Forums of the Megaverse®

I have to say, the difference seems rather immaterial when you put it that way. However, i'm curious, why is it important that they be similar? Their differences define them separately well enough, but they are just two subsets of the same thing. What is your purpose for the arguement?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Alrik.

Dog, if we classify Auto-Dodge as a Dodge then, while I'm aware of it saying AD has special bonuses, is there a place in the book that explicitly says NOT to apply standard dodge bonuses stacked on top of the auto-dodge ones?

Or is this something we just naturally assume because it would make AD too epic and remove the purpose behind dodging normally?

I imagine there's probably an online FAQ somewhere saying not to add normal dodge bonuses to AD anymore and that the new AD-exclusive bonuses are used instead-of rather than in-addition-to, but wondering if that explicitly appears in RUE.

Well, Tor, I'm mostly asking to see what the importance of their difference is for the purpose of his argument. If this is a debate over minutia and we're just splitting hairs here, I've altogether lost interest.

Tor wrote:Dog, if we classify Auto-Dodge as a Dodge then, while I'm aware of it saying AD has special bonuses, is there a place in the book that explicitly says NOT to apply standard dodge bonuses stacked on top of the auto-dodge ones?

Yes; under auto-dodge itself.
See, like most exceptions, the exception contains the rule in which makes it exceptional to the standard rule.

my understanding of missiles (smart ones) is that they have guidance that means on the "strike" rolled to hit is how effectively they attack.

the 4 or more missiles being undodgeable is mostly due to the volley of missiles coordinating to saturate the area their target is in in such a way that 1 will "automatically hit" and then the ones that should have missed will correct enough to follow up that initial hit on the flopping (momentarily out of control target).

re attacks by "smart bomb" missiles, they typically have 2 attacks on their own, and once they are clos enough to hit they do attempt to strike, but if you shoot at them and they notice that attempt they will use a dodge action to avoid being hit and neutralized, regarding how long it takes them to turn around and come back for a second attack if they miss? I would say ~5-7 seconds by inference RE a round is 15 seconds and they get 2 attacks per round.

additionally I would say that smart bombs (missiles) in some ways are like adding additional attackers into a fight.

re the auto defense vs missiles I can't remember where I saw it but it is in "capital units" and at least one "special" robot vehicle or power armor, the key was it had a dedicated computer that could grab control of a specific weapon system and use it to attack missiles (and only missiles) using a specified number of actions at specific bonuses.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Dog, if we classify Auto-Dodge as a Dodge then, while I'm aware of it saying AD has special bonuses, is there a place in the book that explicitly says NOT to apply standard dodge bonuses stacked on top of the auto-dodge ones?

Yes; under auto-dodge itself. See, like most exceptions, the exception contains the rule in which makes it exceptional to the standard rule.

Just to split hairs for fun though Dog...

RUEp344 under Auto-Dodge says a few things:
*Bonuses to auto-dodge come from the character's PP attribute
*and any special bonuses specifically for it

However, since the word 'only' is not included, the description does not solely limit us to those bonuses in exclusion of others. Instead it is simply listed 2 possible sources of bonuses.

Nowhere in this page does it actually exclude us from adding normal dodge bonuses to automatic dodge rolls. Instead, you could easily interpret that normal dodge bonuses stack with auto-dodge bonuses. In fact the phrase "roll for a dodge as normal" strongly implies that you do this.

That's why I asked for a more explicit disclaimer, such as "normal dodge bonuses do not apply" or use of limiting words like "only" or phrases like "limited to".

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Dog, if we classify Auto-Dodge as a Dodge then, while I'm aware of it saying AD has special bonuses, is there a place in the book that explicitly says NOT to apply standard dodge bonuses stacked on top of the auto-dodge ones?

Yes; under auto-dodge itself. See, like most exceptions, the exception contains the rule in which makes it exceptional to the standard rule.

Just to split hairs for fun though Dog...

RUEp344 under Auto-Dodge says a few things:
*Bonuses to auto-dodge come from the character's PP attribute
*and any special bonuses specifically for it

However, since the word 'only' is not included, the description does not solely limit us to those bonuses in exclusion of others. Instead it is simply listed 2 possible sources of bonuses.

Nowhere in this page does it actually exclude us from adding normal dodge bonuses to automatic dodge rolls. Instead, you could easily interpret that normal dodge bonuses stack with auto-dodge bonuses. In fact the phrase "roll for a dodge as normal" strongly implies that you do this.

That's why I asked for a more explicit disclaimer, such as "normal dodge bonuses do not apply" or use of limiting words like "only" or phrases like "limited to".

No, I disagree. If I write "A = B + C", it is correct to assume that A does not include anything else even though I didn't specifically write "A = only B + C and nothing else".

--flatline

flatline wrote:No, I disagree. If I write "A = B + C", it is correct to assume that A does not include anything else even though I didn't specifically write "A = only B + C and nothing else".

--flatline

Exactly this.

Tor, it quite specifically lines out where the bonuses come from; they come from PP attribute and bonuses that specify auto-dodge. They don't come from other sources.

flatline wrote:If I write "A = B + C", it is correct to assume that A does not include anything else even though I didn't specifically write "A = only B + C and nothing else".

You've oversimplified things though. Auto-dodge is a dodge, just like auto-parry is a parry.

Furthermore, this is not written like a math equation. It's written like "fruits and vegetables are good to eat". Such a statement does not disqualify meat or corn from also being good to eat.

Dog_O_War wrote:it quite specifically lines out where the bonuses come from; they come from PP attribute and bonuses that specify auto-dodge.

They don't come from other sources.

That last part is your opinion and not actually supported by the text in question. It does not state bonuses can't come from elsewhere. It doesn't state bonuses ONLY come from the 2 sources listed. The statement is inclusive rather than exclusive in nature.

Tor wrote:

flatline wrote:If I write "A = B + C", it is correct to assume that A does not include anything else even though I didn't specifically write "A = only B + C and nothing else".

You've oversimplified things though. Auto-dodge is a dodge, just like auto-parry is a parry.

Furthermore, this is not written like a math equation. It's written like "fruits and vegetables are good to eat". Such a statement does not disqualify meat or corn from also being good to eat.

It is quite literally written like a math equation, bud; Auto-Dodge = X, where X is PP bonuses + auto-dodge bonuses.
That is exactly math - it is not written differently.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:it quite specifically lines out where the bonuses come from; they come from PP attribute and bonuses that specify auto-dodge.

They don't come from other sources.

That last part is your opinion and not actually supported by the text in question. It does not state bonuses can't come from elsewhere. It doesn't state bonuses ONLY come from the 2 sources listed. The statement is inclusive rather than exclusive in nature.

To use your logic, I was born in Canada. But because my Birth Certificate doesn't state that I was ONLY born in Canada, I can therefore have also been born elsewhere.
Yeah no; that's called a 'logic fallacy'.

What it does is state where bonuses can come from.
The reasoning here is this; does it say that bonuses can come from your arse? Does it say that bonuses can come from my arse? Does it say bonuses can come from your personal rules fantasies? Does it state that bonuses can come from Dog's house-rules?
The answer is 'no' because that's how it works.

Dog_O_War wrote:It is quite literally written like a math equation, bud; Auto-Dodge = X, where X is PP bonuses + auto-dodge bonuses. That is exactly math - it is not written differently.

Dog, if it were written like the math equation you are proposing, it would include language equivalent to our mathematical symbols. The equals sign has a very limiting meaning in mathematics, and the sentence is not written in a limited way. We're only told that these bonuses are used, not that ONLY they are used.

All we know from this sentence is actually:

b>=a+p

(a being auto-dodge specific bonuses, p being PP bonuses, b being total bonuses)

although this could be untrue if we factor in penalties... so make b "total bonuses before penalties" to avoid confusion

Of course, I'm sure in the GMG there's probably a sentence that does explicitly state not to use normal dodge bonuses (except PP ones) so we're really just arguing about what RUE says, not what the game as a whole does.

It is a relevant argument for those who persist on declaring that GMG no longer applies at all since RUE.

Dog_O_War wrote:To use your logic, I was born in Canada. But because my Birth Certificate doesn't state that I was ONLY born in Canada, I can therefore have also been born elsewhere. Yeah no; that's called a 'logic fallacy'.

Actually, there could be an obscure situation where you're born on the border between US and Canada... or you could have a fake birth certificate.

Also your example is not applicable to our discussion. People can generally only be born in one location, whereas bonuses to die rolls can come from multiple sources. We're already told 2.

A better example would be "your bill says you bought steak and cake, was that all your ate?" in which case the answer might be no: you could have had complimentary bread (which you were not billed for) or taken a bite of a companion's potatoes.

Dog_O_War wrote:What it does is state where bonuses can come from.

Stating possibilities is not the same as stating them to be the only exclusive possibilities.

If a combat example says "you can shoot at a Dead Boy" it doesn't mean you can't shoot at a dragon.

Dog_O_War wrote:The reasoning here is this; does it say that bonuses can come from your arse? Does it say that bonuses can come from my arse? Does it say bonuses can come from your personal rules fantasies? Does it state that bonuses can come from Dog's house-rules? The answer is 'no' because that's how it works.

Seeing as how the example here is "can these bonuses come from the book" since we are discussing dodge bonuses from within the book itself, I think you're get again deviating from a comparable metaphor.

Seeing as how we're looking at a system where "parry" bonuses are added to automatic parries, and where dodge bonuses traditionally WERE (and may still be) added to automatic dodges, it's a very reasonable thing to explore how restrictive the language introducing this idea is in the places it is addressed. The arse/fantasy stuff seems kinda rude bro.

Tor wrote:RUE has elsewhere made a distinction between auto-dodge and dodge as different things though. So why would a mention of a "dodge" have any relation to an auto-dodge when they're so distinctive as to have different bonuses?

It would be like saying that 'can't parry' means 'can't backflip'.

Just skimming through the book again, it doesn't actually seems to go into any depth as to Dodge and Auto-Dodge being completely dissimilar. The bonuses to them aren't entirely different either. They both get P.P. bonus added to them for one (RUE p344).

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:It is quite literally written like a math equation, bud; Auto-Dodge = X, where X is PP bonuses + auto-dodge bonuses. That is exactly math - it is not written differently.

Dog, if it were written like the math equation you are proposing, it would include language equivalent to our mathematical symbols.

It does.

Tor wrote:The equals sign has a very limiting meaning in mathematics, and the sentence is not written in a limited way. We're only told that these bonuses are used, not that ONLY they are used.

Wrong. The sentence is limited.

Tor wrote:All we know from this sentence is actually:

*wishful thinking, but ultimately a flawed interpretation of the sentence, as there is nothing to interpret because it is quite clear in the execution.

Of course, I'm sure in the GMG there's probably a sentence that does explicitly state not to use normal dodge bonuses (except PP ones) so we're really just arguing about what RUE says, not what the game as a whole does.

*a satire; what was actually said was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that is the posters' interpretation of a sentence that is otherwise abundantly clear.

Tor wrote:It is a relevant argument for those who persist on declaring that GMG no longer applies at all since RUE.

You don't seem to know the meaning of precedence. I recommend you look it up, as there is a world of difference between "no longer applies" and "takes precedence over", which R:UE does because it is the most current version of Rifts.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:To use your logic, I was born in Canada. But because my Birth Certificate doesn't state that I was ONLY born in Canada, I can therefore have also been born elsewhere. Yeah no; that's called a 'logic fallacy'.

Actually, there could be an obscure situation where you're born on the border between US and Canada... or you could have a fake birth certificate.

*facepalm*
Just..... just no. They make you choose. Every. Single. Time.

Tor wrote:Also your example is not applicable to our discussion. People can generally only be born in one location, whereas bonuses to die rolls can come from multiple sources. We're already told 2.

It is entirely applicable; it points out that your argument, "because it does not say "only", therefore it can be X" is A-typical, non-standard, and against every ounce of logical interpretation of the inclusion of information. When something states where bonuses can come from, then guess what? That's where they come from and no where else.

And a very simple counter-point to your argument is this question; "does the rule say you can have bonuses from other sources other than the ones listed?"
So does it?/rhetorical.

Tor wrote:A better example would be "your bill says you bought steak and cake, was that all your ate?" in which case the answer might be no: you could have had complimentary bread (which you were not billed for) or taken a bite of a companion's potatoes.

That is a false total; you're talking about the bill, but trying to calculate what a person ate. They could have eaten nothing, but your bill won't tell you that because it only totals what you paid for, not what you ate.
Your example is terrible; mine has relevance to your statement.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:What it does is state where bonuses can come from.

Stating possibilities is not the same as stating them to be the only exclusive possibilities.

If a combat example says "you can shoot at a Dead Boy" it doesn't mean you can't shoot at a dragon.

That snippet of a combat example lacks credibility; the example isn't stating all the possible targets. Meanwhile the rule in question is stating all the possible bonuses.

And if I must; this is how your 'argument' could even be remotely applied; it states that your auto-dodge is equal to your PP bonus + auto-dodge bonuses. That does not mean that it will be this because you may not have PP bonuses and/or auto-dodge bonuses.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The reasoning here is this; does it say that bonuses can come from your arse? Does it say that bonuses can come from my arse? Does it say bonuses can come from your personal rules fantasies? Does it state that bonuses can come from Dog's house-rules? The answer is 'no' because that's how it works.

Seeing as how the example here is "can these bonuses come from the book" since we are discussing dodge bonuses from within the book itself, I think you're get again deviating from a comparable metaphor.

That isn't even a metaphor.

"Bonuses to auto-doge come from the character's P.P. attribute and any special bonus specifically fro it. (the bonus, skill or enhancement will say "automatic dodge")"
That seems pretty cut and dried. If the bonus says 'automatic dodge' then it applies to Automatic Dodge. Otherwise it doesn't.

Dog_O_War wrote:It does. Wrong. The sentence is limited.

Your repeating this doesn't make it so Dog. I've pointed out why it lacks limiting language, and given examples of what actual limiting language is.

You have failed to present a rebuttal to "bonuses come from" versus "bonuses only come from".

If I say "free radicals come from overcooked meat and car exhaust" that's not at all stating it can't come from other sources.

Limiting language like "only" or similar must be present for this to be so.

You improperly represented the sentence with math.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:*wishful thinking, but ultimately a flawed interpretation of the sentence, as there is nothing to interpret because it is quite clear in the execution.

*a satire; what was actually said was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that is the posters' interpretation of a sentence that is otherwise abundantly clear.

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate with your "satire" Dog. If anything, you're engaging in wishful thinking by thinking the sentence clearly means 'no other bonuses'. All it's telling us is 'these bonuses are included'.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:It is a relevant argument for those who persist on declaring that GMG no longer applies at all since RUE.

You don't seem to know the meaning of precedence. I recommend you look it up, as there is a world of difference between "no longer applies" and "takes precedence over", which R:UE does because it is the most current version of Rifts.

I'm well aware of the difference Dog, however I believe I am correct in summarizing that some view the GMG as no longer applying whatsoever, rather than merely being trumped in cases of conflict, which would be my stance.

Dog_O_War wrote:They make you choose. Every. Single. Time.

I bow to your superior knowledge of such a situation. Although we do live in a world where dual citizenship is possible, so I think it's a forgiveable guess. Looking beyond our real modern world, I could see some nations in PF having such a policy.

Dog_O_War wrote:It is entirely applicable; it points out that your argument, "because it does not say "only", therefore it can be X" is A-typical, non-standard, and against every ounce of logical interpretation of the inclusion of information.

You're quite the playwright dog, but no, there is hardly an illogical interpretation. If you look beyond your sole 'citizenship' example, to something simple like "I eat apples and oranges", it is very much common sense that other things can possibly contribute to a total even if they are not included in a particular phrase pertaining to it.

Dog_O_War wrote:When something states where bonuses can come from, then guess what? That's where they come from and no where else.

Source? This is clearly your house-rule, you're making up language that actually isn't in the books at all.

If we applied this logic to other areas in the book, then you couldn't possibly restore HP through magic because the HP restoration rules only mention being able to do it with rest.

The entirety of numerical contributors is not always collected in 1 spot.

Dog_O_War wrote:a very simple counter-point to your argument is this question; "does the rule say you can have bonuses from other sources other than the ones listed?"

I would say it does, yes, because auto-dodge is a "dodge" and therefore a dodge bonus is added to it.

Many cases of characters with autododge say "roll as normal", which can be viewed to mean 'use normal bonuses'. The Reaver Assassin in Warlords of Russia has this language.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:A better example would be "your bill says you bought steak and cake, was that all your ate?" in which case the answer might be no: you could have had complimentary bread (which you were not billed for) or taken a bite of a companion's potatoes.

That is a false total; you're talking about the bill, but trying to calculate what a person ate. They could have eaten nothing, but your bill won't tell you that because it only totals what you paid for, not what you ate.
Your example is terrible; mine has relevance to your statement.

My example is useful enough, as people have a tendency to eat what they buy, and people have a tendency to use their bonuses. In some cases bonuses are not used, of course (like when they are negated by a power, or offset by penalties) which would be the 'I did not eat my steak' example.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:If a combat example says "you can shoot at a Dead Boy" it doesn't mean you can't shoot at a dragon.

That snippet of a combat example lacks credibility; the example isn't stating all the possible targets. Meanwhile the rule in question is stating all the possible bonuses.

Except it isn't, because "all" is a word YOU added to it. Why are you bolding a term not present in section which you are making up on the spot?

Dog_O_War wrote:this is how your 'argument' could even be remotely applied; it states that your auto-dodge is equal to your PP bonus + auto-dodge bonuses. That does not mean that it will be this because you may not have PP bonuses and/or auto-dodge bonuses.

It could also mean you have other bonuses, like ones for dodging, or ones to 'all combat rolls'.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The reasoning here is this;
does it say that bonuses can come from your arse?
Does it say that bonuses can come from my arse?
Does it say bonuses can come from your personal rules fantasies?
Does it state that bonuses can come from Dog's house-rules?

I think you're get again deviating from a comparable metaphor.

That isn't even a metaphor.

Well, whatever that was. Sorry if I don't know the proper term when you go rambling on about arses and fantasies, it really confuses me.

eliakon wrote:"Bonuses to auto-doge come from the character's P.P. attribute and any special bonus specifically fro it. (the bonus, skill or enhancement will say "automatic dodge")"
That seems pretty cut and dried. If the bonus says 'automatic dodge' then it applies to Automatic Dodge. Otherwise it doesn't.

My point is that this section of the book does NOT say that last part, it's something you're assuming.

The parenthesis is explaining what 'automatic dodge' bonuses are.

It isn't stating "do not use normal dodge bonuses".

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:"Bonuses to auto-doge come from the character's P.P. attribute and any special bonus specifically fro it. (the bonus, skill or enhancement will say "automatic dodge")"
That seems pretty cut and dried. If the bonus says 'automatic dodge' then it applies to Automatic Dodge. Otherwise it doesn't.

My point is that this section of the book does NOT say that last part, it's something you're assuming.

The parenthesis is explaining what 'automatic dodge' bonuses are.

It isn't stating "do not use normal dodge bonuses".

But it did. It said 'This is what you get as a bonus to Automatic Dodge' It even helpfully points out that those bonuses will be labeled. There is nothing in there that says that anything else is a bonus. Now if you want to play it that way that's your game, but it clearly labels what is allowed to add Auto Dodge. A list does not have to say 'this and only this' to be exclusive, and in fact the general trend in Palladium is to be exclusive, with things only applying if they are explicitly said to apply.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:It does. Wrong. The sentence is limited.

Your repeating this doesn't make it so Dog.

I repeat that because that's the most clear it can possibly be. But beyond this; no, my repeating it does not make it so; the fact it is written the way I've described though does.

Tor wrote:I've pointed out why it lacks limiting language, and given examples of what actual limiting language is.

You've done no such thing; all you've done is say, "nuh-uh! it isn't clear, even though it very specifically states where you get your bonuses from!"

Tor wrote:You have failed to present a rebuttal to "bonuses come from" versus "bonuses only come from".

Tor, that doesn't need a rebuttal - that is quite concise. When you say, "bonuses come from" that eliminates other sources because it quite clearly says where bonuses come from. If it doesn't say that bonuses come from another source, then guess what? they don't.

Tor wrote:If I say "free radicals come from overcooked meat and car exhaust" that's not at all stating it can't come from other sources.

Using your example, it is saying is where free radicals come from. So if you identify another source, like stinky cheese, then those aren't free radicals, because free radicals come from the sources you've described above.

Tor wrote:Limiting language like "only" or similar must be present for this to be so.

