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 disagree with. The main point is to act contrary to their beliefs/opinions. The other main ingredient is believability; if they don't think you're sincere, then you don't effectively establish yourself as being disagreeable, and whatever you're trying to do won't really work. So, together this means being believably disagreeable. I used the word "idiot" but as I said, it can be pretty much any other derogatory term. The take away here is that success means the target(s) will be convinced you are wrong in some way. This really only covers a specific flavor of "trolling". It's probably the most common and most effective one, but anger isn't the only reaction that people can try to elicit. "is a victory neither hard won nor worth merit." Now that we've established the sort of trolling I'm talking about, this is where I call into question its merit. This part is a bit tricky, because there's a bit of implied context. That is, it's directed only to a person who is attempting to convince me otherwise. Or in other words: an openly proud troll. Since we established earlier that believability is a major component to effective trolling, a person who admits that they are indeed purposely trying to elicit a response is intentionally reducing their effectiveness. So in my eyes, the only reason to do so would be because they assign value to their actions. And once such a thought is expressed, it's now a valid target for criticism, which is exactly what the OP is. So, without discussion of trolling, the OP doesn't exist. I guess you could call it a meta criticism? Effectively, to those who admit they troll: "What, would you like a cookie?"

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 changes unless you're one of the few that are gifted enough to manipulte others to achieve your goals. And, with that exception in mind, most changes come about through some loss in NS. So you have to balance your ability to make changes (weight of NS) with the actual changes you make (loss of NS).

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. "Oil is like water" gives you some understanding of what oil is like if you have never seen it, but it doesn't give you the full picture. You would never want to drink oil, for instance, but it is still a "valid" analogy. Immediately, we come across what is likely the biggest reason that analogies in arguments are a terrible idea. Right now, in your head, you're probably thinking of all the ways that oil is unlike water, and all of the qualifiers that could be added to the analogy to make it more accurate and "correct". There's nothing wrong with this in itself, for at the moment, you mostly just have concern for the hypothetical person who doesn't know what oil is, and want them to have as clear a picture as possible. But now imagine there are two people addressing this poor fellow. One has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is more like water, and the other has a vested interest in communicating that the oil is less like water. We then land ourselves in a death-spiral where both sides offer more and more detailed versions of the analogy that are "more correct" while still supporting their bias. The end result is an analogy so needlessly complex and detailed that it's useless as an analogy; you might as well just be discussing the actual subject directly. And yes I realize the humour of using an analogy to elucidate my reasoning on why not to use analogies. The tl;dr: Analogies are never perfect, so they are prone to ridiculous bias when used in an argument. They are also prone to pointless back-and-forth revisions to make the analogy "more correct". This makes the analogy useless, as it'd be simpler to discuss the subject directly. Part II Pretty much everyone sucks at making analogies anyways, so don't even try. Even you, special snowflake, are at the mercy of confirmation bias.

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.