn you what the Denners were like; a warning you neither heeded nor appreciated. So please forgive me if I gloss over some of the finer points.

If you have an objection to the rule for the second time again say what that is.

honestly I can't find the link to your original rules.

Then why in god's name are you stupid enough to assume I'm wrong? Like you just claimed that someone's objection was rational, but you didn't even read the rule they were objecting to?

What is that about?

Just going to lump these together here. Zak, I don't give a fuck about your social rules, and I never did. It really isn't my ball game. What I want, what this is about is trying to explain to you that the way you are approaching this topic - and by "this topic" I mean more specifically this defensive posting pattern - and have approached it is unconstructive in that it doesn't lead anywhere, and destructive in that is derails and devours entire threads, all without coming to a point. More to the fucking point, I think you need to realize that some of the basic assumptions you've been making here are not accurate or helpful - and if you don't give a fuck that it makes you look like an ignorant asshole when you accuse everybody of being lying liars, than you should maybe be concerned enough to re-evaluate some of your suppositions that you're attacking people who are just offering straight feedback on your work. If someone says your work is shit, getting defensive and arguing should not be your default reaction. Even on the Gaming Den.

The issue is that when you increase the sample size, gather more data points - in this case, the reactions and estimations of the Denners - the rule doesn't appear to work that often. It works for you, but there's not a lot of indication that it would work for anybody else.

The only place that's objected to the rule is the Gaming Den. And the Gaming Den is not what I'd call representative of anything except the Gaming Den.

And EnWorld loves D&D4 so D&D4 must be awesome? Again, this is criticism. You can take it or ignore it, but the way you're arguing it you're never going to get anyone here to admit you're correct.

For me, when I make rules, I want the rules to function as often as possible among the audience that will use them, without the need for modification. Ideally I want that to be 100% of the players 100% of the time. But really, I'll settle on 90% of the players 90% of the time, with the rest left to unusual and unforeseen circumstances (these are rough limits, you understand, not hard limits). Sure, players and game masters will probably modify them anyway, but I'd like it to be because they're being creative rather than "This rule isn't working quite right, let's patch it."

For your, since your audience is your sole group, and it works, you've succeeded. For everybody else...maybe not so much.

Who cares? That still doesn't mean you (or anyone) gets to say it "doesn't work".

All I'm saying is beware of generalizations, particularly when taken from small amounts of data. This is all about some bullshit rinky-dink blog post rule that few people actually care about, but maybe someday you'll land in the chair of Chief Game Designer at WotC or something and then it matters quite a bit that you're able to make rules and send them out to be playtested and when you get reports back that some of the groups are having trouble you don't automatically dismiss them of having not used it right.

Because, and please fucking believe me on this, I've been there. I freelanced for Shadowrun for five years, and I sent shit out to playtesters. And sometimes I was an arrogant asshole and didn't pay enough attention to what was sent back, and sometimes I assumed I knew better than everyone, and because of that I wrote some really crappy rules. So when you have people, even people you are pretty damn sure are wrong, tell you that your rules aren't up to snuff - at least give them the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out what they're saying.

Again, you're entire argument devolves to "we can say left handed scissors don't work". But you can't, that would be lying. If you aren't just trolling you need to address that.

My entire argument devolves to: take a breath and step away from this and look at it again. Understand that just because something works for your group doesn't mean that it will work for every group. A rule that works once is not as useful as a rule that only fails once.

[Zak S]

You're very big on this, so I feel the need to clarify: people can be mistaken without being liars. If they honestly believe something that is not true and say that, then that is a mistake, not a lie. Lying implies an intent to deceive which is absent here.

At best they're making a negative accusation and stating it as fact without doing due dillligence to read if it's true. Even if it isn't lying and is just a mistake, that is still completely dishonest and stupid since all of the tools to check if they're right or wrong is right here on these pages

So even if they aren't liars, "liar" isn't a hell of a lot worse than what they are. Either way: they are making the world worse through negligence and deserve to suffer and, more importantly, their distortions of the truth shouldn't just sit there unchallenged.