No.
A statement describing something using any number of other words, like "is" which is the third-person version of "be". Like the Auto-Dodge rule; it either is or it isn't equal to PP+auto-dodge bonuses. And since it's said it is, then it is.

Tor wrote:You improperly represented the sentence with math.

Context? You've half-heartedly quoted me, so I have no idea what portion of my post you're responding to here.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:*wishful thinking, but ultimately a flawed interpretation of the sentence, as there is nothing to interpret because it is quite clear in the execution.

*a satire; what was actually said was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that is the posters' interpretation of a sentence that is otherwise abundantly clear.

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate with your "satire" Dog.

I know you don't. But that wasn't for you.

Tor wrote:If anything, you're engaging in wishful thinking by thinking the sentence clearly means 'no other bonuses'. All it's telling us is 'these bonuses are included'.

Again, you have a complete lack of understanding regarding English. The sentence is telling us "it uses these bonuses". It doesn't say, "it must use these bonuses", or "these bonuses are included, but there may be others"; it says what bonuses it uses. Period. Full Stop. End of story.
Any other interpretation is simply misguided and wrong.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:It is a relevant argument for those who persist on declaring that GMG no longer applies at all since RUE.

You don't seem to know the meaning of precedence. I recommend you look it up, as there is a world of difference between "no longer applies" and "takes precedence over", which R:UE does because it is the most current version of Rifts.

I'm well aware of the difference Dog, however I believe I am correct in summarizing that some view the GMG as no longer applying whatsoever, rather than merely being trumped in cases of conflict, which would be my stance.

Which wouldn't hold an ounce of relevance here because R:UE has defined the rule for discussion in this thread, making any mention, citation, or indication towards the GMG irrelevant in this topic.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:They make you choose. Every. Single. Time.

I bow to your superior knowledge of such a situation. Although we do live in a world where dual citizenship is possible, so I think it's a forgiveable guess.

Citizenship and where you're birthed are two different things. Or can't you tell the difference?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:It is entirely applicable; it points out that your argument, "because it does not say "only", therefore it can be X" is A-typical, non-standard, and against every ounce of logical interpretation of the inclusion of information.

You're quite the playwright dog, but no, there is hardly an illogical interpretation.

It's quite accurately an illogical interpretation you're making. The rule says what the Auto-dodge is equal to; so it is either equal to that or it isn't, there is no middle ground.

Tor wrote:If you look beyond your sole 'citizenship' example, to something simple like "I eat apples and oranges", it is very much common sense that other things can possibly contribute to a total even if they are not included in a particular phrase pertaining to it.

Do you even understand the difference between a statement and a rule?
Because what this thread is about concerns a rule, and your examples are consistently statements.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:When something states where bonuses can come from, then guess what? That's where they come from and no where else.

Source? This is clearly your house-rule, you're making up language that actually isn't in the books at all.

The source I'm pulling from is the language the rule was written in. It's not a "house-rule"; it's a fact of the matter.

Tor wrote:If we applied this logic to other areas in the book, then you couldn't possibly restore HP through magic because the HP restoration rules only mention being able to do it with rest.

Wrong. They only describe healing naturally or with medical attention. They do not state "you can heal from these sources", but instead include the qualifier, "you gain HP back over time with this method".
So if you're going to quote a rule, make sure you know what in the hell you're quoting, because even your application of a counter-argument using "this logic" (which you've made abundantly clear you don't know how to do) is wrong.

Tor wrote:The entirety of numerical contributors is not always collected in 1 spot.

And again, your half-hearted quote responses leave me scratching my head, as I have no idea what this sentence is a response to.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:a very simple counter-point to your argument is this question; "does the rule say you can have bonuses from other sources other than the ones listed?"

I would say it does, yes, because auto-dodge is a "dodge" and therefore a dodge bonus is added to it.

No. I asked you, "does it say" as in, 'is it written down within the rule'.
So is it written down in the rule that bonuses can come from sources other than the ones listed?

Tor wrote:Many cases of characters with autododge say "roll as normal", which can be viewed to mean 'use normal bonuses'. The Reaver Assassin in Warlords of Russia has this language.

Being told how to roll and being told the input factors of a bonus calculation are two completely different things.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:A better example would be "your bill says you bought steak and cake, was that all your ate?" in which case the answer might be no: you could have had complimentary bread (which you were not billed for) or taken a bite of a companion's potatoes.

That is a false total; you're talking about the bill, but trying to calculate what a person ate. They could have eaten nothing, but your bill won't tell you that because it only totals what you paid for, not what you ate.
Your example is terrible; mine has relevance to your statement.

My example is useful enough...

No.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:If a combat example says "you can shoot at a Dead Boy" it doesn't mean you can't shoot at a dragon.

That snippet of a combat example lacks credibility; the example isn't stating all the possible targets. Meanwhile the rule in question is stating all the possible bonuses.

Except it isn't, because "all" is a word YOU added to it. Why are you bolding a term not present in section which you are making up on the spot?

Because Tor, the rule either is telling us what bonuses are used, or it isn't. If it isn't, then the rule is invalid and we should ignore it; if it is telling us what bonuses are used, then that would be all of them.
So basically, your argument boils down to "this rule is wrong"; but historically, when a call of whether a poster on a forum's words are canon, or the text in question is canon, the poster is wrong and the text remains correct.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:this is how your 'argument' could even be remotely applied; it states that your auto-dodge is equal to your PP bonus + auto-dodge bonuses. That does not mean that it will be this because you may not have PP bonuses and/or auto-dodge bonuses.

It could also mean you have other bonuses, like ones for dodging, or ones to 'all combat rolls'.

A rule can say, "All combat rolls", but auto-dodge only takes from PP and sources that say "auto-dodge bonus".
At which point, the only thing that needs to be discussed is whether "all combat rolls" is the equivalent to "auto-dodge bonus"; the rule of auto-dodge itself though remains intact.

eliakon wrote:

It isn't stating "do not use normal dodge bonuses".

But it did.

No, it didn't. Quote it.

eliakon wrote:It said 'This is what you get as a bonus to Automatic Dodge' It even helpfully points out that those bonuses will be labeled. There is nothing in there that says that anything else is a bonus.

Agreed. Not mentioning anything else being a bonus (omission) is not the same as saying "nothing else can be a bonus". "I eat apples" is not "apples are all I eat".

eliakon wrote:it clearly labels what is allowed to add Auto Dodge.

Not in the context of it being ALL that is allowed.

eliakon wrote:A list does not have to say 'this and only this' to be exclusive

Actually it does.

eliakon wrote:the general trend in Palladium is to be exclusive, with things only applying if they are explicitly said to apply.

Dodge bonuses explicitly apply because "dodge" is part of "automatic dodge".

Does it ever explicitly state anywhere that we add parry bonuses to automatic parries? Does that mean they're done without bonuses?

Since this has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammer Nazism I will respectfully bow out, having said my piece. For those that wish to continue I would like to helpfully remind people that Uncle Al has a special on Asbestos Underwear this week.

eliakon wrote:Since this has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammer Nazism I will respectfully bow out, having said my piece.

Could you avoid the association with national socialism please? There's nothing immoral about being attentive to the meaning of words and phrases, it's essential to understanding rules and law.

Dog_O_War wrote:I repeat that because that's the most clear it can possibly be.

It's clearer to focus on the why preceding a conclusion, not the conclusion.

Dog_O_War wrote:it is written the way I've described

You have not pointed out any exclusionary language to support an exclusionary conclusion.

A bonus does not need to be particular to a modified dodge (other example would include a 'multiple' dodge) to apply to it.

The introduction of particular "automatic" dodge bonuses and an indication to include them could be seen as a reminder of a supplement, rather than a statement of replacement.

Some bonuses for example only apply during 'called' shots, or called shots done to 'disarm', but they supplement strike rolls rather than replace them.

Dog_O_War wrote:all you've done is say, "nuh-uh! it isn't clear, even though it very specifically states where you get your bonuses from!"

Incorrect summary, an automatic dodge is clearly a dodge, and no language exists denying the use of dodge bonuses for automatic ones within the sections of RUE we are discussing.

Dog_O_War wrote:When you say, "bonuses come from" that eliminates other sources because it quite clearly says where bonuses come from. If it doesn't say that bonuses come from another source, then guess what? they don't.

That is simply incorrect. If you look at many other statistics you can see too that this is not the case.

HP for example, we are told where it comes from, from PE and d6 per level. Yet some classes actually add HP bonuses on top of this. Yet those additions are not at all described under basic HP rules.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:If I say "free radicals come from overcooked meat and car exhaust" that's not at all stating it can't come from other sources.

Using your example, it is saying is where free radicals come from. So if you identify another source, like stinky cheese, then those aren't free radicals, because free radicals come from the sources you've described above.

That's nonsense, free radicals can clearly come from other sources. The phrase "comes from" only means at minimum "some comes from", we should never assume 'all', although it does merit to sentence if we add 'some' for clarification to avoid such assumptions.

Dog_O_War wrote:A statement describing something using any number of other words, like "is" which is the third-person version of "be". Like the Auto-Dodge rule; it either is or it isn't equal to PP+auto-dodge bonuses. And since it's said it is, then it is.

The word 'equal' is not used in the section we're discussing, so please do not use misleading language implying that it is.

Dog_O_War wrote:You've half-heartedly quoted me, so I have no idea what portion of my post you're responding to here.

I suspect you know know full well it's your use of A+B=C type mis-summarizing.

Dog_O_War wrote:I know you don't. But that wasn't for you.

General conduct is that if you're quoting someone, even if writing for the benefit of others, that you also write to the person you are quoting as well. Whoever it was for, it was nonsense. Please keep to polite discourse and avoid mockery.

Dog_O_War wrote:you have a complete lack of understanding regarding English.

Complete? Must you be dramatic? If you think I'm wrong on a spot of English at least say 'partial' or 'situational' lack of understanding Dog. It occurs to me you have a lack of understanding of terms implying absoluteness, or else you intentionally misuse them.

Dog_O_War wrote:The sentence is telling us "it uses these bonuses". It doesn't say, "it must use these bonuses", or "these bonuses are included, but there may be others"; it says what bonuses it uses. Period. Full Stop. End of story. Any other interpretation is simply misguided and wrong.

Saying what bonuses something uses, while it does not imply the existence of other bonuses, also does not imply their absence.

"I use a washing machine to wash my clothes" does not mean someone could not possibly also hand-wash them. Much as "I use a drier" does not exclude someone from hang-drying. These statements neither include nor exclude supplemental alternatives.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:some view the GMG as no longer applying whatsoever, rather than merely being trumped in cases of conflict, which would be my stance.

Which wouldn't hold an ounce of relevance here because R:UE has defined the rule for discussion in this thread, making any mention, citation, or indication towards the GMG irrelevant in this topic.

The GMG (and RMB) will always be relevant topics on these forums unless a thread is specifying 'ultimate'. Much like PRPG can still be discussed on the PF forum.

All I'm saying is you'd probably have to fall back on GMG to find a more explicit statement about dodge bonuses not applying to auto-dodges, and I'm not even sure if there is one there. Just that RUE has fallen short on confirming that stance.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:we do live in a world where dual citizenship is possible, so I think it's a forgiveable guess.

Citizenship and where you're birthed are two different things. Or can't you tell the difference?

I didn't state they were the same thing. Enjoying your straw man?

Dog_O_War wrote:It's quite accurately an illogical interpretation you're making.

I think we should focus more on discussing the source material and less about "my accusation of illogiciality is accurate" type stuff, which really doesn't get us anywhere.

Dog_O_War wrote:The rule says what the Auto-dodge is equal to; so it is either equal to that or it isn't, there is no middle ground.

False, the word "equal" does not appear in the blurb. No matter how many times you repeat "equal", it's not in the text. If it were, I would concede, because "equal" is a limiting word.

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you even understand the difference between a statement and a rule? Because what this thread is about concerns a rule, and your examples are consistently statements.

Rules are conveyed via statements, the rules of language that apply to statements apply to rules.

Dog_O_War wrote:The source I'm pulling from is the language the rule was written in. It's not a "house-rule"; it's a fact of the matter.

You have been adding your own language to it (an interpretation) and paraphrasing the language you have introduced in that interpretation as if it's what the text says. The written language lacks explicit limiters.

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. They only describe healing naturally or with medical attention. They do not state "you can heal from these sources", but instead include the qualifier, "you gain HP back over time with this method".

We ought to switch to single quotes for this paraPing... because you're not actually quoting the HP text, and not getting my example, so I'll take a new approach...

If you want an example of actual limiting language here, I would suggest reading HU2's description of automatic dodge on page 67.

It very clearly says "When a character is trying to automatic dodge, only the automatic dodge bonuses and his PP attribute bonuses (if any) are used. The automatic dodge and regular dodge bonuses are not cumulative. The two maneuvers rely on different techniques and thus have separate bonuses."

I would not be making the arguements I've been making about a statement like this. HU2 is incredibly clear on the matter. It includes limiting language like "only" and even goes on to add that they are not cumulative and that they are separate.

My point in this discussion is that RUE's addressing of the technique lacks this explicit separation. It's very clear to anyone comparing the description of auto-dodge in HU and auto-dodge in RUE that HU2 clearly separates the 2 and that RUE doesn't go into that amount of adequate detail to rule out 'regular dodge' bonuses from applying to auto-dodges. It's something that does require a disclaimer for it to be forbidden.

Dog_O_War wrote:So if you're going to quote a rule, make sure you know what in the hell you're quoting, because even your application of a counter-argument using "this logic" (which you've made abundantly clear you don't know how to do) is wrong.

Dog "this logic" (which I use loosely, your reasoning here was not logical) was that if something is mentioned as a contributor (in original example, to bonus total, in my example, to HP healing) that even if "only" isn't there, we are limited to what is described. My point is that subsequent introduction of numbers is admissible, that not being mentioned in one place is not grounds to out-rule something.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:The entirety of numerical contributors is not always collected in 1 spot.

And again, your half-hearted quote responses leave me scratching my head, as I have no idea what this sentence is a response to.

Please avoid personal attacks like calling me "half-hearted" and stick to the topic. This is a response to your idea that regular dodge bonuses not being mentioned under auto-dodges in RUE means they don't count.

They explicitly do not count in HU2, but since there's no disqualification in RUE that anyone's brought up, they DO count because an auto-dodge is a dodge.

Dog_O_War wrote:So is it written down in the rule that bonuses can come from sources other than the ones listed?

I'm unclear why you bother with rhetorical questions, you know full well it isn't (not THERE anyway), my point is that it doesn't matter, because per auto-dodge being a DODGE, it naturally benefits from dodge-related bonuses, unless the book explicitly tells us not to (which HU does, but RUE does not).

Dog_O_War wrote:the rule either is telling us what bonuses are used, or it isn't.

You're arguing a straw man again here dog.

We mutually agree that the rule tells us 2 sources of used bonuses. This issue is not under contention.

Your contention is that ONLY those 2 are used. My contention is that as this statement does not explicitly exclude others, that others may be used if there is an indicated reason for them to be used.

Dodge is indicated to be used because auto-dodge is a dodge. Another bonus which would be indicated for use is something that adds "to all combat roles". In the latter case, this would neither be a PP bonus nor would it be a bonus specifically to auto-dodge.

Dog_O_War wrote:if it is telling us what bonuses are used, then that would be all of them.

Um, why? Cause that's how you like it? 'Cause you want Rifts to operate more like HU?

Dog_O_War wrote:your argument boils down to "this rule is wrong"

False, Dog. I suggest before making broad declarations about what my argument is, you run it by me first and wait for confirmation of your assessment. Try asking a polite question first. You regularly strawman your opponents and the only reason you're not getting called a liar because of it is because people have the decency to expect you may simply be mistaken.

My argument boils down to "your interpretation of there being a rule against other bonuses here is false, you are misreading the text".

HU2 has a clear example of what explicit wording against cumulative bonuses and against using regular dodge bonuses for auto-dodge looks like. I suggest you consult it. RUE does not measure up to HU2's bar, it does not rule out dodge bonuses.

This was probably the author's intention, I'd bet money on it, but regardless of intentions, the text doesn't support it like HU2's text does.

Dog_O_War wrote:when a call of whether a poster on a forum's words are canon, or the text in question is canon, the poster is wrong and the text remains correct.

I am not calling this text wrong Dog, I am calling your interpretation of this text wrong. Whenever you paraphrase it you introduce limiting language and implications not actually present in the source material.

eliakon wrote:Since this has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammer Nazism I will respectfully bow out, having said my piece. For those that wish to continue I would like to helpfully remind people that Uncle Al has a special on Asbestos Underwear this week.

*grammar

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Since this has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammer Nazism I will respectfully bow out, having said my piece.

Could you avoid the association with national socialism please? There's nothing immoral about being attentive to the meaning of words and phrases, it's essential to understanding rules and law.

Your statement here to eliakon denotes' your lack of understanding as to what a grammar Nazi is. Which in-turn, highlights your inability to understand what has been said in this thread.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I repeat that because that's the most clear it can possibly be.

It's clearer to focus on the why preceding a conclusion, not the conclusion.

No.
This isn't Jeopardy; we aren't guessing the question after knowing the answer here.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:it is written the way I've described

You have not pointed out any exclusionary language to support an exclusionary conclusion.

I did. Several times.
That word is "is".

Tor wrote:A bonus does not need to be particular to a modified dodge (other example would include a 'multiple' dodge) to apply to it.

Now you're making no sense. This sentence literally makes no sense because of its lack of context and structure.
Try again.

Tor wrote:The introduction of particular "automatic" dodge bonuses and an indication to include them could be seen as a reminder of a supplement, rather than a statement of replacement.

No.
It quite specifically says that you do not get dodge bonuses. That would be as clear and exclusionary as it needs to be.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:all you've done is say, "nuh-uh! it isn't clear, even though it very specifically states where you get your bonuses from!"

Incorrect summary, an automatic dodge is clearly a dodge, and no language exists denying the use of dodge bonuses for automatic ones within the sections of RUE we are discussing.

Did you even read the rules governing auto-dodge? It quite literally states you do not get dodge bonuses to auto-dodge, only PP and bonuses that specifically say "auto-dodge".

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:When you say, "bonuses come from" that eliminates other sources because it quite clearly says where bonuses come from. If it doesn't say that bonuses come from another source, then guess what? they don't.

That is simply incorrect. If you look at many other statistics you can see too that this is not the case.

"many other statistics", well statistics aren't rules. We're discussing rules, not statistics. When a statistic becomes a rule, then and only then - you may have some semblance of a point.
But currently you do not, as you do not have any solid evidence to back up your claims.

Tor wrote:HP for example, we are told where it comes from, from PE and d6 per level. Yet some classes actually add HP bonuses on top of this. Yet those additions are not at all described under basic HP rules.

So? HP isn't laid out like auto-dodge is. The rules are different, therefore you can expect that there will be differences between the two.
What a major non-point you've brought up here.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:If I say "free radicals come from overcooked meat and car exhaust" that's not at all stating it can't come from other sources.

Using your example, it is saying is where free radicals come from. So if you identify another source, like stinky cheese, then those aren't free radicals, because free radicals come from the sources you've described above.

That's nonsense, free radicals can clearly come from other sources.

Clearly they don't. You've stated where they come from already, so you're either wrong and must admit as much, or those things coming from stinky cheese aren't free radicals.

Tor wrote:The phrase "comes from" only means at minimum "some comes from", we should never assume 'all', although it does merit to sentence if we add 'some' for clarification to avoid such assumptions.

I recommend you get a thesaurus, because you don't even know what that phrase means. "Comes from" is synonymous with words words like "originate", "spring", "issue", "stem" etc.

"comes from" means exactly what is quoted. And your 'minimum meaning' there is literally modified by the word "some". Why would you assume automatically that the phrase "comes from" is actually "some comes from" when that word 'some' wasn't added? Is there some kind of "secret language code" that the rest of the world is unaware of (but you've been let in on the secret to the exclusion of most everyone else), whereby, when the phrase "comes from" is written, a silent "some" is added to the front?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:A statement describing something using any number of other words, like "is" which is the third-person version of "be". Like the Auto-Dodge rule; it either is or it isn't equal to PP+auto-dodge bonuses. And since it's said it is, then it is.

The word 'equal' is not used in the section we're discussing, so please do not use misleading language implying that it is.

*facepalm*
Tor, quite literally when the word "is" is uttered, that is saying that something "is" whatever is described. Another way of saying such is "equal to".

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You've half-heartedly quoted me, so I have no idea what portion of my post you're responding to here.

