Quote from: DeadUematsu;311528No. They did not do this AT ALL. Closer to the opposite but I honestly believe that the whole design process behind Pathfinder was random - essentially throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks.

I like Monte Cook and think he did a great job with the Book of Experimental Might but he's not someone I feel can objectively look at the system and make the necessary changes to fix some of the underlying problems. That and I believe his influence over the final product was marginal at best. If he had more influence, I think Monte would have at least told off Jason and a lot less WTF things (i.e. the Fly skill) would show up in PF.

Wonder who at Paizo has an absolute veto and the final say, over all the decisions for Pathfinder PFRPG.

Quote from: StormBringer;311525Sincerely holding a bankrupt position doesn't lend any legitimacy to it.  Flat earthers hold their positions sincerely because they think they have good evidence as well.  No one presents them with kudos for sincerity.

It does however, distinguish someone who genuinely holds a position from a sophist. A sophist is a species of troll, and as one, you are the other.

QuoteI have condemned swearing in an argument before, but I have never excluded myself from that.  Therefore, not hypocrisy.

Condemning a behaviour while engaging in it yourself is actually pretty obviously hypocrisy. You are professing to hold a belief that your actions show you do not actually hold. And for the record, when you did bring up the swearing thing and I confronted you on the issue of your frequent use of the term "douchebag" (the insult of choice for 14 year olds everywhere), you did attempt to provide some mealy-mouthed answer as to why "douchebag" wasn't obscene.

QuoteOn occasion, the only response is in kind.  Not the best method, but when the discussion is nothing more than a stream of vulgarities, I am more than capable of engaging in that manner as well.  I have no qualms about this, and have no illusions that I may come off badly in such an exchange.  Nor have I ever pretended that my doing so is not as bad as the other.  Therefore, again, not hypocrisy.  You may want to brush up on the meanings of some of these words you bandy about.  I really don't think they mean what you think they mean.

You profess to hold the belief that swearing, obscenity, profanity, etc. is wrong, yet you swear and use obscenity quite frequently, even on people who haven't used them on you. Your actions speak louder than your lies.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;311528I like Monte Cook and think he did a great job with the Book of Experimental Might but he's not someone I feel can objectively look at the system and make the necessary changes to fix some of the underlying problems. That and I believe his influence over the final product was marginal at best. If he had more influence, I think Monte would have at least told off Jason and a lot less WTF things (i.e. the Fly skill) would show up in PF.

Frankly, Unearthed Arcana / Arcana Evolved seems to be a more fruitful departure from 3.x than Pathfinder does. If I were continuing to play 3.x, UA and Iron Heroes would be my preferences to Pathfinder.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311568It does however, distinguish someone who genuinely holds a position from a sophist. A sophist is a species of troll, and as one, you are the other.

No.  An internet troll is, by definition, someone who takes joy in stirring up arguments and watching people spack the fuck out.  No on these boards seems to meet that requirement.

Pseudoephedrine simply sticks the "troll" label on anyone who reminds him that he champions a game designed as a Mary-Sue ego vehicle for 15-year-olds.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311568It does however, distinguish someone who genuinely holds a position from a sophist. A sophist is a species of troll, and as one, you are the other.

So, you find it laudable to sincerely hold a position, even when that position is clearly incorrect.  That explains quite a bit, actually.

QuoteCondemning a behaviour while engaging in it yourself is actually pretty obviously hypocrisy. You are professing to hold a belief that your actions show you do not actually hold.

No, I condemn a behaviour that I find condemnable, even when I engage in it.  And I accept the condemnation of others when I engage in those behaviours, offering no excuses.  I frequently apologize, however, but there are certain situations when a response in kind is not only appropriate, it is warranted.  I am sure that you also find it hypocritical that nations engaging in war is a method to restoring peace, but once again, reality betrays you.

As a wise old Taoist once said, "The sage is not argumentative, and the argumentative one isn't a sage.  But sometimes, I don't feel like being a sage."

QuoteAnd for the record, when you did bring up the swearing thing and I confronted you on the issue of your frequent use of the term "douchebag" (the insult of choice for 14 year olds everywhere), you did attempt to provide some mealy-mouthed answer as to why "douchebag" wasn't obscene.

Hmmm...  In this context, 'mealy-mouthed' seems to mean 'Pseudoephedrine couldn't come up with a suitable rebuttal'.  Not the standard definition, to be sure.  Nor does 'frequent' actually mean 'a couple dozen times in over 3,000 posts'.  But you consistently fail to recognize that the world out here, "the really real world", will not conform to the solipsistic version that plays out in your fevered imagination, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and demand it.