Okay, you're basing a lot on a small turn of phrase here, and it is not actually helping your argument. The fact is on a straight read, it is easy to see how someone would take away the perception that the GM would just start nodding their head to whatever the player wants to do. The burden of clarification for that really rests on you;

Of course it doesn't. It never does. The person making the claim "Zak recommends doing something completely insane that resembles not only none of the publicly available recordings of his game nor any D&D game he's recorded recorded" is an accusation. It;s saying I do something totally dumb. The person making an accusation that I do something totally dumb has the burden of proof.

You do not get to turn something that sounds like something to you into that thing.
That's excusing strawmanning out of laziness. If I went around quoting Archmage then I would have to follow the same rule--only describe what he said or else ask for clarification.

Golden Rule of Talking Games: Talk to people before you talk about them. Anyone not doing that can't be considered to be talking in good faith: after all, they're more excited about saying something than making sure the thing is true. And saying things that aren't true is one of the few kinds of harm you can actually inflict on the internet discussions for people tryna figure out what to do with their games.

Did you ever call up Gary Gygax every fucking time you had a rules question in the D&D Cyclopedia? Because I seriously fucking doubt it.

I never said "Gary does this in Garys game" in public so that obligation is not on me. If I wanted to, and if Gary have a blog with comments then I would've had to do that.

you can be a fucking dick and your post was no where near polite

#1 Citation needed. I'm not a dick, I'm really nice. I'm even talking to you.

#2 Even if I wasn't polite: polite wasn't necessary. The second someone talks about someone they could instead be talking to in a negative way they have chosen the wrong path. They wanna talk more than they wanna be sure they're not libelling anyone. They no longer have the right to ask for "polite". They have crossed the line into chewtoy and only come back after they realize it and apologize.

but that's more because you kept posting stuff and putting your foot in your mouth.

Citation needed. If it is your claim that I said a thing that was not true you need to quote it, not pretend it is so and refer to it. You have failed.

Hell, we're only arguing now because you've decided you had to make an issue of it again.

I've already addressed this. Cutting and pasting:

"
My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort.
"

AND (cutting and pasting)
"Go away"

No problem, just stop obsessing over me and things you pretend I said and you may never see me again.
-
Why are you saying dumb things that I already addressed? Really: that is not a rhetorical question--are you reading the words on these pages?

I just don't believe in this case you've gone about it very well.

"
I have never claimed I had a special gift for communicating with morons and have never claimed my goal is to persuade. My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort. If people see both sides and decide the unsupported moron side is the correct one, they are beyond help.
"

Again: deal with that argument and do not make this claim again.

I'm trying to go back over 30-odd pages of he-said, she-said crap in an argument I initially stayed out of except to warn you what the Denners were like; a warning you neither heeded nor appreciated. So please forgive me if I gloss over some of the finer points.

So when I assert they were wrong, you have, literally, no leg to stand on to defend yourself and are just assuming I'm wrong because…..fuck all. You just like to type?

What I want, what this is about is trying to explain to you that the way you are approaching this topic - and by "this topic" I mean more specifically this defensive posting pattern - and have approached it is unconstructive in that it doesn't lead anywhere, and destructive in that is derails and devours entire threads, all without coming to a point.

AGAIN:
"
I have never claimed I had a special gift for communicating with morons and have never claimed my goal is to persuade. My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort. If people see both sides and decide the unsupported moron side is the correct one, they are beyond help.
"

AGAIN:
"Go away"

No problem, just stop obsessing over me and things you pretend I said and you may never see me again.

Again, this is criticism. You can take it or ignore it, but the way you're arguing it you're never going to get anyone here to admit you're correct.

AGAIN (let's see if this fits in your head):
"
I have never claimed I had a special gift for communicating with morons and have never claimed my goal is to persuade. My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort.
"

All I'm saying is beware of generalizations, particularly when taken from small amounts of data.

If you are stupid enough to think that I would mistake the target audience which is my group for a representative sample of the population, than I'm stunned you even managed to get through a single page of anything I ever wrote, since that would make me a moron. So: this is news--you aren't talking to a moron.

maybe someday you'll land in the chair of Chief Game Designer at WotC or something and then it matters quite a bit that you're able to make rules and send them out to be playtested and when you get reports back that some of the groups are having trouble you don't automatically dismiss them of having not used it right.

Don't worry: I have a way better job than anything in game design.

