Jump to content
supernal

General chat thread

Recommended Posts

A gamist, a narrativist, and a simulationist walk into a tavern and sit down at the bar. The barkeep asks, "What'll it be?"

The gamist asks, "What do I roll under to get the best drink for the lowest price?"

The narrativist asks, "What do you recommend?"

The simulationist asks, "What's the punchline?"

The administrator thinks about deleting the tavern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't realize your original argument had gotten so beat down over the conversation that all you were left with was "I hereby declare that people pilot their own characters". 

This is of course true and such a magnificent revision of your original point that I must concede that I was wrong. I thought you were making a complex argument badly when in fact you were making a entirely pointless argument elaborately.  

Enjoy your victory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vansin said:

Sorry I didn't realize your original argument had gotten so beat down over the conversation that all you were left with was "I hereby declare that people pilot their own characters". 

This is of course true and such a magnificent revision of your original point that I must concede that I was wrong. I thought you were making a complex argument badly when in fact you were making a entirely pointless argument elaborately.  

Enjoy your victory. 

 

I think this is you realizing that you never quite understood what the "original argument" was in the first place. 

It's an elegantly cheeky way of saying "I was wrong, I probably should keep quiet before I make myself look dumber." 

Glad I didn't have to keep doing it myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vansin said:

We're still having this conversation?!

I'm not going to backread too much but 

What is this a video game? Where do these wacky ideas come from? And they're so fundamental to your arguments, these ideas that RPCs are like video game protagonists whose players can't write both how the character moves and how NPCs and environments around them react and change.

You have the very narrow vision of what freeform roleplaying is that is just not in touch with the reality of how this hobby works. 

Jaistlyn’s post broke down Valushia’s stance pretty well. I think the fact that she had to ask a series of qualifying questions to get to a point Valushia should be able to make much more succinctly is telling but believe the argument basically boils down to “people who opt in for something totally open should be willing to roll with randomly introduced changes”, which is the nature of what it means to opt into something totally open. It really isn’t something to disagree with as a tautology or even argue about since the qualified premise contains its own answer. Further discussion doesn’t appear to be generating anything worthwhile or not redundant 

My two cents anyway!

Edited by supernal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vansin said:

Sorry I didn't realize your original argument had gotten so beat down over the conversation that all you were left with was "I hereby declare that people pilot their own characters". 

This is of course true and such a magnificent revision of your original point that I must concede that I was wrong. I thought you were making a complex argument badly when in fact you were making a entirely pointless argument elaborately.  

Enjoy your victory. 

 

5 hours ago, Valushia said:

 

I think this is you realizing that you never quite understood what the "original argument" was in the first place. 

It's an elegantly cheeky way of saying "I was wrong, I probably should keep quiet before I make myself look dumber." 

Glad I didn't have to keep doing it myself. 

I don’t think you would have been able to honestly. You aren’t good at clearly getting your points across without a great deal of circumlocution, backtracking and qualifying from what I can tell. But that’s okay since as you said none of this was about actually getting concrete answers, just for the sake of rhetoric. Now get out there and lead by example! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, supernal said:

 

I don’t think you would have been able to honestly. You aren’t good at clearly getting your points across without a great deal of circumlocution, backtracking and qualifying from what I can tell. But that’s okay since as you said none of this was about actually getting concrete answers, just for the sake of rhetoric. Now get out there and lead by example! 

 

"My argument's crumbled. I failed to support myself! I'm tired! Quick! Blanket Statements!"

Why didn't you just paraphrase...? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, supernal said:

Jaistlyn’s post broke down Valushia’s stance pretty well. I think the fact that she had to ask a series of qualifying questions to get to a point Valushia should be able to make much more succinctly is telling but believe the argument basically boils down to “people who opt in for something totally open should be willing to roll with randomly introduced changes”, which is the nature of what it means to opt into something totally open. It really isn’t something to disagree with as a tautology or even argue about since the qualified premise contains its own answer. Further discussion doesn’t appear to be generating anything worthwhile or not redundant 

My two cents anyway!

Jaiystlyn didn't ask anything I ever answered. She found out what was readily available to her, by reading. 

It's 'telling' that you tried, all this time, to argue a position that was never something "to disagree with" in the first place. 

You wore the red nose and the shoes to match, why'd you need me to put on your makeup?
 

Edited by Valushia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...