Partly because you will simply have to wallow in your inability to have any real impact on the world around you.

Mostly, however, it's because you are a douchebag.

QuoteYou profess to hold the belief that swearing, obscenity, profanity, etc. is wrong, yet you swear and use obscenity quite frequently, even on people who haven't used them on you. Your actions speak louder than your lies.

hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy
   1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

hy·poc·ri·sy
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

For starters, I haven't claimed that those behaviours are wrong.    Ineffective, boorish at times, and indicative that one's argument is bereft of substance, certainly.  You are attempting to portray this as some kind of moral or ethical stance I have taken.  At best, you are wildly exaggerating to cover for your own inadequacies.  At the very least, you are willfully misrepresenting the argument.

I don't say that it is wrong when other people engage in such behavior and right when I do.  I have said any number of times that it is a poor example of behaviour in all cases, mine own included.  However, there are times when it is the only remaining course.  I am quite certain that you would be the first to excoriate as a 'hypocrite' the police officer - sworn to protect - who kills the person shooting at them.  Partly, it's because you will argue in bad faith, prop up any number of strawmen, exaggerate or flat out misrepresent, and any other tactic you can draw upon to win the internets.

Mostly, however, it's because you are a douchebag.

Oh, I forgot this little gem the first time around:

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311502Let's not forget your wild fantasies of legions of 4e fans e-persecuting you earlier on this very thread.

You would be so kind as to point out where I did this?

I assume that after that, you will be addressing this part:

Quote from: StormBringer;311525That you are wholly unable to recognize hypocrisy is a sure sign that you shouldn't be accusing others of it. Dan Davenport is a close associate, whom I have known on a more or less personal level for a number of years. Friends have any number of nicknames for each other that strangers or others whose relationship is not of a friendly nature are discouraged from using by social agreement. Much like a recent poster's argument that the n-word used by one means it can be used by all. I will re-iterate why that is incorrect: one guy that calls his wife 'sugartits' is not free reign for everyone and anyone to refer to her as 'sugartits'.

But you are not so socially inept that you didn't know that.  You know full well that certain people can call me Stormy and others cannot entirely because of the relationship. You are also fully aware that this standard applies to everyone. Hence, you are arguing in bad faith, because you have absolutely no belief that one person using a nickname is exactly the same as anyone else using that nickname.

Or were you going to slide right on by that one, hoping no one would notice?

And I am levelling peurile insults because I am getting pretty bored waiting for the law of averages to glance your way and grant you that solitary, accidental occasion where you get one right.  

I presume it is at least mildly entertaining for most; there are few (if any) complaints regarding this behaviour on my part.  I can switch things up a bit for variety, like 'turd burglar' or 'douchenozzle' if anyone has a preference.

The Stormy-Pseudo Feud is getting a bit tired, lads.

Surely there must be other people you hate and could annoy? Just to give us some variety.

Oh, Pseudo and I have the odd rassle.  I don't think it's the people; we just need something new to fight over.

I fucking hate Palladium's micro-managed combat systems.  Can we chew on that?

Quote from: DeadUematsu;311528I like Monte Cook and think he did a great job with the Book of Experimental Might but he's not someone I feel can objectively look at the system and make the necessary changes to fix some of the underlying problems. That and I believe his influence over the final product was marginal at best.

That's my major beef with Monte's "involvement" as well. I remember when Paizo announced it and their fans went crazy with joy and "ha! we can take WotC down!" all over the Paizo boards and Enworld. I got booed down as a 4E-fanboy and Paizo-hater when I asked to clarify what exactly Monte's involvement was and if it would actually go beyond the sort of stuff he contributed to Necromancer Games' Tomes of Horrors series - namely, write a preface to a book he had barely leafed through.

A day later Monte put up a note on his webpage clarifying the nature of his involvement in broad brushes, and that was the last we ever heard on the matter.* So from what I can tell, this looks like a seriously cheap shot at a publicity stunt. I hope to be rectified on that some day - for instance, if Monte puts out a small blog entry on which concrete changes he brought about in the final product.

* Bulmahn put a note on Pathfinder RPG conversions up on Monte's DungeonaDay site more recently, but I'm not sure how that feeds into this.