Because, and please fucking believe me on this, I've been there. I freelanced for Shadowrun for five years, and I sent shit out to playtesters. And sometimes I was an arrogant asshole and didn't pay enough attention to what was sent back, and sometimes I assumed I knew better than everyone, and because of that I wrote some really crappy rules. So when you have people, even people you are pretty damn sure are wrong, tell you that your rules aren't up to snuff - at least give them the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out what they're saying.

I am sorry that you are stupider than me and made a mistake (thinking your players were representative of the world) that I never, ever made in my entire life and that you have zero evidence I ever made. Don't do that again and, more to the point, don't insult me by assuming I'm as dumb as you were.

As for "figuring out what they're saying" I know exactly what they're saying. They're saying it would lead to an outcome…..that I want. And that they wouldn't want. Neither of those objections are relevant. You have provided no argument about why this should be relevant to me.

Understand that just because something works for your group doesn't mean that it will work for every group.

This is such a dumb thing to think you have to point out that I can't believe you said it. I have addressed this so. many. times. that it beggars belief you would type it again. Is English your native language? Allow me to cut and paste some Ancient History for you, Ancient History:

"
People who claim But Zak, no matter what works for you, rules with more detail are better for some or possibly most groups have failed to address the issue that, yeah, nobody's arguing with that.

Like they should at least admit that they now know that they don't have to keep repeating that like a mantra.
"

Would you care to explain why the hell you brought that up again? What the hell happened? Did you hit your head?

[Foxwarrior]

Now, that may or may not have been the intent of the designer; we don't know. It might have been a mistake or an overlook or the result of multiple designers not paying attention; it could have been the plan from the beginning. But the long and the short of it is that there is potential for a character to use this rules system to effectively break the game. It won't happen at every table, and maybe a gamemaster will see it happen once and then institute a ruling so that it never happens again, but it can objectively be called bad game design that such a flawed system made it into the game.

I'm not convinced as to the objectivity of calling something like Diplomacy bad without taking into account some form of (presumably expressed) intent. It does several good things, after all: it keeps commune from trivializing most possible mysteries by preventing deities from watching anything for fear of being controlled by diplomancers existing in the future; and it helps turn D&D into Oceanian propaganda by showing that IGNORANCE really IS STRENGTH after all. At best, you can say that Diplomancy is subjectively bad for the vast majority of plausible viewpoints.

[Dean]

#2 Even if I wasn't polite: polite wasn't necessary. The second someone talks about someone they could instead be talking to in a negative way they have chosen the wrong path. They wanna talk more than they wanna be sure they're not libelling anyone. They no longer have the right to ask for "polite". They have crossed the line into chewtoy and only come back after they realize it and apologize.

Wonderful, you have gone full internet tough-guy. Zak you write shit rules and have a sophomore's understanding of formal debate, anyone can say that with no fear of it being defamation because it is true.

[Zak S]

Zak you write shit rules and have a sophomore's understanding of formal debate, anyone can say that with no fear of it being defamation because it is true.

Already addressed this one. Cut and paste:

Q: "But addressing your points is hard and I am very stupid. I would rather hurl random insults and/or simply abstractly declare victory."

A: "While it is legal for you to be stupid and to mask your stupidity with blind rage and misdirected attempts at wit it is not advisable. Your presumed goal of knowing more about games is not served by it. "

[Username17]

Zak S, does it bother you that no one comes to your defense? Does it not imply even a little bit to you that you might be incredibly obviously full of shit?

The reason we all laugh at you is not because we are all liars who have impenetrable group think, it's that you make terrible arguments. I have PhoneLobster on ignore because he's an asshole. And you know what? He's still right and you're still wrong. Your arguments fail as logic and as rhetoric. You are not convincing. And when you come in and demand apologies from everyone all the time, after you have already failed to convince people of your point of you, you come across as a whiny little baby. Your arguments not only fail to convince on their own merits, but your bluster fails to intimidate anyone.

It's actually a perfect storm of bad argument styles. You wend your way between attempts at logical frameworks that collapse on minor scrutiny, rhetorical constructions that offend rather than attract, and threats which amuse rather than alarm. All I can say is: Dude, cut your losses. You have been defeated as thoroughly as anyone has ever been defeated in an internet argument. Even people who initially argued on what was originally essentially "your side" have given up trying to defend you.

-Username17

[Zak S]

Zak S, does it bother you that no one comes to your defense? Does it not imply even a little bit to you that you might be incredibly obviously full of shit?

