The Great LTC Debate Thread (Yay? Nay? Burn in Hell?)

[Sunwoo]

And now the LTC debate topic has turned into a debate on whether people get trolled for not adhering to LTC or are deserving of said trolling. You guys are never going to come to an agreement about this. Why can't you guys just agree to disagree?

[Defeatist Elitist]

WTF. Are you seriously saying that whenever smash posts something you just automatically disagree with him because it's smash? That's retarded.

I don't know enough about this situation to make a judgement on it, but this idea in general isn't really that retarded. If somebody has a history of making silly unreasonable claims, and they make another claim, there's nothing wrong with thinking it's silly and unreasonable, as long as you do still look at it. This is why, for example, most scientists don't go around civilly debating creationists and don't need to.

It is still trolling, and quite severe one at that (completely dismissing or insulting someone just because that someone is hated among the majority of the community).

Tell me; if that isn't trolling, what is?

google "trolling" if you want a definition.

None of this shit is trolling. Even a google search will bring up the correct definition of trolling which is posting content purely to evoke a strong emotional response. If they're not just trying to piss you off (hint, they aren't) then they aren't trolling, by definition.

[Progenitus]

How is that behavior considered "trolling?" You immediately use that term--which has lost all its meaning--to refer to anyone who disagrees with you.That's really all they did, and you can't come to terms with it.

How about Gafgarion who explicitly just stated that it's retarded that people like Fox dismissed my points because it was made by me?

Again, if dismissing someone's points just because of their reputation is NOT trolling, what is?

I don't know enough about this situation to make a judgement on it, but this idea in general isn't really that retarded. If somebody has a history of making silly unreasonable claims, and they make another claim, there's nothing wrong with thinking it's silly and unreasonable, as long as you do still look at it. This is why, for example, most scientists don't go around civilly debating creationists and don't need to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

None of this shit is trolling. Even a google search will bring up the correct definition of trolling which is posting content purely to evoke a strong emotional response. If they're not just trying to piss you off (hint, they aren't) then they aren't trolling, by definition.

How is "I forgot this was Smash we were dealing with... " NOT trolling?

Or if you don't want to call it trolling, how about "flaming" instead?

Edited February 11, 2012 by IMPrime

[I.M. Gei]

You know, I've always wanted to drop a CrazyGoggs-esque lecture on someone. Ahem...

You're a delusional man who accuses anyone opposing you of "trolling" or "flaming." You've abused those terms so much that they've lost virtually all of their meaning, as you've twisted their definitions to fit your need to fuel your bizarre, aircraft carrier-sized persecution complex. You obsess over some guy who repeatedly disagreed with you years ago and could not come to terms with it. You really need to come down to Earth and learn some goddamn humility before you do something to seriously harm yourself.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Sunwoo]

Let's just put matters like this: "trolling" has everything to do with intent. A person who "trolls" means to do so and it is there intent to do so. But on the other hand, a person who may appear to be "trolling" may actually be not. Perhaps that person just wants to express his/her views, which are different to that of the rest of the community? Having a different opinion and expressing it is not against the code of conduct or the rules, if I am not mistaken. Pretty much, just because a majority of people may think a person is "trolling," doesn't mean that the person in question actually is.

With that said, someone kindly tell me when this topic is back to LTC and not this smash person's reputation.

[Defeatist Elitist]

How about Gafgarion who explicitly just stated that it's retarded that people like Fox dismissed my points because it was made by me?

Again, if dismissing someone's points just because of their reputation is NOT trolling, what is?

It would be really nice if you would just stop using the word in a context it doesn't belong in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Yeah, if I said "Guy X is a pedophile, therefore he doesn't know anything about pruning apple trees", that would be poisoning the well, but saying "Guy X has a history of academic misconduct and poor scientific method, therefore we will no give him significantly less credence" isn't, it's just doing what makes sense, and, by the way, is how the entire scientific community functions, and the scientific community is pretty much at the cutting edge of "how to do things logically and reasonably".

How is "I forgot this was Smash we were dealing with... " NOT trolling?

Or if you don't want to call it trolling, how about "flaming" instead?

It might be flaming, sure, but the two words mean completely different things, and implying that your opponents are just trolls represents a significantly greater attempt to discredit and delegitemize their arguments than implying they are flaming you does.

[Progenitus]

It would be really nice if you would just stop using the word in a context it doesn't belong in.

Except it is.

Yeah, if I said "Guy X is a pedophile, therefore he doesn't know anything about pruning apple trees", that would be poisoning the well, but saying "Guy X has a history of academic misconduct and poor scientific method, therefore we will no give him significantly less credence" isn't, it's just doing what makes sense, and, by the way, is how the entire scientific community functions, and the scientific community is pretty much at the cutting edge of "how to do things logically and reasonably".

