That’s an unfortunate oversimplification of my rebuttals. I did try to provide fair counter arguments to your points, at least the ones that weren’t steeped in ad hominem. As I said with my first response, I am actually quite open to the idea of altering policies. I’ve described my feelings towards current policy before and have expressed my desire for an overhaul.
The problem is that the kind of overhaul I would prefer is a fairly large undertaking.
It’s a shame that you continue to resort to ad hominem. If you don’t want to have a civil discourse on the subject, that’s fine. I don’t need to afford this topic any more of my time.
Spending time trying to refute fallacious arguments is lost time. That’s kind of debate-101. Focusing on more grounded arguments that I can properly refute or comment on is a better use of everyone’s time.
Yet again you are resorting to straw mans instead of taking the time to read what I wrote beyong my sardonic writing style. You gave ad hominem, I refuted with ad hominem.
This also is an argument about naming guidelines, not an argument about how well I argue.
Respectfully, i disagree with you a lot there. because the arguments you call
seem to like to call fellacious from my pov are not based on any objectivity?
edit: my english is bad, i mean as in you do not have an objective reason to call said arguments fellacious and disregard them
Somewhat offtopic, but you explain yourself in this sentence why it’s not possible. If everyone was wishing well, and was great at roleplaying, we’d probably not even need rules or admins, everyone could just experiment they way they felt like.
The arguments about naming guidelines should be an example as to why such round continuity rules in our current codebase would be a headache to enforce or to simply grasp frankly.
“So my character can remember being killed by Jonathan Garland in the previous round, but they can’t remember that Axel Hawker was a heretic because he’s captain now? What’s the logic?”
You can maintain IC friends. As our rules and roleplay guidelines indicate, while past shifts aren’t canonical, the expectation is that all of the previous shifts have been reasonably normal. IC friendships and the like can be established over several prior shifts spanning years if you’d like. You just should avoid referencing specific events from past rounds to facilitate that baseline.
There are plenty of servers that have round continuity. The biggest problem with enforcing it on Bee is, actually, tied to the way the naming guidelines are enforced, just… Not in the way you’re thinking.
The fact of the matter is, Bee’s administration team has a weird priority system when it comes to roleplaying. People who are being generally LRP or MRP are being overlooked because their names fit the guidelines while people who are being generally HRP are being examined with scrutiny due to their names not conforming to the guidelines.
Round-continuity could be easily implemented by just… Making sure people are roleplaying, like rule 1 says you have to.
it really doesnt feel like you responded to points rather how they were presented you see? i keep rereading what you wrote and I do not understand the tone youre trying but also why you are picking what you are picking to argue against and in the way youre doing it?
As I said, you’ve been knocking down strawmen (or whatever the fallacy is called where you attack the presentation instead of the points, could just be ad hominem, it’s been years since I went to a debate class since most arguments now are summed up with “who asked?”) instead of focusing on the relevant points of the argument.
A large portion of my response was on counter-argument.
The problem with fallacious arguments is that you can’t actually respond to them in any meaningful way. I can’t really refute points of opinion and arguments made that predominantly target me instead of my initial arguments, the actual policies, etc. just end up in a feedback loop. That’s why it ends up being a waste of time.
It just boils into a shouting match and nothing constructive actually ends up being said. I have limited time and I’ve already spent a lot of it here. I want to try and spend as much of that time on arguable points.
I admittedly find it disingenuous to say that I’m only attacking their arguments instead of responding to their points, when I conceded to one of their arguments and spent effort trying to clarify my other positions to facilitate better future discussions.
–
Edit: I will admit that there was some snark in a few of my counter-arguments. I could have probably done without that, but, it was difficult given the level of ad hominem levied against me.
the thing is i dont see this as an argument won by brownie points, yeah you conceded and you spent effort but isn’t that just part of it. whether you conceded or not majority of what you chose to type about was about the manner in which they argued? if you can, please show me where they target you as in the argument itself.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you did respond to some arguments, yet the
part is, effectively, just an excuse to not respond to some parts of my argument because you don’t want to.
The naming rules in and of themselves are opinion-based considering we have ramshackle lore that doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny well. The very nature of this argument is opinion-based, and that opinion is either “I don’t like the naming rules, let’s change them” or “I like the naming rules, let’s not”.
No, it’s entirely the codebase. There are 0 mechanics to support something like this as illustrated in my example, your character can be a heretic and then the captain. Characters are forced to accept this, the only way for things to remain cohesive is to go by the groundhog day rule.
This is baseless and frankly something you made up. You really think we let “SirMogus 5” go run around and spend all our time oppressing the roleplayers?
If so, you can’t wonder why this thread isn’t going anywhere.
Yes, like I said before, if everyone was perfect the only rule would be rule 1. But just yesterday I had to tell someone off who was telling others to “never rp as dragon, dragon is murderbone, dragon rp is cringe”.
There are multiple factors to consider if you ever wish to try and contribute. Being unable to consider these factors and weigh them accordingly can only lead to nothing.
The biggest trap most people fall into when trying their hands at this subject is assuming everyone roleplays or creates as well as them, and that everyone wishes well.
Group behaviour is why naming guidelines are in place, in part.
It’s fine if you alone throw food in the bear enclosure at the zoo, but if everyone were to do it, things would go bad.
Yes, it would probably be fine if we gave Truthbringer or the other players a “pass”, but if we were to apply that to everyone else that would be eligible, everything would fall apart.
They answered most points and brought additional evidence when you were making actual points. You’ve instead chosen to focus on the parts that were struck down to call fallacies on top of what you deem to be fallacies to begin with.
I happen to like rhetorics too, so here’s one fallacy that may or may not be relevant: Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia
Overall, I have to mention that the sheer volume of ad-hominem you threw at staff since the beginning of this discussion (on discord when you started pinging me, expecting me to look at this within 24 hours) made it borderline impossible to engage with you, and still makes it very difficult.
You cannot hope to make anyone agreeable and willing to discuss things with you by having this tone.