Here's the 4E mindset, in a nutshell, that WotC seems to be enabling:

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, WE CAN'T WIN SIMPLY BY STUPIDLY BASHING SHIT WITH OUR KEWL WEAPONZ AND SKILLZ?!  OMGBROKENBADFUN!

Quote from: Windjammer;311611I hope to be rectified on that some day - for instance, if Monte puts out a small blog entry on which concrete changes he brought about in the final product.

* Bulmahn put a note on Pathfinder RPG conversions up on Monte's DungeonaDay site more recently, but I'm not sure how that feeds into this.

From where I'm sitting, Monte's role was more akin to a proofreader in terms of feel and mechanics. Basically reading drafts of modifications to the rules and giving feedback to Jason and/or discussing such potential changes before hand.

I doubt any such blog entry as you suggest will show up in the near future, but you never know with Monte. He is extremely careful in terms of PR by nature, but when he makes his moves, in terms of marketing and otherwise, he can surprise quite a few people, as we all know.

Now, for Bulmahn's involvement with DAD, this is just him having a column on the website detailing how to use this or that room, encounter, and other elements of DAD's dungeon using Pathfinder rules. He's not discussing anything else, really.

Quote from: StormBringer;311602So, you find it laudable to sincerely hold a position, even when that position is clearly incorrect.  That explains quite a bit, actually.

Except that my position is not incorrect. You yourself have agreed that it is "obvious". This is a sudden switch of position on your part, and is an example of your sophistry in action.

QuoteNo, I condemn a behaviour that I find condemnable, even when I engage in it.  And I accept the condemnation of others when I engage in those behaviours, offering no excuses.

Except when you did offer excuses when called on it, and as you're doing now.

QuoteI frequently apologize,

You never have on this board for it.

Quotehowever, but there are certain situations when a response in kind is not only appropriate, it is warranted.

This is an excuse.

QuotePartly because you will simply have to wallow in your inability to have any real impact on the world around you.

More vivid fantasy pretending to be reality.

Quotehy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy
   1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

hy·poc·ri·sy
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

For starters, I haven't claimed that those behaviours are wrong.    Ineffective, boorish at times, and indicative that one's argument is bereft of substance, certainly.  You are attempting to portray this as some kind of moral or ethical stance I have taken.  At best, you are wildly exaggerating to cover for your own inadequacies.  At the very least, you are willfully misrepresenting the argument.

Now you're trying to get out of being a hypocrite by splitting hairs, and not even doing so particularly effectively. You condemn swearing in others because it allows you to pretend to a moral high ground. You swear yourself because you are a hypocrite. It's as simple, and as obvious as that. It's just sophistry.

QuoteI don't say that it is wrong when other people engage in such behavior and right when I do.  I have said any number of times that it is a poor example of behaviour in all cases, mine own included.  However, there are times when it is the only remaining course.

You claim earlier that you don't make excuses for it, and yet this post repeats the same excuse twice, that when you do it you are "warranted" because it is "the only remaining course". You have quite simply, either lied or not cared enough to remain consistent.

QuoteI am quite certain that you would be the first to excoriate as a 'hypocrite' the police officer - sworn to protect - who kills the person shooting at them.  Partly, it's because you will argue in bad faith, prop up any number of strawmen, exaggerate or flat out misrepresent, and any other tactic you can draw upon to win the internets.

More telepathy.

QuoteOh, I forgot this little gem the first time around:

You would be so kind as to point out where I did this?

Well, there was earlier on this thread where you accused me of being part of a secret conspiracy to get you banned. There was also the early section where you claimed to only act in response to mean old 4e fans picking on OD&D.

QuoteI assume that after that, you will be addressing this part:

Or were you going to slide right on by that one, hoping no one would notice?

No, I was going to leave your belief that Dan Davenport calling you "Stormy" is like a husband calling his wife "sugartits" alone.

QuoteAnd I am levelling peurile insults because I am getting pretty bored waiting for the law of averages to glance your way and grant you that solitary, accidental occasion where you get one right.

To repeat this for emphasis: Your position earlier in this thread is that my beliefs are so obvious as to be banal and trivial. How can they therefore be incorrect? And if they are incorrect, why do you find them "obvious"?

Quote from: Hairfoot;311597No.  An internet troll is, by definition, someone who takes joy in stirring up arguments and watching people spack the fuck out.  No on these boards seems to meet that requirement.

Pseudoephedrine simply sticks the "troll" label on anyone who reminds him that he champions a game designed as a Mary-Sue ego vehicle for 15-year-olds.

Actually, I stick it on fewer people than most.