I suspect you know know full well it's your use of A+B=C type mis-summarizing.

So then you're suspicious. That doesn't make you correct.
Meanwhile, you've still not re-quoted the portion I've asked clarification on.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I know you don't. But that wasn't for you.

General conduct is that if you're quoting someone, even if writing for the benefit of others, that you also write to the person you are quoting as well. Whoever it was for, it was nonsense. Please keep to polite discourse and avoid mockery.

How can a person possibly keep to "polite discourse" when the other side (that's you) is being obstinate (your lack of contribution to the work required to have a proper "discourse" is evidence of this), willfully ignorant (seriously, you could have googled half the words and terms you've asked to be defined), lazy (as best high-lighted by your inability to properly quote the posters you respond to), and keeps repeating the same non-point (re: you keep saying "it doesn't say it doesn't!" which is not evidence then that it does)? That doesn't even make for a decent conversation.

I mean honestly, the only reason I respond to these things unto death is because of pure stubbornness towards certain personalities.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you have a complete lack of understanding regarding English.

Complete? Must you be dramatic?

Yes.
This thread would be a rather dry read otherwise.

Tor wrote:If you think I'm wrong on a spot of English at least say 'partial' or 'situational' lack of understanding Dog. It occurs to me you have a lack of understanding of terms implying absoluteness, or else you intentionally misuse them.

Well, I would point out that it was hyperbole, but I'm now doubting that because you couldn't even identify that much. I now really am leaning more towards "complete". I mean, you may know how to write a sentence, spell some words, but your understanding as to how these things go together, their very definitions even has been proven time and again to be absent.
The fact that I would even need to point out that it was hyperbole is evidence to this.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The sentence is telling us "it uses these bonuses". It doesn't say, "it must use these bonuses", or "these bonuses are included, but there may be others"; it says what bonuses it uses. Period. Full Stop. End of story. Any other interpretation is simply misguided and wrong.

Saying what bonuses something uses, while it does not imply the existence of other bonuses, also does not imply their absence.

Does it imply their existence?/rhetorical
Does the lack of implication either way then lend weight to one side or the other?/rhetorical
Which is the point. You're saying that there is the possibility that an implication of other bonuses can exist, but that is completely balanced out by the possibility that an implication of no other bonuses can exist, making your point moot. A zero sum. Counter-pointed by its inverse question. etc.
A non-point.

Tor wrote:"I use a washing machine to wash my clothes" does not mean someone could not possibly also hand-wash them. Much as "I use a drier" does not exclude someone from hang-drying. These statements neither include nor exclude supplemental alternatives.

Again, your examples fall sort of understanding. I mean honestly, you don't even understand what an equivalent example is.
The statement isn't implying what that person could be doing, it is stating what they do. They do not use any other method. We know this because they've stated as much.
In essence, if the above were a rule, then you would not need to ask a follow-up question.
For example, as a statement, "I use a washing machine to wash my clothes" can be questioned with, "do you use other methods?" to which we will receive an answer of either "yes" or "no".
But as a rule, "I use a washing machine to wash my clothes", is a definite. There are no other methods used. Other methods exist, but not in regards to this person and their washing method.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:some view the GMG as no longer applying whatsoever, rather than merely being trumped in cases of conflict, which would be my stance.

Which wouldn't hold an ounce of relevance here because R:UE has defined the rule for discussion in this thread, making any mention, citation, or indication towards the GMG irrelevant in this topic.

The GMG (and RMB) will always be relevant topics on these forums unless a thread is specifying 'ultimate'. Much like PRPG can still be discussed on the PF forum.

You (again) didn't even understand what was written.

Tor wrote:All I'm saying is you'd probably have to fall back on GMG to find a more explicit statement about dodge bonuses not applying to auto-dodges, and I'm not even sure if there is one there. Just that RUE has fallen short on confirming that stance.

Then you'd be wrong. The rule is clear as written. It doesn't need a "fall-back", making mention of it regarding the topic as irrelevant.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:we do live in a world where dual citizenship is possible, so I think it's a forgiveable guess.

Citizenship and where you're birthed are two different things. Or can't you tell the difference?

I didn't state they were the same thing. Enjoying your straw man?

Yeah, that's my strawman
I'll point out that you were the one to draw the parallel to my mention of Birth Certificate and [your mention of] citizenship - which I didn't mention.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:It's quite accurately an illogical interpretation you're making.

I think we should focus more on discussing the source material and less about "my accusation of illogiciality is accurate" type stuff, which really doesn't get us anywhere.

You've basically done everything but focus on discussing the source material. You've consistently tried to define what language you want this "discussion" to contain, what reference you don't want to hear, source materials other than R:UE, even though their wording has zero impact on the wording in R:UE, and non-relevant examples. And by non-relevant, I mean examples that draw no parallels to the wording provided. You've even gone so far as to state that because the text does not contain your specific buzz-words which would somehow enable you to understand, that others cease mention of them because "it confuses you".

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The rule says what the Auto-dodge is equal to; so it is either equal to that or it isn't, there is no middle ground.

False, the word "equal" does not appear in the blurb. No matter how many times you repeat "equal", it's not in the text. If it were, I would concede, because "equal" is a limiting word.

And this response of yours high-lights my point made above.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you even understand the difference between a statement and a rule? Because what this thread is about concerns a rule, and your examples are consistently statements.

Rules are conveyed via statements, the rules of language that apply to statements apply to rules.

Again, another fallacy on your behalf.
The words 'rule' and 'statement' have different definitions. Regardless of how a rule is conveyed, a statement is not a rule. Period. End of story.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The source I'm pulling from is the language the rule was written in. It's not a "house-rule"; it's a fact of the matter.

You have been adding your own language to it (an interpretation) and paraphrasing the language you have introduced in that interpretation as if it's what the text says. The written language lacks explicit limiters.

No it really doesn't. The limitors are in place, and my "interpretation" as well as other's "interpretations" have been for your benefit, not mine or theirs. They clearly "get it", whereas, you do not.

Tor wrote:If you want an example of actual limiting language here, I would suggest reading HU2's description of automatic dodge on page 67.

And why would I or anyone else do that? Are Juicers a part of HU2?
Or are they part of some other Palladium work?/rhetorical
And since they're a part of another Palladium work, why then would we bother to quote a text other than the work they're from?

Tor wrote:It very clearly says "When a character is trying to automatic dodge, only the automatic dodge bonuses and his PP attribute bonuses (if any) are used. The automatic dodge and regular dodge bonuses are not cumulative. The two maneuvers rely on different techniques and thus have separate bonuses."

I would not be making the arguements I've been making about a statement like this. HU2 is incredibly clear on the matter. It includes limiting language like "only" and even goes on to add that they are not cumulative and that they are separate.

You've limited your own acceptable "limiting language"; there are other terms. "Is" for instance, is a limitor.

Tor wrote:My point in this discussion is that RUE's addressing of the technique lacks this explicit separation.

Your opinion; not a fact.

Tor wrote:It's very clear to anyone comparing the description of auto-dodge in HU and auto-dodge in RUE that HU2 clearly separates the 2 and that RUE doesn't go into that amount of adequate detail to rule out 'regular dodge' bonuses from applying to auto-dodges. It's something that does require a disclaimer for it to be forbidden.

Again, your opinion; not a fact.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:So if you're going to quote a rule, make sure you know what in the hell you're quoting, because even your application of a counter-argument using "this logic" (which you've made abundantly clear you don't know how to do) is wrong.

Dog "this logic" (which I use loosely, your reasoning here was not logical) was that if something is mentioned as a contributor (in original example, to bonus total, in my example, to HP healing) that even if "only" isn't there, we are limited to what is described. My point is that subsequent introduction of numbers is admissible, that not being mentioned in one place is not grounds to out-rule something.

You've done nothing of the sort. Your example did not show nor convey any kind of meaning like what you've just described, nor was it accurate to what you implied.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:The entirety of numerical contributors is not always collected in 1 spot.

And again, your half-hearted quote responses leave me scratching my head, as I have no idea what this sentence is a response to.

Please avoid personal attacks like calling me "half-hearted" and stick to the topic. This is a response to your idea that regular dodge bonuses not being mentioned under auto-dodges in RUE means they don't count.

Tor, that isn't an attack; you responded to me without quoting what you were responding to. That is the very definition of "half-hearted". I only stated what you were doing; nothing more. So if you feel "attacked" from someone stating your actions, then that would be a personal problem, not a board problem.

Tor wrote:They explicitly do not count in HU2, but since there's no disqualification in RUE that anyone's brought up, they DO count because an auto-dodge is a dodge.

Again, another half-hearted quote. I (again) do not know which portion of my post you're responding to here because of your indifference.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:So is it written down in the rule that bonuses can come from sources other than the ones listed?

I'm unclear why you bother with rhetorical questions, you know full well it isn't

Gee, ya don't say?!
Coincidentally, your argument is written in the same manner as this. So would you consider this as factual and precedent-holding as your own? Or is there some arbitrary reason you'd like to invent as to why what you're saying is "fact" over this?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:the rule either is telling us what bonuses are used, or it isn't.

You're arguing a straw man again here dog.

No I'm really not.
I just stating what is being said.

Tor wrote:We mutually agree that the rule tells us 2 sources of used bonuses. This issue is not under contention.

We didn't agree on that. I don't agree with that. There is two sources, yes - we can agree on that, but I'm saying that the rule tells us what these sources are - there just happens to be two. That is the primary difference.

Tor wrote:Your contention is that ONLY those 2 are used. My contention is that as this statement does not explicitly exclude others, that others may be used if there is an indicated reason for them to be used.

You don't seem to know what my position is. My contention is the opposite of yours; yours being that there is a possibility that there may be more, whereas I am saying that if there were more, then they would be listed.

Tor wrote:Dodge is indicated to be used because auto-dodge is a dodge. Another bonus which would be indicated for use is something that adds "to all combat roles". In the latter case, this would neither be a PP bonus nor would it be a bonus specifically to auto-dodge.

Another half-hearted response; I (yet again) have no idea which part of my post you're responding to.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:if it is telling us what bonuses are used, then that would be all of them.

Um, why? Cause that's how you like it? 'Cause you want Rifts to operate more like HU?

And why would there be exclusions?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:your argument boils down to "this rule is wrong"

False, Dog. I suggest before making broad declarations about what my argument is, you run it by me first and wait for confirmation of your assessment.

No.
Also, it's not false; you're stating the rule apparently doesn't know what bonuses to include.

Tor wrote:Try asking a polite question first. You regularly strawman

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Tor wrote:your opponents and the only reason you're not getting called a liar because of it is because people have the decency to expect you may simply be mistaken.

The reason people don't call me a liar is because I post facts and provide proof to my claims. Simply put, if I make a mistake, I own up to it, I don't dance around and try to be "not wrong", because I don't care if I'm right, wrong, or whatever, I only care that the correct information be conveyed. And that those who insist on spouting the wrong information, or their opinion as "fact" be silenced via any means necessary.

Tor wrote:My argument boils down to "your interpretation of there being a rule against other bonuses here is false, you are misreading the text".

So then at what point were you going to post the direct book-quote to break down and back up your claim? Or must I do it, to show you exactly where the explicit wording is?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:when a call of whether a poster on a forum's words are canon, or the text in question is canon, the poster is wrong and the text remains correct.

I am not calling this text wrong Dog, I am calling your interpretation of this text wrong. Whenever you paraphrase it you introduce limiting language and implications not actually present in the source material.

Guy - this is exactly what you're doing. You're flat-out saying that the rule didn't include all the sources for itself within its entry. I'm not "interpreting" the text; I'm just telling you what information it's providing. It's only providing us with two sources and saying that these do, in-fact, add to auto-dodge. Nothing else is otherwise saying that they do, in-fact, also add to auto-dodge, because such entries do not exist.

And now the rules breakdown.

R:UE, pg.344 wrote:Automatic Dodge
Certain characters and creatures are able to automatically dodge an attack without using up a melee attack/action. It is purely a defensive move in which the dodger bobs, weaves, bends or twists his body out of harm's way. Roll for a dodge as normal (the automatic dodge is not an "automatic" success). An automatic dodge works just like a (automatic) parry in that the act of dodging does not use up any attacks to perform. Bonuses to auto-dodge come from the character's P.P. attribute and any special bonus specifically for it (the bonus, skill or enhancement will say "automatic dodge"). Unless it specifically says a character has an Automatic Dodge, he does NOT.

R:UE, pg.345 wrote:Dodge
A character dodges by moving out of the way of the attack. Dodging always takes up one attack/action per melee round. To dodge, the defender must roll equal to or higher than the attacker's strike roll on a twenty-sided die.

So these skills; under Dodge, it does not list what bonuses apply, however, under Combat Bonuses (R:UE, pg.344) it says to apply only bonuses stated to be "appropriate", and then goes on to give an example of how strike bonuses do not apply to parry, only parry bonuses apply to parry, etc.

It then says that each combat maneuver is considered a separate category.
Automatic Dodge and Dodge are listed separately.
Ergo, their bonuses do not apply to one-another.

But beyond this, Auto-Dodge itself goes so far as to state that such bonuses for it come from PP and any special bonus specifically for it, which is defined as "will say 'automatic dodge'".

So if it's not Kellogg's on the box, then it's not Kellogg's in the box.

Why did you put "appropriate" in quotes when the word doesn't show up in your quote bubble? The word 'only' used twice by you also does not show up within your quotes.

Being in a separate category (by this I assume you mean having a separate heading within the combat section) does not mean that bonuses can not apply to both headings.

If you look across from Automatic Dodge on 344, there is the "Body Block" technique. If you look across from Dodge on 345, there is the "Kick Attack" technique. These are similarly under "separate" headings like Automatic Dodge / Dodge, yet they both benefit from + strike bonuses because they are both strikes.

Automatic dodge is clearly still a dodge. The only case where I would not apply a bonus to an "automatic" dodge is if it said more explicitly "+ to STANDARD dodge ONLY".

Auto-Dodge itself goes so far as to state that such bonuses for it come from PP and any special bonus specifically for it, which is defined as "will say 'automatic dodge'".

Not sure why you're repeating this, this has already been presented and acknowledged. I've already pointed out that there's a difference between "throw these in the pot" and "don't add any other ingredients".

HU2 has the "don't add other ingredients" language, while RUE doesn't.

*racks shotgun* what the crap is going on in here?
*looks around, sees thousands of split hairs littering the floor of the forum*
By the gods, what have you done?

I hate double-posting but I felt easier to reply to that short blurb you dropped at the end first Dog. This longer post is to the one prior to it.

Dog_O_War wrote:Your statement here to eliakon denotes' your lack of understanding as to what a grammar Nazi is

Only if you're actually concluding that I am accusing eliakon of describing me as anti-Semitic. "Nazi" is associated with Hitler and stuff, I object to etymological roots of offensive terms.

Dog_O_War wrote:Which in-turn, highlights your inability to understand what has been said in this thread.

I think this only highlights how presumptuous you are about thinking you know what others are thinking about, check your arrogance and ask before throwing your conclusions about.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I repeat that because that's the most clear it can possibly be.

It's clearer to focus on the why preceding a conclusion, not the conclusion.

No. This isn't Jeopardy; we aren't guessing the question after knowing the answer here.[/quote]
Not knowing the answer is exactly why we work through preceding logic before reaching a conclusion. You're presenting an unbacked conclusion of 'this math represents this sentence' without justifying that.

Tor wrote:You have not pointed out any exclusionary language to support an exclusionary conclusion.

I did. Several times. That word is "is".[/quote]The word 'is' is inclusionary, not exclusionary.

If I wrote "Dog is able to write with his left hand" it does not exclude you from writing with your right.

A negative must accompany 'is' for it to exclude. I would have to write "Dog is not able to write with his right hand" for "is" to be exclusionary.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:A bonus does not need to be particular to a modified dodge (other example would include a 'multiple' dodge) to apply to it.

Now you're making no sense. This sentence literally makes no sense because of its lack of context and structure. Try again.

Dog, have some humility, if something doesn't make sense to you, perhaps be polite, bow your head, and lament "I see no sense in this" in a neutral manner. Your not seeing the sense in something does not mean it absolutely cannot possess sense.

I'm guilty of that too sometimes and need to be checked for it, we must check our arrogants, stuff seems like nonsense to us, but we should be open to thinking there is sense even if we may not see it.

In this case, allow me to explain the sense I meant: what I phrase a 'modified' dodge would be an atypical dodge with modified parameters. An automatic dodge is modified due to it not costing an action. A 'multiple' dodge (from N&SS) is one that does cost an action but allows you to dodge multiple attacks launched at you in 1 turn with that single roll.

The "context" I discuss here is that like an automatic dodge, a multiple dodge has a distinct name. Being a dodge, it uses dodge bonuses. My argument is that like a multiple dodge, an automatic dodge would also use standard dodge bonuses unless we're explicitly told to ignore them, like in HU2.

Combat rules in HU2 differ from RUE though, so it doesn't weigh on RUE. An example of that would be in defensive disarms (RUE doesn't allow you to add bonuses to them, HU2 does).

Dog_O_War wrote:It quite specifically says that you do not get dodge bonuses. That would be as clear and exclusionary as it needs to be.

Where? Keep in mind I'm asking where in RUE it says you do not get a dodge bonus. As I already pointed out that HU2 does include language of this sort.

If it says this anywhere in RUE, it must be in some place you haven't brought up yet, because page 344 does not say that.

Dog_O_War wrote:Did you even read the rules governing auto-dodge? It quite literally states you do not get dodge bonuses to auto-dodge, only PP and bonuses that specifically say "auto-dodge".

Where does it state this? Palladium rules do exist stating not to use normal dodge bonuses for auto-dodges... in HU2. I'm pointing out that that disclaimer is absent from RUE.

Did YOU even read the RUEles? It says 'bonuses come from PP and auto-dodge bonuses'. It does NOT say "only" or "do not". These are words you have introduced, possibly because you're remembering HU2's rules, which are different.

Dog_O_War wrote:"many other statistics", well statistics aren't rules. We're discussing rules, not statistics.

By stats I meant other rules and game mechanics D.

Dog_O_War wrote:When a statistic becomes a rule, then and only then - you may have some semblance of a point. But currently you do not, as you do not have any solid evidence to back up your claims.

Actually I did present solid evidence: how HP is calculated and how HP is restored.

Numerous others exist, it's like shooting a fish in a barrel. Ranged combat rules mention adding WP bonuses, right? But is there mention of adding subsequent bonuses like those from Wilks or from cybernetic implants? Or are these absent from the ranged section and introduced in the Equipment/Bionics section? This is an example where every possible bonus source is not mentioned in the same place, and the situational absence you're relying on does not exclude outsourced bonuses.

Dog_O_War wrote:HP isn't laid out like auto-dodge is. The rules are different, therefore you can expect that there will be differences between the two. What a major non-point you've brought up here.

The layout and rules do not have to be identical. If you rely on that, then we can't look ANYWHERE for an example because nothing is going to identical and differences will always exist.

This is a valid example because the principle you rely on (that something must be explicitly included or else it is illegal by default) is clearly wrong.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:free radicals can clearly come from other sources.

Clearly they don't. You've stated where they come from already, so you're either wrong and must admit as much, or those things coming from stinky cheese aren't free radicals.

Finding or introducing additional sources of free radicals does not make a previous declaration of free radical sources wrong. There's a language-logic breakdown here I'm trying to help you with Dog.

If I say "Hulk and Superman can knock me out" and then later I say "Thing can knock me out", it doesn't make the first statement wrong. The reason is because I did not say ONLY the Hulk and Superman can knock me out. So my addition of Thing being able to KO me does not conflict at all with the original statement.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:The phrase "comes from" only means at minimum "some comes from", we should never assume 'all', although it does merit to sentence if we add 'some' for clarification to avoid such assumptions.

I recommend you get a thesaurus, because you don't even know what that phrase means. "Comes from" is synonymous with words words like "originate", "spring", "issue", "stem" etc.

Dog, I know very well what the phrase means. You seem to be under the impression that stating 1 source of origin of a type of thing means that it must be the sole point of origin.

If I were to say "carbon dioxide is expelled from our lungs" that would not make out lungs the sole source of CO2. If I later added "carbon dioxide comes from our car pipes" it would not make the first statement wrong.

Cars exhaust would only invalidate the first statement had I written "carbon monoxide is only expelled from our lungs". A word like "only" is needed to make the phrase exclusionary.

This is the very type of word absent in RUE and present in HU2. The very word you keep wrongly adding to your summary of RUE's text when it simply isn't there.