Of course not: frequently nobody comes to anyone's defense when y'all are in hyena mode. Largely out of fear.

This is a common issue when a forum veteran attacks a non- or new- member. It's well-documented.

And, you should know, there are forums all over the RPG internet which have mutually exclusive opinions on contentious issues--such that a veteran of one could be attacked by everyone on another and vice versa over those issues. By your incredibly insane logic, that means both sides must be wrong. So, yeah, that doesn't hold even a little bit of water. Back to your drawing board.

Plus, of course, by that moronic logic I'd have to assume I was right (sans logic) the many times in other arguments people have come to my defense in other places. Which would be stupid. People get involved in heated arguments for personal reasons, not because they are so moved by the truth that they must speak.

The reason we all laugh at you is not because we are all liars who have impenetrable group think, it's that you make terrible arguments.

I've already dealt with this:
"Q: But addressing your points is hard and I am very stupid. I would rather hurl random insults and/or simply abstractly declare victory."

A: While it is legal for you to be stupid and to mask your stupidity with blind rage and misdirected attempts at wit it is not advisable. Your presumed goal of knowing more about games is not served by it. "

You wend your way between attempts at logical frameworks that collapse on minor scrutiny,

You're claiming that but don't have anything to back it up.

So far you've done this:

Frank: "It looks to me like your system wouldn't reward Superman for being altruistic"

Zak: "No. Here are several examples of that not happening. They make you completely wrong. If you have objections to them, type them."

Frank: (nothing)

I get that you're just too stupid to articulate why you believe what you believe. But that doesn't men we all have to accept the imaginary world created by your stupidity.

[Foxwarrior]

I have never claimed I had a special gift for communicating with morons and have never claimed my goal is to persuade. My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort.

If it is not your goal to persuade (technically, you haven't said that it isn't, and I suppose I'm supposed to PM you for clarification before posting in reply to you? Whatever.) then why would you repeat yourself? Once you've accompanied each lie with a true fact, is not your task complete?

[Zak S]

I have never claimed I had a special gift for communicating with morons and have never claimed my goal is to persuade. My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort.

If it is not your goal to persuade (technically, you haven't said that it isn't, and I suppose I'm supposed to PM you for clarification before posting in reply to you? Whatever.) then why would you repeat yourself? Once you've accompanied each lie with a true fact, is not your task complete?

No, you've done the right thing: you asked a question rather than making an unsupported statement that begs a question. And of course, even if it wasn't true the suggestion that I'm not attempting to persuade is not an insult. Get my birthday wrong and I don't care--suggest I said a stupid thing I did not say and you've fucked up by not checking first.

The forum has multiple pages, so it's possible some poor soul could come upon one of these pages where there is a lie not adjacent to the correction, then naively think that someone who was lying or mistaken was telling the truth and be none the wiser. That's a bad outcome for everyone.

Plus, of course, even if I have no hope of persuading stupid people to be smart, we can all hold out hope that we might get some insight how they got that stupid when they answer questions. And that is sometimes interesting and illuminating.

[PhoneLobster]

So far you've done this:

Frank: "It looks to me like your system wouldn't reward Superman for being altruistic"

Zak: "No. Here are several examples of that not happening. They make you completely wrong. If you have objections to them, type them."

Frank: (nothing)

...

That... just plain didn't happen.

No one except you thinks it happened like that.

A person would have to be pretty much clinically insane to believe it happened like that.

I still have difficulty believing that even you believe it happened like that. Because your description is just that fucking crazy.

Now, just in case you don't actually know, here is what it really looked like...

You: Here are broken rules!
Others: Those are broken. Here are ways they are broken!
You: No they aren't. Let me clarify, they are exactly as broken as I said in the first place in exactly those ways!
Others: Yes. Those rules are broken. In those ways. Like we just said.
You : No wait! THIS time the clarification is extra rules...
Others: That's nice but you were the one who said the first lot would be perfect first time...
You : ...and the extra rules are entirely unrelated, but are also broken in new and exciting ways!
Others : Well that just raises further questions...
You : I win as you have never meaningfully objected to ANY of my first time perfect rules!
Others : We have objected and continue to in very specific ways.
You : No you didn't. Also. Now all your opinions don't retroactively count because I secretly decided I wasn't writing rules for any of YOU in the first place!