You are a troll because you make many ignorant pronouncements on 4e that are clearly phrased in the most inflammatory language you can muster.

Stormbringer is a troll because he is a sophist who jumps into discussions about 4e and shits on them without any regard for the truth.

Jeffy is a troll because he will take the opposite of whatever position I hold due to a personal grudge, no matter the merit of the opposite.

When CavScout was here, he was a troll. Otherwise, this board is fairly troll free. The vast majority of the population, whether pro or anti 4e, are not trolls.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;311528No. They did not do this AT ALL. Closer to the opposite but I honestly believe that the whole design process behind Pathfinder was random - essentially throwing shit on the wall and seeing what sticks.

Oh. Well, best of luck to them.

Seanchai

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;311662Except that my position is not incorrect. You yourself have agreed that it is "obvious". This is a sudden switch of position on your part, and is an example of your sophistry in action.

I've also had to explain, what, seven or eight times now?

QuoteNow you're trying to get out of being a hypocrite by splitting hairs, and not even doing so particularly effectively. You condemn swearing in others because it allows you to pretend to a moral high ground. You swear yourself because you are a hypocrite. It's as simple, and as obvious as that. It's just sophistry.

You really like that word.  You want me to thrash your precious notions about how it is used also?

QuoteWell, there was earlier on this thread where you accused me of being part of a secret conspiracy to get you banned. There was also the early section where you claimed to only act in response to mean old 4e fans picking on OD&D.

No, I claimed to act in response when people promulgate falsehoods knowingly.  Which is why I find it necessary to engage in threads where you find it necessary to continually expose your inability to form coherent thoughts by posting all manner of nonsense.

QuoteNo, I was going to leave your belief that Dan Davenport calling you "Stormy" is like a husband calling his wife "sugartits" alone.

In other words, either you really are as socially inept as I described, or you don't have anything like a valid argument.  I am Jack's lack of surprise.

QuoteTo repeat this for emphasis: Your position earlier in this thread is that my beliefs are so obvious as to be banal and trivial. How can they therefore be incorrect? And if they are incorrect, why do you find them "obvious"?

Wait, are you now saying that your beliefs are automatically correct?  That your observations are, by definition, without error?

It's quite easy to observe something that is quite banal, and still get it wildly wrong.  Flat-earthers, as I have already mentioned, most economists, conspiracy nuts, people with diagnosed mental illness and so forth.

And your inability to follow a conversation rather points back to that social ineptitude we have identified.  I haven't said your flaccid 'theory of play' was incorrect, just banal and irrelevant.  There is a difference you might want to look into.  Or, you can continue to conflate the two, and look more and more like you are just angling for some kind of internets point to blog about.

Because you are a douchebag.

I didn't bother with your not-so-clever one line responses because, well, they aren't really responses to begin with, just stock answers because you were caught with your pants down and have no rebuttal.

Kyle:  Sorry, old chap, but I did offer to switch up.  What would you prefer, "turd burgler", "douchenozzle", or did you have a write in vote?

You know as well as I do that talking around someone rarely works.  Like those intelligent design folks, their whole strategy is to 'argue the controversy', and when there isn't one, make it up.  Eventually, they keep spouting this nonsense until someone who isn't familiar with the tactic falls for it, and then the science folks spend all their time and energy correcting the basic mistakes just to get back to the starting point.

Honestly, we have run in the same circles for how long?  A decade?  You know I am not given to talking about myself unless someone brings it up.  Mostly because they are unable to present a valid point for the discussion at hand.  And the tactic works, because most people aren't going to read back in the same thread, let alone other threads a week, month, or year back to confirm.  Hell, I was pretty much done with this thread until the Pseudoephedrine and Seanchai Circus rolled into town to see how many converts they could drum up by completely misrepresenting anything that so much resembled an accurate statement.

If I were to continually make misleading statements or misrepresent simple facts about GAMERS, you wouldn't be inclined to ignore it after the fifth, sixth, tenth, twentieth incident, right?

I notice that for someone who claims not to make excuses for your bad behaviour, you make a lot of excuses for your bad behaviour. Of course, as we've shown earlier in this thread, you change your tune whenever convenient, without regard for truth.

Now, despite your earlier claim that the "culture of play" was so "obvious" it wasn't worth discussing, you want to pretend that it's like Flat Earth theory in being incorrect? How is that anything other than a cheap rhetorical trick that demonstrates your unscrupulousness, and the mercurial, insincere character of your beliefs?