Dog_O_War wrote:your 'minimum meaning' there is literally modified by the word "some". Why would you assume automatically that the phrase "comes from" is actually "some comes from" when that word 'some' wasn't added?

I said "at minimum". What this means is that the phrase is ambiguous and could mean some just as it may mean all.

By saying "at minimum" I include both some and all. Some being the minimum as it is less than all.

Dog_O_War wrote:Is there some kind of "secret language code" that the rest of the world is unaware of (but you've been let in on the secret to the exclusion of most everyone else), whereby, when the phrase "comes from" is written, a silent "some" is added to the front?

Some is a meaning of the phrase you ought to keep in mind, as it is common sense not to assume "comes from" means "all comes from".

Dog, electricity comes from nuclear power plants.

Am I telling you it ONLY comes from nuclear power plants? Or am I telling you possibly just 1 source of electricity?

Dog_O_War wrote:when the word "is" is uttered, that is saying that something "is" whatever is described. Another way of saying such is "equal to".

Let's back-track a bit Dog, please reread RUE's auto-dodge description on 344. Where do YOU see the word 'is'?

The only place I see it is in the phrase "it is purely a defensive move". I don't see it anywhere else. So I'm a bit lost on why you are discussing how to mathematize a word that's actually absent from our argument.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I suspect you know know full well it's your use of A+B=C type mis-summarizing.

So then you're suspicious. That doesn't make you correct.

Right, so with this serving as an example of you lacking intuition as to others' meanings, I hope you'll boast less about how others do not read or think properly before adequately understanding what others' opinions are.

Dog_O_War wrote:you've still not re-quoted the portion I've asked clarification on.

Getting confused here... are you asking me to quote something you said or something I said?

Dog_O_War wrote:How can a person possibly keep to "polite discourse" when the other side (that's you) is being obstinate

Not calling others obstinate is a good place to start. Or are you obligated to rudeness when you think your opposition is less learned than you? I assure you from experience, it is possible to free yourself from obeying that compulsion.

Dog_O_War wrote:(your lack of contribution to the work required to have a proper "discourse" is evidence of this)

Dog I have contributed a point-based analysis of your claims and supplemented the book sources you've cited with other ones.

Dog_O_War wrote:willfully ignorant

I suppose the insults will just keep coming from you eh? You spend a lot of effort keeping off the topic...

Dog_O_War wrote:you could have googled half the words and terms you've asked to be defined

Assuming we are discussing this thread, I don't actually recall asking you to define words. It's possible I have but you'll have to refresh my memory, it's not terribly long. I make a habit of looking up words I don't understand, so if I ever do ask you what you mean by something, it's probably because some words have multiple meanings and which of the several meanings you intend by something may not be clear.

Dog_O_War wrote:lazy (as best high-lighted by your inability to properly quote the posters you respond to)

Sorry, what? No idea what you mean here Dog. Are you talking about mistakes like not properly closing a quote tag? Are you actually picking at that? Strongly missing guys like Drew how, no matter how we might go at it, will just politely PM a guy about irrelevant stuff like that and continue to focus on an argument.

I type a lot dog, it's not something a lazy guy does. Now please stop insulting me and get back to the topic please. I'm getting tired of the flamebaiting.

Dog_O_War wrote:keeps repeating the same non-point (re: you keep saying "it doesn't say it doesn't!"

I keep repeating this because you insist on saying 'it says it doesn't' when you can't actually source the claim.

Dog_O_War wrote:which is not evidence then that it does

I have never argued that "it doesn't say it doesn't" is evidence that "it does". If you present that as my argument, you are presenting a straw man, a false image of my argument. Be it due to dishonesty or incompetency I do not care to guess, but please quit it.

My argument for "it does" is: because "dodge" is part of "automatic dodge". An automatic is a dodge so it benefits from dodge bonuses. We need a rule to directly says it does not to rule that out. HU2 has it, RUE does not, it's a very simple issue.

Dog_O_War wrote:the only reason I respond to these things unto death is because of pure stubbornness towards certain personalities.

Well... we share a virtue... or a vice... whatever it is... in that regard then. I believe we both feel confident about what we believe in and have hope towards others reaching what we believe is the more enlightened state.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you have a complete lack of understanding regarding English.

Complete? Must you be dramatic?

Yes. This thread would be a rather dry read otherwise.

Wait... is this to mean you're intentionally exaggerating the tone of our conflict this to make our readers... undry?

Dog_O_War wrote:I would point out that it was hyperbole, but I'm now doubting that because you couldn't even identify that much.

Hyperbole can only be suspected, never verified.

Dog_O_War wrote:I now really am leaning more towards "complete". I mean, you may know how to write a sentence, spell some words, but your understanding as to how these things go together, their very definitions even has been proven time and again to be absent.

Sarcasm is hardly something that will be absolutely conveyed Dog. This happens more often in text when tone of voice is absent to indicate it. Perhaps rather than condemning people for not getting your subtle meaning, you might simply realize that it is not always communicated when you think it is, and that people are not mind readers.

Dog_O_War wrote:The fact that I would even need to point out that it was hyperbole is evidence to this.

Perhaps some of us just detest hyperbole and see the way you use it to be a bullying tactic.

If an angry person puts down another person saying "you can't do anything right!" it might also be hyperbole, but we may break it down because we dislike that form of speech.

It'd be one thing if you were exclaiming I made your day utterly perfect Dog, but when you use it to attack others, expect a defense mechanism.

Dog_O_War wrote:Does the lack of implication either way then lend weight to one side or the other?/rhetorical

I'll bother to answer your rhetorical questions since you bother to ask them. No, it doesn't lend weight. The reason I say to add them is because an a-dodge is a dodge.

Dog_O_War wrote:You're saying that there is the possibility that an implication of other bonuses can exist, but that is completely balanced out by the possibility that an implication of no other bonuses can exist, making your point moot. A zero sum. Counter-pointed by its inverse question. etc. A non-point.

Also a straw-man's point, because the reason I say to add the bonus is external: because an auto-dodge is a dodge. Turn away from the scarecrow. You're only imagining his voice. He's not actually speaking. I'm over here. Those reasons you hear in your head, it's your head telling you them, and it's drowning out the reasons I'm really telling you.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:"I use a washing machine to wash my clothes" does not mean someone could not possibly also hand-wash them. Much as "I use a drier" does not exclude someone from hang-drying. These statements neither include nor exclude supplemental alternatives.

Again, your examples fall sort of understanding. I mean honestly, you don't even understand what an equivalent example is.

I'm using applicable examples. They illustrate our issue of contention well.

Dog_O_War wrote:The statement isn't implying what that person could be doing, it is stating what they do. They do not use any other method.

Stating what someone does is not stating that people do not do things besides that which is stated. "I run to work" does not exclude "I bike to work", while "I only run to work" does.

Dog_O_War wrote:We know this because they've stated as much.

WHERE? I pointed out where in HU2. You've yet to find a proper support in RUE.

Dog_O_War wrote:as a statement, "I use a washing machine to wash my clothes" can be questioned with, "do you use other methods?" to which we will receive an answer of either "yes" or "no". But as a rule, "I use a washing machine to wash my clothes", is a definite. There are no other methods used. Other methods exist, but not in regards to this person and their washing method.

You've got this strange artificial divide between rules and statements.

You do realize that "rulebooks" are written as a series of statements, right?

Our game books are full of statements that describe reality, but you are taking individual statements in a rulebook as if they must be perceived in a void of sole-possibility.

"I use a washing machine to wash my clothes" is a description. It is not worded like a rule, rules have to be worded a certain way. They're worded like "you must not drive when the light is red" not "you may drive when the light is green".

By your logic "you may drive when the light is green" would exclude driving while the light is yellow, but we know full well that drivers can finish their intersection-crossing when the light is turning yellow and they're in the middle of one.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:R:UE has defined the rule for discussion in this thread, making any mention, citation, or indication towards the GMG irrelevant in this topic.

The GMG (and RMB) will always be relevant topics on these forums unless a thread is specifying 'ultimate'. Much like PRPG can still be discussed on the PF forum.

You (again) didn't even understand what was written. [/quote]You didn't write anything particularly meaningful here in this paragraph dog, if I have to puzzle things out and my conclusion doesn't match up with your inner monologue, write better.

I realize that when you don't get my point, it's partially my fault, so I hope you may share that epiphany of responsibility

Dog_O_War wrote:The rule is clear as written. It doesn't need a "fall-back", making mention of it regarding the topic as irrelevant.

The section clearly states that PP bonuses are added to auto-dodges. It also clearly states that auto-dodges bonuses are added to auto-dodge. It also clearly states that automatic dodges are dodges. Therefore dodge bonuses would be added to them. It's not mentioned because this is already an established fact, to add dodge bonuses to dodges.

What isn't clear is where you're getting the idea that normal dodge bonuses are not added to automatic dodges. This is an HU2 phenmonenon.
Books like RUE and Dead Reign (page 183 if curious) do not include HU2's language that excludes standard (unspecified) dodge bonuses from applying to automatic ones.

Anything "dodge" applies to automatic dodges unless otherwise indicated.

Do you ever notice how blind people get a penalty to strike, parry and dodge? By your logic, since the penalty is not to "automatic dodge", shouldn't automatic dodgers be immune to blindness penalties?

Dog_O_War wrote:You've basically done everything but focus on discussing the source material.

Um... I actually keep coming back to it quite regularly. I could consider exclusively talking about it and ignoring your banter but I keep replying to it to be polite and because I feel insecure and think that letting you have the last word makes you seem right

Dog_O_War wrote:You've consistently tried to define what language you want this "discussion" to contain, what reference you don't want to hear, source materials other than R:UE, even though their wording has zero impact on the wording in R:UE, and non-relevant examples.

I used source material other than RUE to illustrate to you what exclusionary language looks like, to show you what RUE is lacking. The impact is to serve as an example of what I'm discussing.

Dog_O_War wrote:by non-relevant, I mean examples that draw no parallels to the wording provided. You've even gone so far as to state that because the text does not contain your specific buzz-words which would somehow enable you to understand, that others cease mention of them because "it confuses you".

Let me be more blunt here Dog: I'm being polite here. I know "only" and "do not add dodge bonuses" are absent in RUE's text.

I'm actually an enraged, irritated and maddened lady redundant woman every time I see you say this stuff.

So when I say I'm "confused" I am prodding you gently, trying to make you reflect "why am I using these words" so that you might come to the realization that you're actually making them up and that they're not in the text.

I do not require specifically the buzz words I am using. I'm fine with synonyms. But the terms need to have weight. The text lacks weighty words, and you introduce weight ones wrongly when falsely paraphrasing it.

Hey dog, you know those special lasers that can bypass the laser resistance of Glitter Boy armor? Did you know that those weapons actually can't harm normal stuff and that they ONLY hurt Glitter boy armor?

^ an appropriate example of what I'm talking about.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:The rule says what the Auto-dodge is equal to

the word "equal" does not appear in the blurb

And this response of yours high-lights my point made above.

Dog if you were merely using a synonym I would not be whining at you. If it said "the same" and you said "it says it's equal" I would not be all "nooo it doesn't say equal".

I am stating explicitly to you: it not only does not say the particular word "equal", it also lacks any synonym or meaning that would imply equality. So your statement is wrong on multiple counts.

Dog_O_War wrote:'rule' and 'statement' have different definitions.

So do square and rectangle.

Dog_O_War wrote:Regardless of how a rule is conveyed, a statement is not a rule. Period. End of story.

Are you unfamiliar with phrases like "the rules state X"? Rules are communicated via statements, they are statements with authority and specificity behind them.

Dog_O_War wrote:The limitors are in place, and my "interpretation" as well as other's "interpretations" have been for your benefit, not mine or theirs. They clearly "get it", whereas, you do not.

Not sure who you're talking about now, kind of inconsequential though...

You have consistently failed to identify an actual limiter. You have invented the fiction that limiters are inherent to anything not explicitly included in your section-of-choice, all because you have failed to locate a limiter.

I on the other hand, HAVE located a limiter... in HU2. People who read this clearly understand what a limiter looks like, what HU2 has that RUE lacks. HU2 has that limiter because it's useful, because it's actually required.

I've no doubt RUE/Dead Reign intended on similar auto-dodge-suck mechanics, but in the rush to save space, they did not include them, so RAW they are not there, and dodge bonuses apply due to auto-dodges being dodges.

Dog_O_War wrote:why would I or anyone else do that? Are Juicers a part of HU2?

You would do it if you wanted to see an example of limiting language.

Dog_O_War wrote:Or are they part of some other Palladium work?/rhetorical

You sure ask a lot of useless space-wasting rhetorical questions Dog. I am not saying "apply HU2 rules to RUE". I'm showing you the kind of language lacking in RUE, providing an example of where it is present.

HU2 has similar limiting language for purchasing paired WP skills. Other games lack that language and getting unlimited paired WP is really easy.

HU2 has sucky paired WP skill selection and sucky auto-dodges. RUE and Dead Reign have wicked-awesome auto-dodges and wicked-awesome paired WP selection.

This is due to the presence and absence of limiting disclaimers.

Dog_O_War wrote:And since they're a part of another Palladium work, why then would we bother to quote a text other than the work they're from?

You really are sidestepping aren't you... must have that PU3 power.

Tor wrote:It very clearly says "When a character is trying to automatic dodge, only the automatic dodge bonuses and his PP attribute bonuses (if any) are used. The automatic dodge and regular dodge bonuses are not cumulative. The two maneuvers rely on different techniques and thus have separate bonuses."

Dog_O_War wrote: "Is" for instance, is a limitor.

Is is an includer, not an excluder. Is only limits an 'is not' for whatever state it describes. Plus as I described earlier, the two-letter word doesn't even show up in a relevant place.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:My point in this discussion is that RUE's addressing of the technique lacks this explicit separation.

Your opinion; not a fact.

"lacks explicitness" is an inherent fact of all text until you can establish that explicitness is present. I'm looking forward to fresh attempts to do that, because none have succeeded.

Dog_O_War wrote:your opinion; not a fact.

Our entire analysis of the text is our opinion dog. Perhaps we can mutually share an opinion. Do you concur with me that HU2's description of automatic dodge differs from the one found in books like RUE and Dead Reign?

If you do concur, could you tell me, in your own words, what is different about HU2's description? Do you notice any language that is different?

Dog_O_War wrote:You've done nothing of the sort. Your example did not show nor convey any kind of meaning like what you've just described, nor was it accurate to what you implied.

...

I'm really beginning to give up on the idea that you have either the ability or intention to attempt or convey understanding as to the ideas I present Dog. It makes me sad.

Perhaps I'll ease up on trying to provide examples of why your logic fails in other scenarios and just stick to reiterating why it fails in the original one.

Dog_O_War wrote:you responded to me without quoting what you were responding to. That is the very definition of "half-hearted". I only stated what you were doing; nothing more. So if you feel "attacked" from someone stating your actions, then that would be a personal problem, not a board problem.

Dog, when I do not quote a portion of a text, it's usually because I'm making a brief reply to a brief post and what I'm addressing is clear enough to pick out.

I do this not due to sloth or half-heartedness, but rather am enjoying the rare opportunity to be concise. I must usually ignore complaints about lengths and pleads for brevity, so I am short with full-heartedness when I do so.

Dog_O_War wrote:your argument is written in the same manner as this.

Wrong, my argument's of the manner "an auto dodge is a dodge, add dodge bonuses to dodges".

Not the fake "it doesn't say you can't so you must be able to" argument you keep attributing to me.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:the rule either is telling us what bonuses are used, or it isn't.

You're arguing a straw man again here dog.

No I'm really not. I just stating what is being said.

You might be stating what you THINK I'm saying, but if that's true, I'd suggest rereading and reimagining, because you're getting it wrong.

My "add the bonus" is from "auto dodge is dodge". Not from "does not say not to add bonus".

If I held the stance you attribute to me, I would hold views like "add body flip bonuses to called shots with laser guns".

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:the rule tells us 2 sources of used bonuses

I don't agree with that. There is two sources, yes - we can agree on that

So you don't agree... but you agree? The part you just said we agreed on was ALL of what I said.

Dog_O_War wrote:but I'm saying that the rule tells us what these sources are - there just happens to be two. That is the primary difference.

... could you rephrase this somehow? I'm really not understanding what difference you're trying to communicate. This sounds like you're saying the same thing a different way.

Dog_O_War wrote:You don't seem to know what my position is. My contention is the opposite of yours; yours being that there is a possibility that there may be more, whereas I am saying that if there were more, then they would be listed.

I fully understand that this is your position Dog... I'm not sure what is leading you to think I'm attributing some other position to you.

When I stated "we can agree" I was talking about the previous point (there being 2 sources) not the subsequent one (there being possibly more than 2) which was me stating where my point different from that base.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Dodge is indicated to be used because auto-dodge is a dodge. Another bonus which would be indicated for use is something that adds "to all combat roles". In the latter case, this would neither be a PP bonus nor would it be a bonus specifically to auto-dodge.

Another half-hearted response; I (yet again) have no idea which part of my post you're responding to.

These "half-hearted" replies you might be ignoring are me telling you the reason I think dodge bonuses ought to be added to dodges.

The part I'm responding to is the irksome summary you paint of me saying "add them because it doesn't say not to" which is your fiction.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:if it is telling us what bonuses are used, then that would be all of them.

Um, why? Cause that's how you like it? 'Cause you want Rifts to operate more like HU?

And why would there be exclusions?

Please clarify what you mean by exclusions. Hazarding a guess... are you asking me why RUE should include an EXCEPTION for auto-dodges, noting that they do not use normal dodge bonuses?

If that guess of your meaning is correct: because it's necessary, just like it was necessary in HU2.

Dog_O_War wrote:you're stating the rule apparently doesn't know what bonuses to include.

I don't recall using the word "know" when discussing page 344. You make it sound as if I am anthropomorphizing them.

I'm stating to you that sections don't mention everything. Kind of like how 'simultaneous attack' is not mentioned in the basic combat section. Automatic dodge doesn't need to mention "add dodge bonuses" any more than tackle needs to mention "add strike bonuses". It's a strike, so we know to add strike bonuses. Just like we know to add dodge bonuses because automatic dodging is a form of dodging.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Try asking a polite question first. You regularly strawman

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

It means Dog is saying "Tor is saying X" and Tor is saying Y.

I know very well what strawman means dog, I'm a regular victim of it.

You of course sidestep my explanations of my actual meaning by making fun of me not knowing the meaning of words which I use correctly.

I'm beginning to paint a picture in my head of you that impresses me regarding your skill at doing something subversive and entertaining...

Dog_O_War wrote:The reason people don't call me a liar is because I post facts and provide proof to my claims.

Dog, you post fictions, you have told me in this thread that the automatic dodge entry in RUE tells us not to add normal dodge bonuses, which is clearly a fiction.

You never provided proof of it. I showed you what proof looked like in HU2. It's absent in RUE, so you just made it up and then abuse our language trying to inject meanings that are not inherent.

Dog_O_War wrote:if I make a mistake, I own up to it, I don't dance around and try to be "not wrong", because I don't care if I'm right, wrong, or whatever, I only care that the correct information be conveyed.

This makes me grin bro.

Here, let me find a mistake from earlier:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:is there a place in the book that explicitly says NOT to apply standard dodge bonuses stacked on top of the auto-dodge ones?

Yes; under auto-dodge itself.

I have not seen you own up to that mistake dog.

It never says under auto-dodge (in RUE, 'the book' we were talking about) to NOT apply standard dodge bonuses.

Do you actually understand what an explicit restriction is? RUE lacks it. HU2 has it. Really trying to hammer this home here. I think if I wasn't burying this in a wall of text other readers would be pointing this out to you too.

Dog_O_War wrote:at what point were you going to post the direct book-quote to break down and back up your claim? Or must I do it, to show you exactly where the explicit wording is?

Considering that (as I just identified) you are making a claim about there being an explicit restriction, yes, the burden is yours to show me exactly where explicit wording is that denies the use of standard dodge bonuses for auto-dodges.

It's not on page 344. This is what you presented to me as evidence, and it was not evidence.

"My claim" is merely that an automatic dodge is a dodge, and that your restriction is not in RUE.

Are you asking for a direct quote that an automatic dodge is a dodge? Would I also need to supply direct quotes to you to convince you that that plasma missiles are missiles? That short swords are swords?

Dog_O_War wrote:You're flat-out saying that the rule didn't include all the sources for itself within its entry.

YUP.

Problem?

