ktarthan

HoT, I can't really tell who you're responding to so I'll just ask: who do you think called you an idiot? Other than Mr. Uruk here, I can't see anyone singling you out.

Oh I'm well aware. I was attempting to not get lengthy about this, but I guess the distance between what I said and what I meant was a bit too far and most people came to the conclusion that I'm trying to admonish people who troll. This is not the case. My OP carries two main ideas, and I'll try to break them down: "Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding" The basis of making someone dislike you is to be disagreeable. Whether by disagreeing directly with what they say, by espousing ideas that they strongly disagree with, or by acting in a way they strongly disag

Substitute "idiot" for any other derogatory term, really. It's trivial to get people to dislike you for any number of reasons. Simply saying that it was your intention to get them to dislike you doesn't lend the act any worth.

This is a bit of a departure from the regular theme of this blog as it doesn't exactly address an argument per se, though it often comes up argument adjacent. I'll make it short and sweet: Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding is a victory neither hard won nor worth merit.

I thought this was an interesting anecdote until you came along with "it's unnecessary and more detrimental to the game then a lot of things" to which I'm going to call bull. Do you know what hurts the game more than raiding? Complaining about things that you think hurt the game.

I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players. There are also a lot of in-game factors that heavily disincentivize any form of war as action. And that is, for most, the primary way of affecting change. This is why I add the caveat about reducing potential for future changes. Without the NS to back it up, it's difficult to make chang

Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.

Everything. Must. Die.

Analogies are indeed incredibly important in how we learn about the world. This is why I specifically made the case against analogies being used in arguments, and prefaced everything by saying that analogies can be incredibly useful. Also I think you missed the point.

Actually if you replace whale turds with month-old mouse turds it's a lot closer to the truth, and this really only works if it's 1930's India.

Part I Analogies can be a good thing. They can be incredibly useful in education; when trying to explain an unfamilliar concept by relating it to something familliar. This is a completely neutral action and I urge you to use them in this manner whenever you wish. You have my blessing. Analogies used in an argument are nearly always utter crap. But even when a great analogy is used, it more than likely shouldn't have been. There are many issues, but they all stem from one thing: analogies are not equivalencies. Meaning that even in a great analogy, the situations will always have differences.

Oh this brings back memories of when we needed our allies FOK and Kronos to help us out during Roguefest.

Wow, did you really miss the point by that much?

Also it should be noted that no proof has been presented of Roq's allegation that RoK was spied on. We clearly don't know what Nagasaki will bring, but I prefer not to count my chickens before they hatch.

My friends have nothing to do with my own integrity.