So how about in future posts, I dismiss everything you and the SF niche have to say? Because from my point of view, you're the ones who don't understand the arguments no matter how often I bring them up, just like from your point of view it looks like I'm the one who doesn't understand.

It might be flaming, sure, but the two words mean completely different things, and implying that your opponents are just trolls represents a significantly greater attempt to discredit and delegitemize their arguments than implying they are flaming you does.

People flame because they want to illicit negative emotions from the other person, i.e. to troll them.

[Lord Raven]

they aren't trying to illicit negative emotions from you, you're doing it to yourself

so you're your own best troll ?_?

Edited February 11, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Progenitus]

Do you understand why people flame each other?

[Paperblade]

I'm pretty sure the only history smash has is being overly sensitive and disagreeing with commonly accepted SF tier list tenets.

Edit:

[15:17] <@Paperblade> I have a question

[15:17] <@Paperblade> if smash is a crackpot

[15:17] <@Paperblade> why did everyone feel the need to start posting in the thread after he posted

[15:17] <@Paperblade> and respond solely to him more or less

[15:18] <@Paperblade> actually

[15:18] <@Paperblade> half the people posting aren't in here

[15:18] <@Paperblade> I can ask in the thread

Double Edit: smash would like me to correct my post. He isn't sensitive; he just can't stand it when people don't understand what he's saying or ignore it.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Paperblade

[Defeatist Elitist]

So how about in future posts, I dismiss everything you and the SF niche have to say?

You've just lumped me together with a bunch of people but whatever.

Because from my point of view, you're the ones who don't understand the arguments no matter how often I bring them up, just like from your point of view it looks like I'm the one who doesn't understand.

Well yeah, if two groups have continuously had an argument with one another, and neither side seems to think the other will understand, then they tend to reach an impasse. But regardless, I never said either group should completely dismiss what the other had to say, what I said was that there was nothing wrong with taking an initial position of disagreement with someone just because of their past actions, and I never said anything more.

People flame because they want to illicit negative emotions from the other person, i.e. to troll them.

No, not really. People might flame because they themselves are angry, because they they enjoy it, to try to discredit their opponent, because it's part of their posting style, or a number of other reasons. Beyond that, just having flaming, even if they did kind of want to annoy you with it, still wouldn't have made them trolls unless pissing you off was their primary motivator in posting.

[Defeatist Elitist]

[15:17] <@Paperblade> I have a question

[15:17] <@Paperblade> if smash is a crackpot

[15:17] <@Paperblade> why did everyone feel the need to start posting in the thread after he posted

[15:17] <@Paperblade> and respond solely to him more or less

Perhaps they find what he is saying to be particularily errant and want to argue with him directly? I dunno, but either way this sort of weakens the whole "why does everybody ignore me and ignore everything I say" argument.

[Paperblade]

Defeatist when someone says "You're wrong because you're Defeatist" don't you kind of think that your opinion is being ignored?

Edited February 11, 2012 by Paperblade

[Defeatist Elitist]

Defeatist when someone says "You're wrong because you're Defeatist" don't you kind of think that your opinion is being ignored?

I would agree if A) that is all they said, and B) we hadn't had the argument a ton of times before. Perhaps it actually has happened that people have said smash was wrong just because he's smash, and left it at that, in which case, yeah, I'd say they were probably in the wrong there, but I don't really see it happening in this argument here, or in most of the things linked.

[Florete]

WTF. Are you seriously saying that whenever smash posts something you just automatically disagree with him because it's smash? That's retarded.

No, I'm basically saying what Revan explained. I look at what he says, but I take it all with a grain of salt.

It is a strawman - and by extension trolling - to stretch "tactically bad decisions" into "the player is a complete retard".

No, it's not. It was not defined to what extent the player makes mistakes with the exception of it once saying "maximal," which actually does assume the player may make a lot of mistakes and probably is really stupid. It didn't say something like "up to two mistakes per map," and you can't very well quantify the difference between no mistakes on a map and ten fatal mistakes on a map into the same list. This is why efficiency tier lists assume the player is competent and doesn't make such mistakes as accidentally putting your Heron in the way of Snipers.

Yeah, so instead of arguing the points the TC brings up, it's ok to flame him because of his reputation.

CSB

I do see people arguing your points, though. But again, what Revan said. If you were to try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5, I would not bother to explain why you're wrong.

And you wonder why the people outside of the serenesforest niche do not like debating with your kind anymore.