The rule for body block doesn't include 'all the sources for itself' within its entry either. It does not say "add strike bonuses when using body blocks". It also does not say "add damage bonuses from spiked suits when using body blocks".

The reason for that is because the rules don't all have to be in one pretty location to be valid. That's why it's okay for subsequent books to introduce new restrictions to the alignments, and for subsequent OCCs to give HP bonuses.

Dog_O_War wrote:I'm not "interpreting" the text; I'm just telling you what information it's providing.

Telling someone what you think something says is not possible without interpretation.

I'm not sure you grasp what 'interpret' means.

Dog_O_War wrote:It's only providing us with two sources and saying that these do, in-fact, add to auto-dodge.

Agreed.

Dog_O_War wrote:Nothing else is otherwise saying that they do, in-fact, also add to auto-dodge, because such entries do not exist.

Disagree. Dodge bonuses are added to dodges. Automatic dodges are dodges. Therefore, dodge bonuses are added to automatic dodges.

EXCEPT in Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition, because in that game system, we are told not to add them.

Tor wrote:I hate double-posting but I felt easier to reply to that short blurb you dropped at the end first Dog. This longer post is to the one prior to it.

Dog_O_War wrote:Your statement here to eliakon denotes' your lack of understanding as to what a grammar Nazi is

Only if you're actually concluding that I am accusing eliakon of describing me as anti-Semitic. "Nazi" is associated with Hitler and stuff, I object to etymological roots of offensive terms.

Very well, I do not wish to offend. How about I use the proper term "Linguistic Prescription" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
while I was there I got this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Since it would appear that this discussion had turned from a logical debate into an attempt to see how many fallacies can be stacked in one argument, AND a topic where posters themselves were selecting the 'true and proper' meanings of words. I chose to back out.

I am familiar with that list eliakon, but if you wish to convey criticism I suggest you be more particular about it, citing which fallacy and to what part you attribute it.

A discussion about the meanings of words is a good one to have, people are never in perfect consensus about favoured meanings. Far better be it that our perception of language is at the fault of our disagreement, for that is resolvable.

I don't really gather what you mean by "posters themselves" selecting meanings... do you not wish to weigh in on the meaning of a term or phrase? Or rules are formed of language and that is a pathway we must traverse to understand them.

Easier to decide for yourself and move on. Not your cup of tea, it seems, but easier.

Tor, I just don't have the time to respond to the giant post, but I am going to outline a few issues that keep cropping up with you.

You don't seem to understand inferences. eliakon mentioned the term "grammar nazi" and your response was to the effect of, "whoa, I'm not anti-semitic!" grammar nazis have nothing to do with that; it's a term used to draw a parallel for how a person treats words (that parallel is to how the Nazis treated the Jews). But you just don't get that - it has to be explained to you several times.

Then there's your non-points; you bring up objections to stuff that have zero to do with the topic; for instance, beyond your lack of understanding to the term 'grammar nazi', you bring up an objection to the root of the word nazi; that has nothing to do with anything.

Basically, you drag down relevant discussion with non-points and stuff that is so off-topic that (to draw a parallel) it like you're posting about jalapeno cheetos in threads about robots.

Then there's your ever-present references; you continuously reference books that are out of date, or have information that is clearly superceded by a relevant text from a more up-to-date book. And you don't seem to be able to accept it. It ceases to be a discussion with you; people post facts and you quagmire it with a bunch of crap. I don't mean that everything you post is [crap], but it is readily apparent that you don't bother to think about what you're posting.

There is no one on this site (well, there are two people) that I have on my foe list, and one of them I can't help but read his "gems" if for nothing more than a laugh and to post a satirical 'opposing thread' to better poke fun.
You, well you're not exactly a turd, so I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and not just block your posts, but I am going to start dismissing them out of hand because you can't seemingly post current facts nor argue about stuff that doesn't first need to be explained to you.

The inly way to get that old school redonkulous auto dodge bonus..... is the major super power. Slow motion control. Jussayin.

Dog_O_War wrote:You don't seem to understand inferences. eliakon mentioned the term "grammar nazi" and your response was to the effect of, "whoa, I'm not anti-semitic!" grammar nazis have nothing to do with that; it's a term used to draw a parallel for how a person treats words (that parallel is to how the Nazis treated the Jews). But you just don't get that - it has to be explained to you several times.

Dog, I very well understand the meaning of the phrase, I'm just making fun of it.

Dog_O_War wrote:Then there's your non-points; you bring up objections to stuff that have zero to do with the topic; for instance, beyond your lack of understanding to the term 'grammar nazi', you bring up an objection to the root of the word nazi; that has nothing to do with anything.

Calling me a grammar nazi has nothing to do with the thread's topic to begin with, so I'm mocking that tangent of debate. If people don't want their personal attacks dissected, they should not make them.

Dog_O_War wrote:Then there's your ever-present references; you continuously reference books that are out of date, or have information that is clearly superceded by a relevant text from a more up-to-date book.

There is no such thing as an out-of-date book. There are first editions and unrevised editions, compared to second or revised ones, though. I object to the notion that new books necessarily supercede old ones.

Dog_O_War wrote:people post facts and you quagmire it with a bunch of crap.

My books are canon, not crap, just older canon.

Dog_O_War wrote:it is readily apparent that you don't bother to think about what you're posting.

It is readily apparent that you make a lot of assumptions about others without proof Dog, please lighten up on the personal attacks.

Dog_O_War wrote:you're not exactly a turd

Thank you.

Dog_O_War wrote:I am going to start dismissing them out of hand

Another expression I find meaningless.

Dog_O_War wrote:you can't seemingly post current facts

I am capable of posting information from later books when necessary, I'm just fond of my older core books and usually look there first. I am sometimes unaware of something was changed, often because Palladium doesn't exactly advertise the changes made to the Megaversal rules system over time.

Dog_O_War wrote:nor argue about stuff that doesn't first need to be explained to you.

My hands almost typed a curse... please stop insulting me or I'll be reporting you.

Explanations are often needed when there is vagueness or disagreement, please don't paint this so one-sided.

Talk more about the topics, less about the posters, Dog.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You don't seem to understand inferences. eliakon mentioned the term "grammar nazi" and your response was to the effect of, "whoa, I'm not anti-semitic!" grammar nazis have nothing to do with that; it's a term used to draw a parallel for how a person treats words (that parallel is to how the Nazis treated the Jews). But you just don't get that - it has to be explained to you several times.

Dog, I very well understand the meaning of the phrase, I'm just making fun of it.

Oooh, so those posts or portion of posts - you know, those off-topic ones - devoted to trying to explain to you what "grammar nazi" means was just you trolling then? Because when you play dumb in an attempt to sucker people into off-topic subjects, well that's called trolling and is against the board rules of conduct.

So I recommend you refrain from doing so in the future.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Then there's your non-points; you bring up objections to stuff that have zero to do with the topic; for instance, beyond your lack of understanding to the term 'grammar nazi', you bring up an objection to the root of the word nazi; that has nothing to do with anything.

Calling me a grammar nazi has nothing to do with the thread's topic to begin with, so I'm mocking that tangent of debate. If people don't want their personal attacks dissected, they should not make them.

Guy, if you knew what the term meant, then you wouldn't be mocking it, because it's not a tangent. Whenever someone uses an alternate word with you, you ask that it be defined, dissected, classified, etc.
I mean, you've started a whole damn thread in an attempt to redefine the otherwise aptly adequate term "partial borg" into different and wholy useless different terms in an effort to describe whether said partial borg has a pinky replacement or is almost full-conversion.

I mean really, your 'dissection of a "personal attack"' only served to draw attention to your inability to otherwise understand inferences.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Then there's your ever-present references; you continuously reference books that are out of date, or have information that is clearly superceded by a relevant text from a more up-to-date book.

There is no such thing as an out-of-date book. There are first editions and unrevised editions, compared to second or revised ones, though. I object to the notion that new books necessarily supercede old ones.

Well this isn't a court room so your objection means crap.
And there is such a thing as an "out-of-date book" whether you choose to believe it or not.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:people post facts and you quagmire it with a bunch of crap.

My books are canon, not crap, just older canon.

Again with the lack of understanding.
Did I say your books were crap?
Or did I say you quagmire posts with crap?

This (again!) only high-lights your lack of understanding.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:it is readily apparent that you don't bother to think about what you're posting.

It is readily apparent that you make a lot of assumptions about others without proof Dog, please lighten up on the personal attacks.

Dog_O_War wrote:I am going to start dismissing them out of hand

Another expression I find meaningless.

Well given your inability to understand a lot of concepts and terms, I'll break this down for you.
I am going to assume from now on that you're posting irrelevant drivel.
Drivel being aptly defined as "childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle."

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you can't seemingly post current facts

I am capable of posting information from later books when necessary, I'm just fond of my older core books and usually look there first. I am sometimes unaware of something was changed, often because Palladium doesn't exactly advertise the changes made to the Megaversal rules system over time.

So in other words, you nostagically check older books when discussing current topics, because of how you feel, and you come unprepared for a subject because you don't bother to check if the subject matter has seen an update.

How very ignorant of you.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:nor argue about stuff that doesn't first need to be explained to you.

My hands almost typed a curse... please stop insulting me or I'll be reporting you.

So in other words you can't tell the difference from an observation and an insult here.
Because that wasn't an insult; it was observation, with a blunt truth about said observation.
Believe me, that wasn't an insult from me. I don't like to mess around when concerning facts - so when I find someone is dragging a topic down with irrelevant stuff, I'm blunt with them.

Tor wrote:Explanations are often needed when there is vagueness or disagreement, please don't paint this so one-sided.

It is one-sided though; when another poster asks a question that I have the answer to, I answer it and they go away with understanding.
And where there is no vagueness, they don't invent it.
And where there is a disagreement, I provide proof and a breakdown of said proof, or ask that they post proof to the contrary. You seem to either not accept proof (re: facts) or don't post proof.
So yeah, it's been a little one-sided.

Tor wrote:Talk more about the topics, less about the posters, Dog.

Damn, I'd love to, but you keep throwing out a quagmire in a post simply because you have a hard time accepting new information and come unprepared to a discussion (which you've readily admitted in your above quote), so that kind of bogs things down a bit.


EDIT: fixed bottom quote.

Dog_O_War wrote:so those posts or portion of posts - you know, those off-topic ones - devoted to trying to explain to you what "grammar nazi" means was just you trolling then? Because when you play dumb in an attempt to sucker people into off-topic subjects, well that's called trolling and is against the board rules of conduct.

There's a difference between a serious troll attempt and you not getting a joke.

Speaking of which... if I assume you DID get the joke, then your pretending you did not and speaking as if you interpreted the comment is serious would be you trolling me, wouldn't it?

Eliakon cleverly did not pursue this line of discussion as no assumptions 'bout literalism were made.

My literal response is my poke at the use of a pejorative I abhor, not a serious attempt at believing I was being called a nazi or an attempt to convey ignorance of the slang.

As I did not actually tell you I was unaware of the meaning of the slang 'grammar nazi', I did not deceive you. You deceived yourself by assuming that I was ignorant. That or... you were not deceived, and are ... blah this gets circular.

Dog_O_War wrote:if you knew what the term meant, then you wouldn't be mocking it, because it's not a tangent.

Yes, it is. Calling a fellow poster names is a personal attack and not actually the discussion of the topic matter.

Dog_O_War wrote:Whenever someone uses an alternate word with you, you ask that it be defined, dissected, classified, etc.

You speak as if that is all I do, it is something I do when I view it necessary.

Dog_O_War wrote:I mean, you've started a whole damn thread in an attempt to redefine the otherwise aptly adequate term "partial borg" into different and wholy useless different terms in an effort to describe whether said partial borg has a pinky replacement or is almost full-conversion.

I started the thread because (as you can clearly see from the source materials I quoted) it is defined differently. Knowing whether you can be at full power with 3 bionic limbs or 1 bionic limb is a major difference in system mechanics.

Dog_O_War wrote:I mean really, your 'dissection of a "personal attack"' only served to draw attention to your inability to otherwise understand inferences.

I see it as only drawing to your tendency to assume others to be ignorant of things they criticize. Not liking weasel-words doesn't mean someone doesn't understand how they are used.

Dog_O_War wrote:this isn't a court room so your objection means crap.

Your cursing means less

Dog_O_War wrote:there is such a thing as an "out-of-date book" whether you choose to believe it or not.

"Out of date" is pointless slang which basically means 'not fashionable' or 'not the latest'. You might as well tell me that the C-10 pistol is outdated. I'm not interested in your favourite trends, I'm interested in what is legal in the games Palladium produces.

Tor wrote:Did I say your books were crap? Or did I say you quagmire posts with crap?

I quagmire my posts with book references you dispute, it's natural to think you meant that.

It would be nice if you could express yourself with less vulgar terms, calling what I say crap only tells me you don't like it, not what you dislike about it.

Dog_O_War wrote:This (again!) only high-lights your lack of understanding.

If you wish to convey understanding, don't curse so much, think about how to speak to others informatively.

Dog_O_War wrote:given your inability to understand a lot of concepts and terms, I'll break this down for you. I am going to assume from now on that you're posting irrelevant drivel. Drivel being aptly defined as "childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle."

Thank you for informing me of your future assumption plans. I am apparently able to understand this concept, a perplexing irregularity.

Dog_O_War wrote:you nostagically check older books when discussing current topics

I consult the RMB because I find it better organized than RUE and I have a better sense of where everything is because I've been reading it longer.

Dog_O_War wrote:you come unprepared for a subject because you don't bother to check if the subject matter has seen an update.

How do you propose people become informed about the minutiae of Palladium updates when they don't present them in any cohesive manner?

Dog_O_War wrote:How very ignorant of you.

I believe I already did humbly express my occasional ignorance about certain updates Dog. People who don't own certain books Palladium puts out are similarly ignorant of certain topic manner, and for those of us who get them, we have a tendency to skim a little when it's mostly reprints and we have a sense of 'I know what Rifts is'.

Dog_O_War wrote:you can't tell the difference from an observation and an insult here

Dog the problem with what you said is that you speak as if explaining yourself should never be necessary, that it makes your listeners the fools if they don't fathom your context.

Dog_O_War wrote:that wasn't an insult; it was observation, with a blunt truth about said observation.

Hair-splitting, not mutually exclusive categories. You're fond of 'semantics' being brought up: if Doom says to Richard "I observe you are an idiot Reed" he can mask an insult in 'observations' but it is what it is.

The point remains you continue attacking me and my mannerisms rather than the topic, and are quite good at baiting me into explaining why that is wrong, it seems.

Dog_O_War wrote:when I find someone is dragging a topic down with irrelevant stuff, I'm blunt with them.

I avoid that, as I like to assume good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt that I believe they have genuine interest in reaching an understanding. I'll bluntly say you seem more interested in criticizing posters rather than their arguments. I can empathize, it's something I also struggle with, it requires attentiveness to keep on topic.

Dog_O_War wrote:when another poster asks a question that I have the answer to, I answer it and they go away with understanding.

You've amazing confidence in your unrelenting competence.

Dog_O_War wrote:where there is no vagueness, they don't invent it.

I do not invent vagueness, please stop insulting me. You are accusing me of being intentionally deceptive and I am not, I am genuinely unable to resolve conflicts or mysteries I perceive in the rules when I bring them up.

Dog_O_War wrote:where there is a disagreement, I provide proof and a breakdown of said proof, or ask that they post proof to the contrary.

Yet you often conveniently ignore criticism of your so-called proofs, and dismiss contrary proof, like in the case of the dodge-borrowing debates.

Dog_O_War wrote:You seem to either not accept proof (re: facts) or don't post proof. So yeah, it's been a little one-sided.

Dog, honestly, if you really think this, convince me and others that it is the case by supplying proof on a case by case basis.

That you feel the need to constantly insist about how much proof you have only highlights to me how little you actually tend to provide.

Your bragging is annoying. I do not at all mind discussions of proof when we are discussing particular subject matter, but I can do without these recurring generalizations where you paint yourself as an uber-comptent hero and those who have disagreed with you as utter incompetents, it is not black and white like that either way.

Dog_O_War wrote:you keep throwing out a quagmire in a post simply because you have a hard time accepting new information and come unprepared to a discussion (which you've readily admitted in your above quote), so that kind of bogs things down a bit.

There is no such thing as perfect preparedness, your standards are unrealistically high if you expect people to perfectly memorize all of the new books, or to own them all. Those standards are no excuse for your constant whining at others and deviation from the content.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:so those posts or portion of posts - you know, those off-topic ones - devoted to trying to explain to you what "grammar nazi" means was just you trolling then? Because when you play dumb in an attempt to sucker people into off-topic subjects, well that's called trolling and is against the board rules of conduct.

There's a difference between a serious troll attempt and you not getting a joke.

Speaking of which... if I assume you DID get the joke, then your pretending you did not and speaking as if you interpreted the comment is serious would be you trolling me, wouldn't it?

I assumed nothing.
But beyond this, if I did assume you were joking, then I'd be doing nothing more than playing along.

Tor wrote:Eliakon cleverly did not pursue this line of discussion as no assumptions 'bout literalism were made.

My literal response is my poke at the use of a pejorative I abhor, not a serious attempt at believing I was being called a nazi or an attempt to convey ignorance of the slang.

No, let's actually look at your literal response;

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Since this has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammer Nazism I will respectfully bow out, having said my piece.

Could you avoid the association with national socialism please? There's nothing immoral about being attentive to the meaning of words and phrases, it's essential to understanding rules and law.

At the very basic of your response here, you weren't joking. There was no implied joke in your words, and anyone reading these words would not assume you were joking.
Which means you're lying now about joking. But I'm not quite finished;

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Your statement here to eliakon denotes' your lack of understanding as to what a grammar Nazi is

Only if you're actually concluding that I am accusing eliakon of describing me as anti-Semitic. "Nazi" is associated with Hitler and stuff, I object to etymological roots of offensive terms.

Again; no joke intoned in your response. Your response what conclusive that you were assuming I understood your response to be one thing, which was that you were accusing eliakon of calling you a grammar nazi.
I never assumed that; I observed you espousing being a grammar nazi as some kind of noble endeavor, which is what you're not understanding; you're making the post about specific word-use when that is an off-topic quagmire which has nothing to do with relevant and meaningful discussion.

That's what I see from you. Not jokes, and by your current response of trying to play it off as "a joke", you're either trolling or you really do not understand what you're doing with your apparent "grammar-nazism".

Tor wrote:As I did not actually tell you I was unaware of the meaning of the slang 'grammar nazi', I did not deceive you. You deceived yourself by assuming that I was ignorant. That or... you were not deceived, and are ... blah this gets circular.

No.
Deception is a false appearance; if you knew the meaning of grammar nazi and did not otherwise state this when asked, then that is quite literally a deception.
No circles, but a straight line.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:if you knew what the term meant, then you wouldn't be mocking it, because it's not a tangent.

Yes, it is. Calling a fellow poster names is a personal attack and not actually the discussion of the topic matter.

When the topic matter turns into a discussion of something other than the topic - like terms you so want to define, then citing a behaviour of a poster causing this is not a personal attack but an observation to an action. If you're being a grammar nazi, which itself contains the notion of "you should stop this because it's dragging the topic way off-course with unnecessary discussion", then it's only apt that such a thing be brought to the other poster's attention, lest they too fall prey to your methods. Same goes for trolling.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Whenever someone uses an alternate word with you, you ask that it be defined, dissected, classified, etc.

You speak as if that is all I do, it is something I do when I view it necessary.

I've yet to see otherwise. I told you, I am going off of what I observe, and what I've observed is what I've stated. This is not a belief on my part; you can change opinions by changing behaviour.
Basically, I am not the only one who sees you doing this, so if you want to be known or have peoples' opinions of you different than what I've stated, you can always stop doing what I continually observe you doing.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I mean, you've started a whole damn thread in an attempt to redefine the otherwise aptly adequate term "partial borg" into different and wholy useless different terms in an effort to describe whether said partial borg has a pinky replacement or is almost full-conversion.

I started the thread because (as you can clearly see from the source materials I quoted) it is defined differently. Knowing whether you can be at full power with 3 bionic limbs or 1 bionic limb is a major difference in system mechanics.

"Clearly see".
What you're not "clearly seeing" is that, if you follow it chronologically, the definition is re-defined. And that further reprints of certain books aren't actually being updated in a meaningful way.
Which brings us back to my observations; you lack understanding. You don't do research. And you bog threads down with unnecessary talk of oddly specific definitions and semantics.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I mean really, your 'dissection of a "personal attack"' only served to draw attention to your inability to otherwise understand inferences.

