The Nifty Message Board :: The Game Room :: The Oberoni Fallacy
Who's Online | Stats | Memberlist | Top Posters | Links | Search | Lost Password



Welcome, Register :: Log In Welcome to our newest member, jlgg.
Users active in this forum:
Users active in this thread:

people online in the last 5 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 87 at 11:48:50 Tue Sep 27 2011)

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

Josh_Kablack
Offline
3746 posts
Tiamat's Consort

Grand Vizier


Reply
The Oberoni Fallacy ( 03:36:30 WedOct 2 2002 )

Hiya,

I see this attitude cropping up more and more on the WotC boards of late, so I wanted to save the original quote somewhere else for ease of reference

Quote:

Originally posted by Oberoni on the D&D general board July 23, 2002:
[QB]This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:
  • "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
  • "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
  • "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:
  • "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.[/QB]


Thanks for putting it so succintly Oberoni :biggrin:

  
Mood:Mood Now: Energized ( Energized ) Post Mood: Flexible ( Flexible )
Da' Vane
Offline
1017 posts
Great Wyrm


Reply
Re: The Oberoni Fallacy ( 01:49:51 ThuOct 3 2002 )

"There is no inconsistancy with that quote, because you can always Rule 0 that quote."

  
Mood:Mood Now: Hardcore_Headbanging ( Hardcore_Headbanging ) Post Mood: Cool ( Cool )
Draco Argentum
Offline
2420 posts
Legendary Dragon

Reply
Re: The Oberoni Fallacy ( 03:51:51 ThuOct 3 2002 )

Good move. If I ever get my web page up this is going in.

All I need are holidays with squat all to do. That means in 2 months.

  
Mood:
Da'_Vane
Offline
1017 posts
Great Wyrm


Reply
Re: The Oberoni Fallacy ( 07:08:58 SatNov 9 2002 )

Debate and Discussion are good on message boards and after game sessions, but never in the middle of an intense climactic showdown, over whether an Assassin can use his 'Death Attack' ability or not.

"There is no inconsistancy / loophole in that mechanic WHEN I Rule 0 that mechanic."

Emphisis on 'WHEN I' if you didn't notice... :tongue:

  
Mood:Mood Now: Hardcore_Headbanging ( Hardcore_Headbanging ) Post Mood: Headphone_Heaven ( Headphone_Heaven )

Pages: [ 1 ]

[ Notify ][ Print ][ Send To Friend ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ > ]

 Total Members: 1066, Newest Member: jlgg.

  • Can't start a new thread. (Admins Only)
  • Can't start a new poll. (Admins Only)
  • Can't add a reply. (Admins Only)
  • Can't edit your posts.(Everyone Registered)
  • Register :: Log In :: In Power

    The time is now 15:01:45 Sat May 30 2020

    Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
    © 2001-2007 BbBoy.net