I don't wonder, actually. I understand that people don't like our way of doing things and don't think there's anything wrong with that. Different communities do things differently. If something can't get popular here, it's not our fault for not wanting to do it. What, are we supposed to like alternate ways of doing things just because others do? And if so, why don't you like our way of doing things, too?

Just because they agree with you doesn't mean they are not trolling me.

Was it really that hard to comprehend?

It would have been easier to comprehend if anyone had actually been trolling you.

So how about in future posts, I dismiss everything you and the SF niche have to say? Because from my point of view, you're the ones who don't understand the arguments no matter how often I bring them up, just like from your point of view it looks like I'm the one who doesn't understand.

Why do you even still post here?

I'm pretty sure the only history smash has is being overly sensitive and disagreeing with commonly accepted SF tier list tenets.

Edit:

[15:17] <@Paperblade> I have a question

[15:17] <@Paperblade> if smash is a crackpot

[15:17] <@Paperblade> why did everyone feel the need to start posting in the thread after he posted

[15:17] <@Paperblade> and respond solely to him more or less

[15:18] <@Paperblade> actually

[15:18] <@Paperblade> half the people posting aren't in here

[15:18] <@Paperblade> I can ask in the thread

I guess I just find it entertaining. Why do you think I was one of the ones voting to un-ban Smash?

Double Edit: smash would like me to correct my post. He isn't sensitive; he just can't stand it when people don't understand what he's saying or ignore it.

He also can never admit to being wrong.

[Progenitus]

No, I'm basically saying what Revan explained. I look at what he says, but I take it all with a grain of salt.

could've fooled me.

No, it's not. It was not defined to what extent the player makes mistakes with the exception of it once saying "maximal," which actually does assume the player may make a lot of mistakes and probably is really stupid. It didn't say something like "up to two mistakes per map," and you can't very well quantify the difference between no mistakes on a map and ten fatal mistakes on a map into the same list. This is why efficiency tier lists assume the player is competent and doesn't make such mistakes as accidentally putting your Heron in the way of Snipers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

I do see people arguing your points, though. But again, what Revan said. If you were to try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5, I would not bother to explain why you're wrong.

So what you're saying is that all of my arguments have the same logical groundwork as 2+2=5.

In other words you have already deemed yourself to be the winner of any argument I could come up, that your points and arguments you have are supposedly "common knowledge" (as is 2+2=4) with and are thus content on dismissing it instead.

Cool

Story

Bro

I don't wonder, actually. I understand that people don't like our way of doing things and don't think there's anything wrong with that. Different communities do things differently. If something can't get popular here, it's not our fault for not wanting to do it. What, are we supposed to like alternate ways of doing things just because others do? And if so, why don't you like our way of doing things, too?

Again, people have tried making separate tier lists.

Why do you even still post here?

Because I want to talk to people not part of the SF niche, and here you are spreading lies around that could negatively influence the people not part of the SF niche.

[Lord Raven]

I guess I just find it entertaining. Why do you think I was one of the ones voting to un-ban Smash?

Before I was inclined to agree that smash was just being a bit sensitive, but this point makes it seem like you're saying "I unbanned him to troll him." Edited February 11, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Defeatist Elitist]

Before I was inclined to agree that smash was just being a bit sensitive, but this point makes it seem like you're saying "I unbanned him to troll him."

I think she's saying she finds arguing with him entertaining.

[Florete]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

The fallacy can be dealt with by attempting to establish a reasonable working definition of the term at play or by showing that the other party is being unreasonable and avoiding the argument.

Show me where that happened. I'm pretty sure I pointed out that it wasn't defined.

So what you're saying is that all of my arguments have the same logical groundwork as 2+2=5.

In other words you have already deemed yourself to be the winner of any argument I could come up, that your points and arguments you have are supposedly "common knowledge" (as is 2+2=4) with and are thus content on dismissing it instead.

Cool

Story

Bro

You're taking the analogy a bit too far here. I just don't take you seriously enough to consider the arguments you make to be credible, as I would anyone who might say 2 + 2 = 5.

Again, people have tried making separate tier lists.

And? So they didn't get popular (in the cases where they actually didn't). Re-read my previous response.

Because I want to talk to people not part of the SF niche, and here you are spreading lies around that could negatively influence the people not part of the SF niche.

"Spreading?" I know you've mentioned some, but if this is really going to be your reasoning, start focusing your arguments on where the SF influence is infecting other sites. I don't post anywhere else anymore, and if it's all here anyway, it shouldn't matter to you.

And if you wanted to talk to people at SF not part of the SF niche...isn't that kind of pointless? I mean, we are at SF.