I see it as only drawing to your tendency to assume others to be ignorant of things they criticize. Not liking weasel-words doesn't mean someone doesn't understand how they are used.

I don't assume this; people are often ignorant of the things they criticize. But beyond this, you're just not getting the concept that raising your objection of a word used in the thread is entirely irrelevant and off-topic. Nobody really cares what words you do or do not like, so continually derailing threads with this constant whine about words you don't like gives you an M.O. that no one wants to deal with because it's exceptionally annoying.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:there is such a thing as an "out-of-date book" whether you choose to believe it or not.

"Out of date" is pointless slang which basically means 'not fashionable' or 'not the latest'. You might as well tell me that the C-10 pistol is outdated. I'm not interested in your favourite trends, I'm interested in what is legal in the games Palladium produces.

It's not slang.
Take for instance, the Law (a field I work in). There are new Rules of Court that I deal with. This means that there are Old Rules of Court. The rules binders lawyers have get updates; that is a direct implication that an un-updated binder is out-of-date.
But to further high-light the point, if you were to try and argue a position based upon the Old Rules of Court, whereby an update existed, the Judge would simply dismiss your argument as invalid because you're not using the most current rules.

While an RPG or forum is hardly a court-room, the parallel is drawn; you cite old rules that have been updated in a new Rule Book. So what should you expect to happen? Your argument to be dismissed out-of-hand based upon an established societal notion that a new rule supercedes an old one.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Did I say your books were crap? Or did I say you quagmire posts with crap?

I quagmire my posts with book references you dispute, it's natural to think you meant that.

So you're admit you purposefully quagmire posts.

Tor wrote:It would be nice if you could express yourself with less vulgar terms, calling what I say crap only tells me you don't like it, not what you dislike about it.

Then I guess I have to be more specific; your posts are devoid of contributing value.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:This (again!) only high-lights your lack of understanding.

If you wish to convey understanding, don't curse so much, think about how to speak to others informatively.

Posting facts and direct book-quotes is about as informative as it gets; those who choose not to understand or otherwise be willfully ignorant do not deserve kindness, for the simple fact that kindness was already applied (re: not messing around with them and instead just giving them a straight answer), and did not work.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:given your inability to understand a lot of concepts and terms, I'll break this down for you. I am going to assume from now on that you're posting irrelevant drivel. Drivel being aptly defined as "childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle."

Thank you for informing me of your future assumption plans. I am apparently able to understand this concept, a perplexing irregularity.

While I know this is sarcasm, your M.O. casts doubts as to just how much of it is in-fact [sarcasm].

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you nostagically check older books when discussing current topics

I consult the RMB because I find it better organized than RUE and I have a better sense of where everything is because I've been reading it longer.

You say this, but what I see is, "I don't like to learn new things and instead just keep my head in the sand".

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you come unprepared for a subject because you don't bother to check if the subject matter has seen an update.

How do you propose people become informed about the minutiae of Palladium updates when they don't present them in any cohesive manner?

I don't expect everyone I encounter to know every nuance or subtle change within the book, but I expect that when they're supplied with a fact that they don't turn to an older book to dispute or otherwise question it. Generally speaking, posting a fact from a current book is sufficient enough evidence for the community at-large, that they don't try and dispute it with out-of-date texts. This however, is something you do.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:How very ignorant of you.

I believe I already did humbly express my occasional ignorance about certain updates Dog.

If you were humble about it, there wouldn't be so much argument from you.

Tor wrote:People who don't own certain books Palladium puts out are similarly ignorant of certain topic manner,

Do you know what the typical poster does when they encounter information from a book they don't have? They ask questions and take the other posters providing answers at their word. They don't try to quagmire posts with disputes. I certainly do not own a vast majority of books from the Palladium line, so I never dispute other poster's facts from those books. Often, I won't post on a subject but instead play the student and just read.

It's not a hard concept; don't post what you don't know to be factual, or simply state it as opinion.

Tor wrote:and for those of us who get them, we have a tendency to skim a little when it's mostly reprints and we have a sense of 'I know what Rifts is'.

I skim a lot of stuff, but when a question is asked, I do a thorough review; this is kind of what my job entails, so I'm good at it. I don't assume everyone else will get the same level of detail, but it is simply general respect that a person fact-check before they post "facts". That general respect is for everyone's benefit and helps avoid arguments. However, I've noted that most posters do not fact-check and simply assume that because they've read something once, that they're right.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you can't tell the difference from an observation and an insult here

Dog the problem with what you said is that you speak as if explaining yourself should never be necessary, that it makes your listeners the fools if they don't fathom your context.

When I post a fact, it is unnecessary. Beyond this though, if a concept is tough for me to explain, I work ceaselessly in my attempt to convey meaning or insight; whom else do you know on these boards that will take the time to do this?
That aside though, there is a darker or negative aspect of some of my posts; this is when a poster asserts themselves as willfully ignorant, arrogant, or in-general a troll - I am not kind to these kinds of posters. But kindness is not a requirement to post; it's a respect-thing.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:that wasn't an insult; it was observation, with a blunt truth about said observation.

Hair-splitting, not mutually exclusive categories. You're fond of 'semantics' being brought up: if Doom says to Richard "I observe you are an idiot Reed" he can mask an insult in 'observations' but it is what it is.

So far I've called you ignorant. If you feel insulted, then report me for this. But pointing out that a poster does not have sufficient knowledge is not against board rules. Neither is feeling insulted.

Tor wrote:The point remains you continue attacking me and my mannerisms rather than the topic, and are quite good at baiting me into explaining why that is wrong, it seems.

Well I'm certainly not very good at getting you to acknowledge factual information. I'm also not very good at explaining to you that there is in-deed such a thing as a new fact that can render an old fact out-of-date.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:when I find someone is dragging a topic down with irrelevant stuff, I'm blunt with them.

I avoid that, as I like to assume good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt that I believe they have genuine interest in reaching an understanding. I'll bluntly say you seem more interested in criticizing posters rather than their arguments.

Tor, you've put forth no relevant argument for me to discuss; that only leaves me with discussing what you've put forth. You've created this position here.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:when another poster asks a question that I have the answer to, I answer it and they go away with understanding.

You've amazing confidence in your unrelenting competence.

That's because when I'm wrong about something, I publicly state this and if I had been dismissive or argumentative, I apologize. I haven't ever seen anyone else do this.
I literally only care that the facts of the matter are conveyed, of if I have unjustly wronged someone, that I rectify the situation.
This in-turn leads me to strive for a high level of said competence, because only the truth really matters.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:where there is no vagueness, they don't invent it.

I do not invent vagueness, please stop insulting me.

So this is something you posted in response to me in that thread about paired weapons and simultaneous attacks (posted Sept.17, 2013);

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I never said that the ability to dodge allows a simultaneous attack; that isn't something I said. I said that having the option to dodge gives way to the option of a simultaneous attack.

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between these statements.

Whether it's "allows" or "gives way", your logic is not supported to the text. "Instead of" still requires SAs to use an attack, and it can't be done when you're out of them, period.

You're creating a vagueness here; there is no vagueness between knowing how to do something ("ability"), and being allowed to do something ("option").

Tor wrote:You are accusing me of being intentionally deceptive and I am not, I am genuinely unable to resolve conflicts or mysteries I perceive in the rules when I bring them up.

O rly?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You don't seem to understand inferences. eliakon mentioned the term "grammar nazi" and your response was to the effect of, "whoa, I'm not anti-semitic!" grammar nazis have nothing to do with that; it's a term used to draw a parallel for how a person treats words (that parallel is to how the Nazis treated the Jews). But you just don't get that - it has to be explained to you several times.

Dog, I very well understand the meaning of the phrase, I'm just making fun of it.

Tor wrote:As I did not actually tell you I was unaware of the meaning of the slang 'grammar nazi', I did not deceive you.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:where there is a disagreement, I provide proof and a breakdown of said proof, or ask that they post proof to the contrary.

Yet you often conveniently ignore criticism of your so-called proofs, and dismiss contrary proof, like in the case of the dodge-borrowing debates.

"Criticism"
You mean where I attempted to convey a concept (re: "dodge-borrowing") in a manner that would be more-easily understood for the community at-large, and you quagmired it with your "criticism" that 'dodge-borrowing wasn't an official definition'?
All you're doing is high-lighting the fact that you sand-bag posts over semantics.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You seem to either not accept proof (re: facts) or don't post proof. So yeah, it's been a little one-sided.

Dog, honestly, if you really think this, convince me and others that it is the case by supplying proof on a case by case basis.

Tor, I do this already. You just don't accept it.
For instance, in this very thread, you asked me where a person can find where it says what bonuses auto-dodge gets; I stated it was under the entry.
You then claimed it was vague because it didn't tell you that you couldn't get bonuses from other sources. There was in-fact no vagueness; it clearly stated where the bonuses for the skill in-question came from.

Whenever my sources are called into question, I state the reference material, or I state that I cannot remember, and I don't argue it as a fact until I can find the reference. That's a pretty solid case-by-case break-down method.

Tor wrote:That you feel the need to constantly insist about how much proof you have only highlights to me how little you actually tend to provide.

I don't insist on "how much proof I have", I just post it; I only really insist that if you make a claim, that you back it with proof. You don't really do that, or when you do, you reference out-of-date material, which in and of itself calls into question the validity of your proof.

Tor wrote:Your bragging is annoying.

I don't brag. Period. I state facts. End of story.
That would be a false claim on your behalf.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you keep throwing out a quagmire in a post simply because you have a hard time accepting new information and come unprepared to a discussion (which you've readily admitted in your above quote), so that kind of bogs things down a bit.

There is no such thing as perfect preparedness, your standards are unrealistically high if you expect people to perfectly memorize all of the new books, or to own them all. Those standards are no excuse for your constant whining at others and deviation from the content.

They aren't high; there are numerous posters on these boards that either remember new information, fact-check, or otherwise "come prepared". Some of them I don't really like, but I respect the fact that they know their stuff.
And I never once stated that I expected a person to own every book, or even to have access to them all - that again would be you making a false claim.
Additionally, I don't whine - that again would be you making a false claim.
Are you done making false claims? Or would you like to make more? I don't mind really, because they don't do you any good in the credibility-department.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Since this has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammer Nazism I will respectfully bow out, having said my piece.

Could you avoid the association with national socialism please? There's nothing immoral about being attentive to the meaning of words and phrases, it's essential to understanding rules and law.

At the very basic of your response here, you weren't joking. There was no implied joke in your words, and anyone reading these words would not assume you were joking. Which means you're lying now about joking.

You not getting my humor doesn't mean my explanation of my humor a lie.

Furthermore: regardless of it not literally being an accusation of Holocaust-mongering, the term "grammar nazi" IS 'associated' with Nazis based on its etymological roots.

If for example, I said I platonically loved my pillow, I would be associating myself with Plato, even though the use of the term platonic has shifted away from describing equivalents the philosopher's suppressed intercrural desires.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Your statement denotes' lack of understanding as to what a grammar Nazi is

Only if you're actually concluding that I am accusing eliakon of describing me as anti-Semitic. "Nazi" is associated with Hitler and stuff, I object to etymological roots of offensive terms.

Again; no joke intoned in your response. Your response what conclusive that you were assuming I understood your response to be one thing, which was that you were accusing eliakon of calling you a grammar nazi.

I don't recall saying all of my replies were jokes. The humor was merely in the tone inflating the degree to which the association was perceived.

The actual wording is a genuine criticism, because Nazis were dictatorial in a bad fashion (depriving people of constructive freedoms) whereas those labelled as 'grammar nazis' are being dictatorial in a good fashion (like a dictionary).

I did assume the 'grammar Nazism' comment to be directed at me, though I did not state that guess initially, and only mentioned the suspicion when you singled me out for objecting to the use of the slang.

Dog_O_War wrote:I observed you espousing being a grammar nazi as some kind of noble endeavor

I believe it is noble to explore the meanings of words, I did not espouse any belief that we should call this attention to grammar something like nazism.

Dog_O_War wrote:you're making the post about specific word-use when that is an off-topic quagmire which has nothing to do with relevant and meaningful discussion.

I think you're wrong about that. I believe specific word use is extremely on-topic when discussing rules communicated through words. You appear to be arguing that discussing the meaning of the medium in which rules are conveyed is not meaningful to discussing rules. You might as well argue that discussing currents is irrelevant to boats.

Dog_O_War wrote:by your current response of trying to play it off as "a joke", you're either trolling or you really do not understand what you're doing with your apparent "grammar-nazism".

The humor in question is merely that I did not view Eliakon as intending to associate me with Hitler, but rather, that I perceived it as unintentional through casual use of common slang (slang I dislike) and thus my quip was made in the effort of deconstructing a pejorative as a countermeasure to personal attacks against other posters being introduced into the thread in lieu of topical emphasis.

I will lament a mistake in that I should have called this "humor" rather than "joke" as the former is more atmospheric and the latter more discrete.

Dog_O_War wrote:Deception is a false appearance; if you knew the meaning of grammar nazi and did not otherwise state this when asked, then that is quite literally a deception.

I do not believe you ever once asked me if I knew the meaning, Dog. Instead, I believe you ignored clear cues I understood it, present from the outset. You declared that a statement I made (criticism I believe you misunderstood at the time of your reply) indicates "lack of understanding", an accusation I disputed, implying I knew the meaning. In spite of that, you again declared my "lack of understanding". You devoted yourself to explaining something I never asked you to explain.

When you volunteered a definition, I clearly responded "I very well understand the meaning of the phrase".

Your perception of a need to define the word was based on your misreading of my post. As characterized by your "whoa, I'm not anti-semitic!" paraphrasing, you had already confused my response to you with my response to Eliakon.

If you reread, you will see that I only use that when saying "Only if you're actually concluding that I am accusing eliakon of describing me as anti-Semitic" which clearly means I was not, and that your criticism is only valid upon attacking a straw-man.

Dog_O_War wrote:When the topic matter turns into a discussion of something other than the topic - like terms you so want to define, then citing a behaviour of a poster causing this is not a personal attack but an observation to an action.

Grammar nazism is hardly the proper term to describe an action, it is a way to insult other posters' words without actually conveying any particular refutable criticisms.

Dog_O_War wrote:If you're being a grammar nazi, which itself contains the notion of "you should stop this because it's dragging the topic way off-course with unnecessary discussion", then it's only apt that such a thing be brought to the other poster's attention, lest they too fall prey to your methods. Same goes for trolling.

My dispute was that I did not consider anything on the thread to be nazism, that discussion of words is unavoidable in extensive discussion of rules written in words, and that it is not off-topic, and thus not a bad thing, and calling something nazism indicates something to be a bad thing.

Dog_O_War wrote:

You speak as if that is all I do, it is something I do when I view it necessary.

I've yet to see otherwise.

I don't care to orate for the blind Dog, you are obviously generalizing, and until you admit that I make other kinds of posts, you might as well drop that line of insult. I do not feel burdened to supply proof, read my other posts and you can easily see I make comments of other kinds.

Dog_O_War wrote:I told you, I am going off of what I observe, and what I've observed is what I've stated. This is not a belief on my part; you can change opinions by changing behaviour.

You do not think your beliefs influence what you observe?

Dog_O_War wrote:I am not the only one who sees you doing this, so if you want to be known or have peoples' opinions of you different than what I've stated, you can always stop doing what I continually observe you doing.

I don't care how many tallies you acquire Dog, your description of me is wrong.

You made a strong claim: "Whenever someone uses an alternate word with you, you ask that it be defined, dissected, classified" and when I inquired if you meant it in the sense as 'all I do' you support that interpretation.

Meaning that you are stating that there is not a single instance of someone using a synonym in the English language and me failing to do 1 of the 3 (classify/define/dissect).

Although I may engage in that more often than you, more often than most, to think that I could do this more than half the time, much less ALL the time, is an absurd notion that anyone reasonable understands to be untenable. People could not effectively communicate that way at all.

For example, if I actually did this ALL the time, I would freak out any time someone used the phrase "the only one" and be all "this could mean SOLE PERSON".

Your criticism is pretty vague to begin with too, I have no idea what you're describing me as reacting to 100% of the time. I am open to you opting to narrow that.

Tor wrote:What you're not "clearly seeing" is that, if you follow it chronologically, the definition is re-defined. And that further reprints of certain books aren't actually being updated in a meaningful way.

In the sense of "4 limbs means partial" > "2 limbs mean partial" > "3 limbs mean partial".

The bionics sourcebook did re-define it. Canada actually didn't present a clean definition, it just had the wrong impression of what partial cyborgs were and listed that assumption in the footnotes of Headhunter classes.

Dog_O_War wrote:my observations; you lack understanding. You don't do research.

Your imagination, more like. Understanding and research are never perfect, but if you continue to insult me by stating that I completely lack a trait that defines humanity, that I completely abstain from a behaviour all humans engage in to some degree, I ought to report you. You might as well say "you lack a brain and you don't think". These are very disparaging insults.

Dog_O_War wrote:you bog threads down with unnecessary talk of oddly specific definitions and semantics.

You perceive your own sense of necessity as the objective truth, show some humility please. My sense of what is necessary and useful in discussion differs from yours. Opinions and tastes differing from your own are not grounds to insult other posters and derail threads. This is what is actually derailing them dog, your attacks, not my analytical techniques. I am participating in communal analysis and you're picking fights with me by flaming me without curses, through prettily-masked 'observation'-tone put-downs, and insecure as I am, I am reacting to them out of politeness in attempt to help you and hopefully divert others from suffering similar attacks that they may be less capable of dealing with, for you are a sophisticated bullier of geek.

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't assume this; people are often ignorant of the things they criticize.

I am not saying you assume that people MAY be ignorant of things they criticize. Rather, you make declarations as if you know for certain people are ignorant, and that is wrong to do.

Dog_O_War wrote:you're just not getting the concept that raising your objection of a word used in the thread is entirely irrelevant and off-topic.

Calling someone names is off-topic, and if what I view as on-topic discussion is being labelled off-topic (WRONGLY) then objecting to the label (and the brutish manner in which it's applied) and defending what is attacked is perfectly acceptable.

Dog_O_War wrote:Nobody really cares what words you do or do not like

The omniscient DOW rears his head again, apparently having an empathic link to people. I'm don't think you (or anyone) knows the full extent of their own cares, much less others, and both forms of caring are off-topic, so please stop talking about how much you care about other people's caring, it makes a reader feel rather beastly and compels them to be shreeky.

Dog_O_War wrote:continually derailing threads with this constant whine about words you don't like gives you an M.O. that no one wants to deal with because it's exceptionally annoying.

People are free to ignore discussions of words meaning in rule threads if they like, a lot of debaters see understanding language as fundamental to understanding rules communicated via language.

Your MO of attacking those who debate in a way that leaves you on the losing side does annoy me though.

Dog_O_War wrote:There are new Rules of Court that I deal with. This means that there are Old Rules of Court. The rules binders lawyers have get updates; that is a direct implication that an un-updated binder is out-of-date.

The contexts of these rules are different. IRL present life is ruled by IRL present rules, just as IRL past life was ruled by IRL past rules.

We are not actually living in the world of Rifts, it is a world of imagination, our own timeline has no bearing on it.

Dog_O_War wrote:you cite old rules that have been updated in a new Rule Book. So what should you expect to happen? Your argument to be dismissed out-of-hand based upon an established societal notion that a new rule supercedes an old one.

You are wrongly assuming that notions of how law works IRL apply to games.

Our IRL law describes codes of behaviour, how we dictate people ought to act, and the consequences we intend to apply if they don't.

What RPG rules do is more akin to writing natural law, which we explore through science. When RPG rules are rewritten, they change reality itself, which can be interpreted as adding a subsequent additional reality to a Megaverse, rather than changing the timeline, something which Palladium tends not to like, and so which I assume to not be the default explanation for book differences.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:did I say you quagmire posts with crap?

I quagmire my posts with book references you dispute, it's natural to think you meant that.

So you're admit you purposefully quagmire posts.

I can only guess at your meaning when you use quagmire as a verb, since so far as I look around it's only commonly used as a noun.

The noun means something along the lines of a difficult position, a predicament, or troubled situation.

Something's status as a quagmire is subjective. A quicksand pit 1 foot deep is a quagmire to a Bogie but not to a Jotan.

That my post is subjectively a quagmire to you because you overlook genuine references and their analysis as 'crap' does not at all mean that I intend you to sink into a pit, I am merely acknowledging that you appear to be based on your frustration.

Dog_O_War wrote:your posts are devoid of contributing value.

Your opinion is noted. I don't much care for it though, I don't hold you in high esteem, I find you prone to underrating others and overrating yourself. You engage in frequent all-or-nothing language which I believe reflects unrealistic illusions in thinking.

Dog_O_War wrote:those who choose not to understand or otherwise be willfully ignorant do not deserve kindness

That you believe people can choose not to understand something is further evidence of irrational thinking. Understanding is not a choice, it is a natural reaction to processing information. The only choice is the degree of energy people put into understanding.

Apparently you feel entitled to espouse on the degrees in which you assume others are dedicating their energies, as if you were some sort of authority on it. It's pretty haughty bro, if I use that adjective correctly.

Dog_O_War wrote:kindness was already applied (re: not messing around with them and instead just giving them a straight answer), and did not work.

You failing to making a convincing argument does not justify you to begin insulting your opposition. Sometimes what you think is a point in your favour is not. IE you are not always right, and should be open to that.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Thank you for informing me of your future assumption plans. I am apparently able to understand this concept, a perplexing irregularity.

While I know this is sarcasm, your M.O. casts doubts as to just how much of it is in-fact [sarcasm].

Perplexing is subjective: I am obviously not perplexed by understanding, as I frequently understand things. If you interpret it as me describing myself being perplexed, then assumption of sarcasm could be accurate.

Of course, taken in the context that I am describing something you would find perplexing (if one believes your assessment) the only thing I would be sarcastic about here would be summarizing the occurance as irregular.

Dog_O_War wrote:what I see is, "I don't like to learn new things and instead just keep my head in the sand".

This is an example of you listening to your daydreams about how people are rather than taking them at their word.

One can be fond of an old book (RMB has a lot of things RUE left out, keep in mind) and still like to learn new things. I love learning new things (it's why I didn't stop at just 1 RPG) and I do consult RUE, so your generalization is inappropriate.

Dog_O_War wrote:I expect that when they're supplied with a fact that they don't turn to an older book to dispute or otherwise question it.

It comes with the territory of this being a unified setting. There is only one "Rifts" RPG. There is no "Rifts Ultimate Edition World Book 2: Atlantis" for example. The Rifts line is based on the initial setting, a setting that differs from the one presented in UE, which is why I am perfectly justified in perceiving it as a dimension book or an optional supplement and not a mandatory overwrite.

Dog_O_War wrote:Generally speaking, posting a fact from a current book is sufficient enough evidence for the community at-large, that they don't try and dispute it with out-of-date texts. This however, is something you do.

I'm reminded of expressions like 'put up or shut up'. If you want to drag out old laundry then do it specifically, I'm sick of these vague criticisms I can't even address, from arguments I've pretty much forgotten about.

You apparently only thing the most recently Palladium book is all that matters and that conflicts with earlier material are irrelevant, but I believe that old books hold weight too. Feel free to tell me where RUE elaborates on specific penalties incurred for psionics/magic too, because all I could find were vague foot-notes at the end of various OCCs and which spit on Momanos and Null Psi-Borgs, so if not RUE, what core book should I use to play Canada/Mindwerks?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I believe I already did humbly express my occasional ignorance about certain updates

If you were humble about it, there wouldn't be so much argument from you.

Humility means not having an inflated view of your abilities and not stating otherwise. It doesn't mean you can't speak up based on your best knowledge. To speak up while aware of the risk of being wrong is standard human courage, to tell others they should have no voice is arrogance.

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you know what the typical poster does when they encounter information from a book they don't have? They ask questions and take the other posters providing answers at their word.

I do this. If you disagree, you're deluded and viewing me through the muddy goggles of your imagination.

Dog_O_War wrote:They don't try to quagmire posts with disputes.

I hunger for your presentation of a dictionary presenting quagmire as a verb. I get the sense you'd view a goalie opting not to evade your blessed puck as quagmiring his net.

Dog_O_War wrote:I certainly do not own a vast majority of books from the Palladium line, so I never dispute other poster's facts from those books. Often, I won't post on a subject but instead play the student and just read. It's not a hard concept; don't post what you don't know to be factual, or simply state it as opinion.

Again: put up or move on, I don't remember posting anything I realistically thought to be wrong, and censorship based on the vague idea that a new rule on something could be out is nonsense.

You can't actually 'know' something is free of contradictions from the newest book unless you own that book, so following your proposed reasoning, people who do not own all books that follow a given book should not comment on that given book since it could hypothetically be contradicted by material in a later book.

Dog_O_War wrote:it is simply general respect that a person fact-check before they post "facts".

I do fact-check. Your perceiving your competency and/or dedication to fact-checking as more extensive than another person's doesn't mean that others aren't also fact-checking, so it's wrong to describe it that way. Pat yourself on the back for how awesome you must be, if you like. I've found in the past (like the dodge borrow debate) that more time spent on understanding the rules could be more valuable than simply finding them.

I recall then I was thankful for being informed of the new rule about borrowing, as I didn't know of it, but my ignorance of a rule doesn't at all mean you're suddenly an authority on how to interpret it (like thinking one could simultaneously attack 4 ogres who continue to beat on a character by attacks somehow being dodges)

Dog_O_War wrote:That general respect is for everyone's benefit and helps avoid arguments. However, I've noted that most posters do not fact-check and simply assume that because they've read something once, that they're right.

Reading something in one place IS fact-checking. Your reading something in 2 places is 'more thourough' fact checking, but hardly the only fact-checking.

Dog_O_War wrote:if a concept is tough for me to explain, I work ceaselessly in my attempt to convey meaning or insight; whom else do you know on these boards that will take the time to do this?

I think a lot of posters on this board are good-natured like you and I and dedicate a lot of their time to explaining things to others.

Dog_O_War wrote:there is a darker or negative aspect of some of my posts; this is when a poster asserts themselves as willfully ignorant, arrogant, or in-general a troll

You might find yourself holding fewer dark beliefs if you avoid making assumptions as to others thinking, we must remember our lack of telepathy.

If you wish to be unkind for perceiving me as arrogant, go ahead, I think it's something everyone's prone to, but I could possible do it more often than others. I see it as a pot-kettle situations, cept one is humble enough (and arrogant about that virtue of humility, lel) to admit the fault.

If you're unkind for thinking people are trolling or that people could actually will ignorance, I'd shed such tendency to judge on things that resist evaluation.

Dog_O_War wrote:pointing out that a poster does not have sufficient knowledge is not against board rules

You're not 'pointing out' anything, you're claiming me to possess a generalized fault. If you were actually pointing out knowledge I lacked, you'd be identifying that specific information.

Example: "Psi swords are energy weapons that we are told do not benefit from strength bonuses, so I assume they cannot be used as physical objects to convey force."
Bad response: "You're ignorant."
Good response: "Tarn's manservant used one to climb a GBK indicating there may be physical properties in spite of not benefiting from strength like other physical weapons."

The first merely insults the poster, the second informs the poster. The first is flaming and sidetracks the thread, the second moves the thread and conversation forward.

Dog_O_War wrote:I'm certainly not very good at getting you to acknowledge factual information.

More accurate response: our views on facts do not coincide.

Dog_O_War wrote:I'm also not very good at explaining to you that there is in-deed such a thing as a new fact that can render an old fact out-of-date.

More accurate: our opinions on temporal authority do not coincide.

Dog_O_War wrote:you've put forth no relevant argument for me to discuss; that only leaves me with discussing what you've put forth.

My relevant arguments in this thread can be found prior to Eliakon's comment about bowing out and your sidetracking the thread by disputing my riposte to his parting shot.

Dog_O_War wrote:when I'm wrong about something, I publicly state this

Untrue, we generally only publicly state we are wrong when we believe we are wrong. Sometimes we are wrong and do not realize it and thus would probably not apologize for it unless we were being disingenuous.

Dog_O_War wrote:if I had been dismissive or argumentative, I apologize.

Untrue, again, we would only apologize if we perceive ourselves as acting in a certain manner and if we viewed the manner as wrong. Since we're both arguing, I view us both as argumentative. Someone utterly non-argumentative would never argue. To look at any other definition mires us in vague indefinable degrees.

Dog_O_War wrote:I haven't ever seen anyone else do this.

Lotsa people apologize on the forums for stuff, you're not unique in it man

Dog_O_War wrote:I literally only care that the facts of the matter are conveyed, of if I have unjustly wronged someone, that I rectify the situation.

I await the rectification as to your unjustified generalizations. Thinking my research skills to be sub-par is not grounds to say I do not research.

Dog_O_War wrote:this is something you posted in response to me in that thread about paired weapons and simultaneous attacks (posted Sept.17, 2013);

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I never said that the ability to dodge allows a simultaneous attack; that isn't something I said. I said that having the option to dodge gives way to the option of a simultaneous attack.

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction between these statements.

Whether it's "allows" or "gives way", your logic is not supported to the text. "Instead of" still requires SAs to use an attack, and it can't be done when you're out of them, period.

You're creating a vagueness here; there is no vagueness between knowing how to do something ("ability"), and being allowed to do something ("option").

Saying "I have trouble understanding you" is not "creating a vagueness" Dog. If people have trouble understanding you, it means either they suck (and I might) or your statement sucked (and it might).

If in truth I suck, and your statement is not vague, I am not "creating a vagueness" if I say it seems vague to me. Vagueness is a subjective sense contributed to both by the clarity of the statement and the comprehension of the one attempting to understand it.

Dog_O_War wrote:I attempted to convey a concept (re: "dodge-borrowing") in a manner that would be more-easily understood for the community at-large

you quagmired it with your "criticism" that 'dodge-borrowing wasn't an official definition'?

All you're doing is high-lighting the fact that you sand-bag posts over semantics.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I thought I was the one who coined "dodge-borrowing" to describe the complex argument we were having.

As I recall, you were the one who got hung up on the semantic technicality of your idea not technically being a "borrow".

Feel free to correct me if I'm somehow mixing up our roles here, LOL.

Dog_O_War wrote:I do this already. You just don't accept it.

You occasionally make the attempt, I'll give you that. You often opt to just criticize a poster though, which I don't like. For example, to get back on topic with this thread, go and reply to my posts PRIOR to my Eliakon-reposte.

Dog_O_War wrote:you asked me where a person can find where it says what bonuses auto-dodge gets; I stated it was under the entry.

You then claimed it was vague because it didn't tell you that you couldn't get bonuses from other sources.

There was in-fact no vagueness; it clearly stated where the bonuses for the skill in-question came from.

"Vague" wasn't used in our 2013 conversation, it doesn't appear in this thread until June 2014. Please specifically tell me what I called the rule, because I did not call it vague.

I believe this to be a case of you mixing up what I said with what you think I said.

I believe it involved terms like 'explicit' and 'exclusive' which are absent in your paraphrasing, and very different from 'vague'.

Dog_O_War wrote:Whenever my sources are called into question, I state the reference material, or I state that I cannot remember, and I don't argue it as a fact until I can find the reference. That's a pretty solid case-by-case break-down method.

Which is unrelated to our auto-dodge bonus discussion.

Much as you attempted to prove that SAing with extra dodges isn't outruled, I attempted to prove that auto-dodging with normal dodge bonuses (in Rifts) wasn't outruled.

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't insist on "how much proof I have", I just post it

LOL, Dog, you just finished explaining to me how much proof you post all the time. You're directly contradicting yourself. In fact, this very sentence "I just post proof" proves you do not just post references, you also brag about how you post it, you're doing it right now.

Which is fine, in moderation, I do it also, but heck, I stand no chance of convincing you that you overdo it sometimes if you won't acknowledge that you do it at all, that's quite steeped.

Dog_O_War wrote:I only really insist that if you make a claim, that you back it with proof. You don't really do that

You mean like when I ask you to prove that RUE forbids adding normal dodge bonuses to auto-dodges, the way that Heroes Unlimited does? You made a claim, and didn't prove it, and I explained how, and showed you how HU has evidence that would prove such a claim made about that book.

Dog_O_War wrote:you reference out-of-date material, which in and of itself calls into question the validity of your proof.

In the auto-dodge debate I referenced RUE so I don't know what you're talking about, please don't bounce around so much if that's not what you mean.

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't brag. Period. I state facts. End of story.

"I state facts" is bragging about how you state facts. I'm not sure what you think bragging is. I'm not stating that you're lying about yourself, merely that you are drawing attention to yourself by constantly referencing how you source stuff in an attempt to put others down when you judge them to not be doing it as often as you.

Dog_O_War wrote:I never once stated that I expected a person to own every book, or even to have access to them all - that again would be you making a false claim.

You missed the "if".

You are calling others unprepared even when they do prepare themselves, just because you don't think they're prepared ENOUGH.

It's like saying "you don't lift weights" just because someone can't bench enough to impress you.

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't whine - that again would be you making a false claim.

This would be an example of me using slang, I will clarify that I am not actually saying you are making that sound, just that I think your complaints about my interest in etymology are petty.

Perhaps the two of you could transition your discussion into private messages?

--flatline

I don't know that I would be engaged there, and I like debates open to external criticism, but if an admin would like to export eliakon's "nazi" post (as it was off topic and NOT "respectfully" bowing out) and all subsequent commentary spawned by it between me+Dog to a separate thread (either here or All Things Palladium, since we are referring back to some previous discussions), I would be agreeable to that. Although I have no idea for a thread title...

Tor wrote:I don't know that I would be engaged there, and I like debates open to external criticism, but if an admin would like to export eliakon's "nazi" post (as it was off topic and NOT "respectfully" bowing out) and all subsequent commentary spawned by it between me+Dog to a separate thread (either here or All Things Palladium, since we are referring back to some previous discussions), I would be agreeable to that. Although I have no idea for a thread title...

Well, the original thread discussion is dead, so if you want to keep the current discussion public, this thread is as good as any.

--flatline

Tor wrote:I don't know that I would be engaged there, and I like debates open to external criticism, but if an admin would like to export eliakon's "nazi" post (as it was off topic and NOT "respectfully" bowing out) and all subsequent commentary spawned by it between me+Dog to a separate thread (either here or All Things Palladium, since we are referring back to some previous discussions), I would be agreeable to that. Although I have no idea for a thread title...

The post was respectful. And you are, again, mischaracterizing it. I was not calling you a Nazi. I WAS using a well known, recognized term with a specific, definable meaning, appropriately I might add. I also was not calling YOU a grammarnazi, I was stating that grammar nazisim had taken over the discussion, and that I was there for choosing to bow out.
If you choose to interpret that as calling you a Nazi....well that's on you since it CERTAINLY wasn't what was posted.

Tor wrote:Furthermore: regardless of it not literally being an accusation of Holocaust-mongering, the term "grammar nazi" IS 'associated' with Nazis based on its etymological roots.

Which is utterly irrelevant because context is everything. Saying "killer song" does not mean the song kills for example. Why you continually bring up the most irrelevant objections is beyond me.

Tor wrote:If for example, I said I platonically loved my pillow, I would be associating myself with Plato, even though the use of the term platonic has shifted away from describing equivalents the philosopher's suppressed intercrural desires.

Utterly irrelevant.

Tor wrote:The actual wording is a genuine criticism, because Nazis were dictatorial in a bad fashion (depriving people of constructive freedoms) whereas those labelled as 'grammar nazis' are being dictatorial in a good fashion (like a dictionary).

No. They're still characterized as bad. See, quite possibly the worst type of argument a person can put forth is when they stop discussing the subject and instead focus on specific words and misspellings; it is the most petty form of response and shows a general lack of ability by the person performing said grammatical corrections.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I observed you espousing being a grammar nazi as some kind of noble endeavor

I believe it is noble to explore the meanings of words, I did not espouse any belief that we should call this attention to grammar something like nazism.

Amazing; another argument on semantics by Tor

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you're making the post about specific word-use when that is an off-topic quagmire which has nothing to do with relevant and meaningful discussion.

I think you're wrong about that. I believe specific word use is extremely on-topic when discussing rules communicated through words.

You can believe whatever you like, but it's a fact that it's not when you're arguing about synonyms.

Tor wrote:You appear to be arguing that discussing the meaning of the medium in which rules are conveyed is not meaningful to discussing rules. You might as well argue that discussing currents is irrelevant to boats.

All you're doing here is proving that you don't actually know what my arguments are.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Deception is a false appearance; if you knew the meaning of grammar nazi and did not otherwise state this when asked, then that is quite literally a deception.

I do not believe you ever once asked me if I knew the meaning, Dog.

Amazing that you'd state a response like this, when you know full well I didn't have to ask, because you've volunteered the information to me. Which I see you've conveniently cropped out of your response, but hey, it's no big deal for me to repost it since it's just in my last response. I'll bold it for you too, so as you might pick up on it this time around;

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You don't seem to understand inferences. eliakon mentioned the term "grammar nazi" and your response was to the effect of, "whoa, I'm not anti-semitic!" grammar nazis have nothing to do with that; it's a term used to draw a parallel for how a person treats words (that parallel is to how the Nazis treated the Jews). But you just don't get that - it has to be explained to you several times.

Dog, I very well understand the meaning of the phrase, I'm just making fun of it.

Tor wrote:Instead, I believe you ignored clear cues I understood it, present from the outset. You declared that a statement I made (criticism I believe you misunderstood at the time of your reply) indicates "lack of understanding", an accusation I disputed, implying I knew the meaning. In spite of that, you again declared my "lack of understanding". You devoted yourself to explaining something I never asked you to explain.

Maybe perhaps it's because you don't seem to understand that alluding to (re: "clear cues") is not the same thing as a statement? I mean, since you want to discuss semantics so very often, how's about we discuss the meaning behind allude and statement?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:When the topic matter turns into a discussion of something other than the topic - like terms you so want to define, then citing a behaviour of a poster causing this is not a personal attack but an observation to an action.

Grammar nazism is hardly the proper term to describe an action, it is a way to insult other posters' words without actually conveying any particular refutable criticisms.

"proper term".
It's a piece of descriptive text that is accurate. I mean, "if the shoe fits..."

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:If you're being a grammar nazi, which itself contains the notion of "you should stop this because it's dragging the topic way off-course with unnecessary discussion", then it's only apt that such a thing be brought to the other poster's attention, lest they too fall prey to your methods. Same goes for trolling.

My dispute was that I did not consider anything on the thread to be nazism, that discussion of words is unavoidable in extensive discussion of rules written in words, and that it is not off-topic, and thus not a bad thing, and calling something nazism indicates something to be a bad thing.

Oh, so now it's a dispute? I thought it was a joke to you?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

You speak as if that is all I do, it is something I do when I view it necessary.

I've yet to see otherwise.

I don't care to orate for the blind Dog, you are obviously generalizing, and until you admit that I make other kinds of posts, you might as well drop that line of insult. I do not feel burdened to supply proof, read my other posts and you can easily see I make comments of other kinds.

I was generalizing. But that is because, in-general, it's what I see you do.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I told you, I am going off of what I observe, and what I've observed is what I've stated. This is not a belief on my part; you can change opinions by changing behaviour.

You do not think your beliefs influence what you observe?

I don't put stock in beliefs, so no.
I go by proof.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I am not the only one who sees you doing this, so if you want to be known or have peoples' opinions of you different than what I've stated, you can always stop doing what I continually observe you doing.

I don't care how many tallies you acquire Dog, your description of me is wrong.

Actually, it's completely accurate.
I may simply have an incomplete sample, but of what I have observed, and from what I have been told, my description is quite accurate for the sample. I mean, I know based off of general human observation that people aren't entirely what they show to the public, but I'm not talking about you as a whole; I'm speaking of what you're allowing us to see, which is a guy who seems to be dedicated to arguing the semantics of synonyms to death.

Tor wrote:You made a strong claim: "Whenever someone uses an alternate word with you, you ask that it be defined, dissected, classified" and when I inquired if you meant it in the sense as 'all I do' you support that interpretation.

And here we are with you supporting my claim that you don't understand inference.
When someone utters the term "all you do", it is more often than not, hyperbole; a generalization for the majority of a person's actions.

Tor wrote:Meaning that you are stating that there is not a single instance of someone using a synonym in the English language and me failing to do 1 of the 3 (classify/define/dissect).

And it had to be explained to you, too. Because you apparently do not understand inference.

Tor wrote:Your criticism is pretty vague to begin with too, I have no idea what you're describing me as reacting to 100% of the time. I am open to you opting to narrow that.

It doesn't get much more specific than me saying that 'you're the guy who argues semantics and drags posts off-topic with arguments over semantics, when such things aren't needed because what was posted originally wasn't vague to begin with'. That is the label you've gained for yourself. I just put it into words.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:What you're not "clearly seeing" is that, if you follow it chronologically, the definition is re-defined. And that further reprints of certain books aren't actually being updated in a meaningful way.