Before I was inclined to agree that smash was just being a bit sensitive, but this point makes it seem like you're saying "I unbanned him to troll him."

I enjoy the arguments. I don't troll him. Come on.

[Paperblade]

No, I'm basically saying what Revan explained. I look at what he says, but I take it all with a grain of salt.

Except that smash doesn't have a history of being wrong--at least, not significantly more wrong than any other user considering that smash and I's definition of "efficiency" and general tiering philosophy is so different than many other users. In case you forgot, many things that smash argued are reflected in the current FE10 list: Haar>Ike, Titania>Mia, Nolan>Jill, Rhys>Mist just from a cursory glance, and last I checked Hawks>Mia was at least being considered.

I don't wonder, actually. I understand that people don't like our way of doing things and don't think there's anything wrong with that. Different communities do things differently. If something can't get popular here, it's not our fault for not wanting to do it. What, are we supposed to like alternate ways of doing things just because others do? And if so, why don't you like our way of doing things, too?

Well it's one thing to not like it and it's another to call it pointless and dumb due to subjectivity (I can go pull up the posts if you want), when the fact that we are even having this discussion means that tier lists are inherently subjective due to arguments about resource distribution and measuring sticks. And you can say it's "too subjective" but now you are trying to draw a line on "how subjective" something is when it's not even really that easy to measure.

I guess I just find it entertaining. Why do you think I was one of the ones voting to un-ban Smash?

Your maturity is astounding.

He also can never admit to being wrong.

lmao don't think this is limited to smash: No one in a tier list will ever admit to being wrong--that's part of why I quit.

[Aethereal]

http://en.wikipedia..../Loki%27s_Wager

You constantly pull out links to support your argument that do not in any way. Do you just think every one is too dumb to read the links?

Edited February 12, 2012 by Aethereal

[Sunwoo]

I have to agree with Paperblade on that last point. No one likes to admit that they're wrong. NO. ONE. I've been reading through tier lists even before I joined. They are long and massive and take a really long time to read through, so I haven't gone through every - single - page, but people just do not like to admit that they're wrong. It's not just a "smash" thing, it's a "people" thing and more so on the Internet.

[Florete]

Except that smash doesn't have a history of being wrong--at least, not significantly more wrong than any other user considering that smash and I's definition of "efficiency" and general tiering philosophy is so different than many other users. In case you forgot, many things that smash argued are reflected in the current FE10 list: Haar>Ike, Titania>Mia, Nolan>Jill, Rhys>Mist just from a cursory glance, and last I checked Hawks>Mia was at least being considered.

I never said he's always wrong. I did mention that he took the 2+2 analogy too far. He can be right, but if I don't already agree with what he's saying or consider it reasonable I generally don't think it's worth looking into.

Well it's one thing to not like it and it's another to call it pointless and dumb due to subjectivity (I can go pull up the posts if you want), when the fact that we are even having this discussion means that tier lists are inherently subjective due to arguments about resource distribution and measuring sticks. And you can say it's "too subjective" but now you are trying to draw a line on "how subjective" something is when it's not even really that easy to measure.

Pull up the posts. And don't bother if they are from any time before 2010.

Your maturity is astounding.

When did it become so bad to enjoy this kind of argument? The FE10 tier list has almost 10,000 posts for Christ's sake.

Plus everyone knows I'm a sadist.

lmao don't think this is limited to smash: No one in a tier list will ever admit to being wrong--that's part of why I quit.

There is truth in this, but I find Smash to be among the worst cases. At least 95% of the time if people don't agree with him they are just "trolling." For almost anyone that has regularly debated in the topics here I can remember at least a few cases where they gave in on an argument, but none for Smash.

[Lord Raven]

I'm not saying you were trolling, I said it only seemed like you unbanned him to do so, based purely on the subject of the current argument; I don't think my conclusions were particularly farfetched at all. But either way, enjoying the argument being part of a reason to unban someone is somewhat unsettling.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Florete]

I'm not saying you were trolling, I said it seemed like you unbanned him to do so. But either way, enjoying the argument being part of a reason to unban someone is somewhat unsettling. And given the subject of the argument right now, it's not farfetched to think what I posted.

Just for the record, he would not have been un-banned, nor would I have voted to unban him, if what had gotten him banned was something that really should have kept him banned. His banning was already borderline and I obviously wasn't the only one who was willing to unban him (I can't actually unban anyone myself). I also voted to unban Hikarusa at the same time, and I never argue with him.

But enough about this. Some of the stuff happening now is already borderline on-topic, this is completely off.

EDIT: If you guys want to bring this up with me anymore I'd be willing to do it in PM, but not here.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Madam Red