In the sense of "4 limbs means partial" > "2 limbs mean partial" > "3 limbs mean partial".

It wouldn't matter if it started with 4 limbs, went to 2 limbs, then up to three limbs, then went to 87.625% limbs, then went to 1+ limbs. Only the most current definition matters.

Tor wrote:The bionics sourcebook did re-define it. Canada actually didn't present a clean definition, it just had the wrong impression of what partial cyborgs were and listed that assumption in the footnotes of Headhunter classes.

Canada's definition was that of the partial borg conversion that Headhunters get; it actually doesn't matter what other books otherwise define it as, because it's an OCC option nowadays, so the point it moot.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:my observations; you lack understanding. You don't do research.

Your imagination, more like.

Nope. And you admitted as much. Here, I'll quote you saying such;

Tor wrote:I consult the RMB because I find it better organized than RUE and I have a better sense of where everything is because I've been reading it longer.

Tor wrote:How do you propose people become informed about the minutiae of Palladium updates when they don't present them in any cohesive manner?

So here we have you stating that you consult the RMB over R:UE because you think it's organized better and you've been reading it longer, and then we have you asking the question of how to stay up-to-date on Palladium's various updates, as if you didn't know how to.

Tor wrote:Understanding and research are never perfect, but if you continue to insult me by stating that I completely lack a trait that defines humanity, that I completely abstain from a behaviour all humans engage in to some degree, I ought to report you. You might as well say "you lack a brain and you don't think". These are very disparaging insults.

Tor, I didn't say such and I didn't allude to such. I stated what I stated; when a person discusses a topic, they either know something about it, or they don't. They either check their facts or they don't. All of these are things people know and do, but only half of them are what contributing posters know and do. I'm saying you fall into the latter section, not that you're a sub-human.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you bog threads down with unnecessary talk of oddly specific definitions and semantics.

You perceive your own sense of necessity as the objective truth, show some humility please.

Tor, the truth is all I really care about. If you're bogging down a subject, like say, defensive options of a character by criticizing a descriptive compound word like "attacks-borrowing", because it "isn't in the book", even though it's 100% accurate in what it's describing as happening, when I am trying to explain the course of events to you because you said you didn't understand, even though it's otherwise readily apparent and clear within the book, but you're obviously not understanding what was written in the book, and thus I'm trying to use different words to explain it even though you want me to explain it using words you already didn't understand, then what do you expect?

That was a real example by the way; you did that to me.

Tor wrote:My sense of what is necessary and useful in discussion differs from yours.

Then please pray-tell, what is necessary about discussing the semantics of synonyms?

Tor wrote:Opinions and tastes differing from your own are not grounds to insult other posters and derail threads. This is what is actually derailing them dog, your attacks, not my analytical techniques.

Tor, you made the refute to what I wrote; I responded. You refuted more based off of zero supplied proof, and you accuse me of attacking you?

Tor wrote:I am participating in communal analysis

Is it communal when you're the only one analyzing synonyms? THAT wasn't hyperbole by the way.

Tor wrote:and you're picking fights with me by flaming me without curses, through prettily-masked 'observation'-tone put-downs, and insecure as I am, I am reacting to them out of politeness in attempt to help you and hopefully divert others from suffering similar attacks that they may be less capable of dealing with, for you are a sophisticated bullier of geek.

Okay; you've been a good sport, and you've taken my bark without wigging out like some posters would.

So I apologize if you've felt bullied or otherwise 'put-down'; THAT was never my intention. All I wanted was for you to cut the unnecessary talk about redefining stuff that doesn't need it. I do often mean to be condescending, but if you feel bullied, well I honestly apologize for that.
I can't and won't apologize for 'curses' or whatever it is that you considered to be swearing. But I didn't mean for you to feel bullied.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't assume this; people are often ignorant of the things they criticize.

I am not saying you assume that people MAY be ignorant of things they criticize. Rather, you make declarations as if you know for certain people are ignorant, and that is wrong to do.

But Tor, people are ignorant for the most part. Even I am, though (for the most part) not on the subject of Rifts.
Just take a moment and contemplate just how much knowledge is out there and how much of it you or anyone knows. I'll paraphrase Socrates, "I know that I know nothing".
So yeah, I do assume everyone is ignorant and rightly so. I may come across like an ******* in this assumption, but at its root, I'm not assuming they're dumb, just that they don't know, which isn't as villianous an assumption as you'd think.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Nobody really cares what words you do or do not like

The omniscient DOW rears his head again, apparently having an empathic link to people.

No.
I just know that people in general do not care what one-another thinks. But beyond this; you obviously don't care what words other people may happen to like above others. Effectively, both yourself and those who choose words you don't like are being selfish - they for using words you don't like, and you for not respecting that they may say what they like in preference for yourself.
So I mean really, what should a person do? If it's to be accommodating, then you wouldn't be asking that certain words and terms not be used, and it would completely grind the board to a halt if every thread started with, "okay, so of the participants in this thread, are there any words or phrases that need to be off-limits before we begin?"

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:continually derailing threads with this constant whine about words you don't like gives you an M.O. that no one wants to deal with because it's exceptionally annoying.

People are free to ignore discussions of words meaning in rule threads if they like, a lot of debaters see understanding language as fundamental to understanding rules communicated via language.

Tor, you'd feel even worse if nobody ever responded to what you had to say; a public shunning is far worse than getting a scathing response from a poster such as myself.

Tor wrote:Your MO of attacking those who debate in a way that leaves you on the losing side does annoy me though.

Huh? I don't "lose". I've stated this plenty of times; as long as the truth of the matter is put forth, then that's all I care about.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:There are new Rules of Court that I deal with. This means that there are Old Rules of Court. The rules binders lawyers have get updates; that is a direct implication that an un-updated binder is out-of-date.

The contexts of these rules are different. IRL present life is ruled by IRL present rules, just as IRL past life was ruled by IRL past rules.

No.
It's the same notion. A past rule changed can affect current lives. It happens all the time. Just as a new rule can change a past life.

Tor wrote:We are not actually living in the world of Rifts, it is a world of imagination, our own timeline has no bearing on it.

It has a direct bearing; otherwise, how would you know what to do with the rules as presented? You need a precedent, which is provided with real-life. There is the rule, and then there is the enforcement; a rule is only as good as the enforcement. That is a direct parallel to real-life. If you'd like an example; in Canada, our highways have a speed limit of 110km/h. People often drive faster than this, which is against the law, yet not everyone is issued with the penalty. This is because you cannot always enforce a rule.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you cite old rules that have been updated in a new Rule Book. So what should you expect to happen? Your argument to be dismissed out-of-hand based upon an established societal notion that a new rule supercedes an old one.

You are wrongly assuming that notions of how law works IRL apply to games.

I am most definitely not.

Tor wrote:Our IRL law describes codes of behaviour, how we dictate people ought to act, and the consequences we intend to apply if they don't.

That is exactly how RPGs are run.

Tor wrote:What RPG rules do is more akin to writing natural law, which we explore through science. When RPG rules are rewritten, they change reality itself, which can be interpreted as adding a subsequent additional reality to a Megaverse, rather than changing the timeline, something which Palladium tends not to like, and so which I assume to not be the default explanation for book differences.

That is a matter of scope; the premise and steps are still the same. I mean, if you want an example of "reality-changing law", World-Leaders of the past have altered time. That is, in more than one occasion, we've skipped days and months in order to advance the calendar; our concept of time, which in-effect is a form of time-travel.
And while I know you're talking literally, it works on the same formula; design the law, design the consequence, attempt to enforce.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:did I say you quagmire posts with crap?

I quagmire my posts with book references you dispute, it's natural to think you meant that.

So you're admit you purposefully quagmire posts.

I can only guess at your meaning when you use quagmire as a verb, since so far as I look around it's only commonly used as a noun.

Really? Because not only is it synonymous with "bog" (a word with a verbage), but you yourself used it as a verb;

Tor wrote:I quagmire my posts with book references you dispute, it's natural to think you meant that.

Tor wrote:That my post is subjectively a quagmire to you because you overlook genuine references and their analysis as 'crap' does not at all mean that I intend you to sink into a pit, I am merely acknowledging that you appear to be based on your frustration.

No.
All it means is that I'm not willing to jump into the latrine for a dollar.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:those who choose not to understand or otherwise be willfully ignorant do not deserve kindness

That you believe people can choose not to understand something is further evidence of irrational thinking. Understanding is not a choice, it is a natural reaction to processing information. The only choice is the degree of energy people put into understanding.

Tor, there is a definite line between people who genuinely do not understand something, and those choosing not to understand. People who genuinely do not understand, don't argue; they continuously ask questions for clarification. They don't argue against the facts presented, or fail to provide proof when proof is asked for.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:kindness was already applied (re: not messing around with them and instead just giving them a straight answer), and did not work.

You failing to making a convincing argument does not justify you to begin insulting your opposition.

This is where the conversation is broken; I wasn't trying to make "a convincing argument"; I was stating bloody facts that you were arguing with. That's the problem; it's not me "arguing" it's you trying to dispute plain-as-day facts, which I've supplied with reference, and am now banging my head in the attempt to get you to see reason; that these are in-fact facts from a highly relevant source (thee most relevant).

I mean, when I ask a poster to put forth, "book and page number", I'm not doing this because I'm arguing, I'm doing this because I've posted a fact, and the other side (in this case, you) "refutes" and then doesn't post proof. That's not an argument; that's one side posting proof and the other side saying that the most relevant book in regards to the question is "wrong" based off of no proof; nothing.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:what I see is, "I don't like to learn new things and instead just keep my head in the sand".

This is an example of you listening to your daydreams about how people are rather than taking them at their word.

You say that, but you're the one who said that you reference the old rule before even considering to look up the rule in the most current book.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I expect that when they're supplied with a fact that they don't turn to an older book to dispute or otherwise question it.

It comes with the territory of this being a unified setting.

No.
If a fact is supplied, then you dispute it by looking at the book in-question, not by referencing a different text.

Tor wrote:There is only one "Rifts" RPG. There is no "Rifts Ultimate Edition World Book 2: Atlantis" for example. The Rifts line is based on the initial setting, a setting that differs from the one presented in UE, which is why I am perfectly justified in perceiving it as a dimension book or an optional supplement and not a mandatory overwrite.

You're really not.
There is a blurb in Atlantis stating that it is to be used in conjunction with the main book. Which is R:UE.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Generally speaking, posting a fact from a current book is sufficient enough evidence for the community at-large, that they don't try and dispute it with out-of-date texts. This however, is something you do.

I'm reminded of expressions like 'put up or shut up'. If you want to drag out old laundry then do it specifically, I'm sick of these vague criticisms I can't even address, from arguments I've pretty much forgotten about.

This isn't a criticism; you say your method of disputing fact is "perfectly justified", but what I am saying here is that's not how the community does it, nor is it otherwise acceptable to do this in other places.

Tor wrote:You apparently only thing the most recently Palladium book is all that matters and that conflicts with earlier material are irrelevant, but I believe that old books hold weight too.

Belief is not fact. Belief is quite literally defined as confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

Tor wrote:Feel free to tell me where RUE elaborates on specific penalties incurred for psionics/magic too, because all I could find were vague foot-notes at the end of various OCCs and which spit on Momanos and Null Psi-Borgs, so if not RUE, what core book should I use to play Canada/Mindwerks?

It's in the magic section. And the psionics section. Respectively. You're making it obvious that you're not even trying to read through R:UE.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I believe I already did humbly express my occasional ignorance about certain updates

If you were humble about it, there wouldn't be so much argument from you.

Humility means not having an inflated view of your abilities and not stating otherwise. It doesn't mean you can't speak up based on your best knowledge. To speak up while aware of the risk of being wrong is standard human courage, to tell others they should have no voice is arrogance.

That's great. I supplied fact, to which you state that "I'm wrong", and then provide no proof (ie: out-of-date facts). So who is being the courageous one here?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:They don't try to quagmire posts with disputes.

I hunger for your presentation of a dictionary presenting quagmire as a verb.

You seemed okay with using it as a verb; why should I provide proof then since you had no problem using it as a verb yourself without a dictionary definition?
But beyond this; here we are back to you arguing over semantics. Quagmire is synonymous with bog, bog as a verb definition, etc.

Tor wrote:I get the sense you'd view a goalie opting not to evade your blessed puck as quagmiring his net.

No.
And why would a goalie opt to evade the puck? That's kind of the opposite of their job.

Tor wrote:You can't actually 'know' something is free of contradictions from the newest book unless you own that book, so following your proposed reasoning, people who do not own all books that follow a given book should not comment on that given book since it could hypothetically be contradicted by material in a later book.

Again, a quagmire.
You can actually know something from a book you don't own. And posters are free to comment, but arguing factual information with zero proof is counter-productive.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:it is simply general respect that a person fact-check before they post "facts".

I do fact-check.

Really? You could've fooled me, because you never, ever analyze the facts presented. You never bring up portions of the text I quote from the same book, and question said portion, you've only ever referenced out-of-date books when questioning said facts. That isn't fact-checking; that's just disputing the fact without evidence to back up your claim.

Tor wrote:I recall then I was thankful for being informed of the new rule about borrowing, as I didn't know of it, but my ignorance of a rule doesn't at all mean you're suddenly an authority on how to interpret it (like thinking one could simultaneously attack 4 ogres who continue to beat on a character by attacks somehow being dodges)

Dodges are attacks (ie: same action), and vice-versa. It had everything to do with access and the type of action (re:defence) (you wouldn't be able to do 4 ogres, but that's not important).

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:pointing out that a poster does not have sufficient knowledge is not against board rules

You're not 'pointing out' anything, you're claiming me to possess a generalized fault. If you were actually pointing out knowledge I lacked, you'd be identifying that specific information.

I have been.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I'm also not very good at explaining to you that there is in-deed such a thing as a new fact that can render an old fact out-of-date.

More accurate: our opinions on temporal authority do not coincide.

No. New rules override old ones. There is even a precedent for this within the books; the Glitterboy makes reference to an older entry and then states that this is incorrect. That serves as a precedent that new entries are correct and that older entries, when a newer entry is presented, are out-of-date.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:when I'm wrong about something, I publicly state this

Untrue, we generally only publicly state we are wrong when we believe we are wrong.

No, it's true. I don't deal in "beliefs"; if someone presents proof to the contrary, or I find a relevant text which would prove me wrong, I admit this and state it.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:if I had been dismissive or argumentative, I apologize.

Untrue, again, we would only apologize if we perceive ourselves as acting in a certain manner and if we viewed the manner as wrong.

Tor, me trying to explain the same fact to someone isn't me being argumentative, it's me failing to explain properly. I'm not arguing to argue here; I really dislike having these boring quote-for-quotes.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I literally only care that the facts of the matter are conveyed, of if I have unjustly wronged someone, that I rectify the situation.

I await the rectification as to your unjustified generalizations.

You'll be waiting a long time; those generalizations were observationally accurate.

Tor wrote:Thinking my research skills to be sub-par is not grounds to say I do not research.

Tor, it's just hyperbole; It's not the end of the world. You obviously do some kind of research, but I keep saying you're "digging in the wrong spot".

Tor wrote:I believe this to be a case of you mixing up what I said with what you think I said.

I believe it involved terms like 'explicit' and 'exclusive' which are absent in your paraphrasing, and very different from 'vague'.

Tor, this is semantics again; your sentiment (ie: meaning) was that you felt the entry to be "vague". This is what I've been talking about when I say you quagmire a posts.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Whenever my sources are called into question, I state the reference material, or I state that I cannot remember, and I don't argue it as a fact until I can find the reference. That's a pretty solid case-by-case break-down method.

Which is unrelated to our auto-dodge bonus discussion.

Much as you attempted to prove that SAing with extra dodges isn't outruled, I attempted to prove that auto-dodging with normal dodge bonuses (in Rifts) wasn't outruled.

Yeah, but your form of proof was taking a statement and disregarding it. That isn't proof. When someone asks, "hey, what bonuses do I get to auto-dodge?" They are asking what bonuses they get to auto-dodge, which is what the rule clearly and concisely stated.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't insist on "how much proof I have", I just post it

LOL, Dog, you just finished explaining to me how much proof you post all the time.

No; subtle difference - I just finished explaining to you that I post proof all the time, not "how much". If there is only a single reference for proof, then that's all I post.

Tor wrote:You're directly contradicting yourself. In fact, this very sentence "I just post proof" proves you do not just post references, you also brag about how you post it, you're doing it right now.

No.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I only really insist that if you make a claim, that you back it with proof. You don't really do that

You mean like when I ask you to prove that RUE forbids adding normal dodge bonuses to auto-dodges, the way that Heroes Unlimited does?

I did; the rule says that it lists the bonuses specifically. It doesn't need additional qualifiers.

Tor wrote:You made a claim, and didn't prove it, and I explained how, and showed you how HU has evidence that would prove such a claim made about that book.

No, you simply did not accept the proof presented.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you reference out-of-date material, which in and of itself calls into question the validity of your proof.

In the auto-dodge debate I referenced RUE so I don't know what you're talking about, please don't bounce around so much if that's not what you mean.

You stated that because it did not present the rule in the old fashion, it must therefore be open to additional avenues of bonuses. That is not providing proof; you're referencing older books that got oddly specific at times, when it was otherwise clear on the definition.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't brag. Period. I state facts. End of story.

"I state facts" is bragging about how you state facts.

No; it's just a statement.

Tor wrote:I'm not sure what you think bragging is.

Bragging is being boastful; I'm not boasting here, I'm just stating that I don't try to argue my opinion and just stick to the facts.

Tor wrote:I'm not stating that you're lying about yourself, merely that you are drawing attention to yourself by constantly referencing how you source stuff in an attempt to put others down when you judge them to not be doing it as often as you.

You, I, anyone, and everyone cannot trust facts from a disreputable source; I am only attempting to establish my own credibility by stating that for all my faults and short-comings, at least trust that I stick to facts by reference to my own posts.

Dog_O_War wrote:I never once stated that I expected a person to own every book, or even to have access to them all - that again would be you making a false claim.

You missed the "if".[/quote]
No.

Tor wrote:You are calling others unprepared even when they do prepare themselves, just because you don't think they're prepared ENOUGH.

I'm calling you unprepared because there has been plenty of time and chances for you to reference the material in-question, but you apparently haven't done this.

Tor wrote:It's like saying "you don't lift weights" just because someone can't bench enough to impress you.

Yeah, except I'm saying "you don't lift weights" because, given the opportunity, you haven't.

Will type up reply to Dog later, wrestling on soon, don't have time now and my brain is tired.

eliakon wrote:The post was respectful. And you are, again, mischaracterizing it.

I'm merely calling it disrespectful to call someone a grammar-nazi.

eliakon wrote:I was not calling you a Nazi. I WAS using a well known, recognized term with a specific, definable meaning, appropriately I might add. I also was not calling YOU a grammarnazi, I was stating that grammar nazisim had taken over the discussion, and that I was there for choosing to bow out.

Regardless of who you were accusing (did not specify initially that it was me) it being known/recognized doesn't negate it being an offensive putdown.

I mean in the very least 'grammar police' could be substituted. Police at least can be more neutrally perceived as good/bad versus the inherent badness stereotyped with Nazis.

Beyond this, you also described the conversation as "devolved" which is insulting. It puts down other posters' contributions as lower to yours, less fit. Furthermore that you generalized that the conversation was about grammar/semantics as if that was all it was about, and it was not, those were merely supplemented into it, not replacing it.

Usually grammar nazi is used to mean someone excessively harsh with grammar. But in this thread, I believe the analysis was appropriate since we were looking at it within the book, and how the book was being represented. It pertained to the root of the discussion.

When it comes to casual talk, correcting grammar is generally done in a more playful and inconsistent manner because it is not the central topic.

eliakon wrote:If you choose to interpret that as calling you a Nazi....well that's on you since it CERTAINLY wasn't what was posted.

Nazi's in the phrase. So you were, and even if you didn't intent the exact traditional meaning with it, the general usage is still disrespectful.

Think of how "rules lawyer" is used as an insult feeding on many people's general dislike of lawyers (as evidence by lawyer jokes) but then amplify that by how much more disliked Nazis tend to be compared to lawyers.

People calling others certain B-words hardly means an actual accusation pertaining to the marriage of parents or the mating seasons of canines but there's still a mean spirit with the association due to cultural context.