open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Sniper Battleships: A litmus test for some voters.. Candidates?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

bluecheast
Waiting for Palli
WILD BOARS
Posted - 2008.05.18 19:22:00 - [31]
 

a

Aldrad
Caldari
Eve Heroes
Posted - 2008.05.19 12:31:00 - [32]
 

I don't see any problems with the snipers. You just want an easy life.

A.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.19 12:47:00 - [33]
 

I don't see it as unbalanced, removing it would put a dent in available ship fittings, we need more diversity, not less.

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.05.19 13:41:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Obvious troll is obvious

A


I find it absolutely exquisite that when your own set of arguments can apply to other cases with perfect plausibility, you can't confront the issue and call this trolling.

Frankly, I would pay to see the results of your Thematic Aperception Test Laughing

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:00:00 - [35]
 

Sounds plausible and are plausible are entirely different things.

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:21:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Sounds plausible and are plausible are entirely different things.


This answer of yours is a real jewel, and I don't doubt that it is indeed honest and represents your way of deflecting concepts potentially able to challenge your mind, thank you.

Now could you present the comparative definitions of Objectivity and Subjectivity ?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:28:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Semkhet
Originally by: Goumindong
Sounds plausible and are plausible are entirely different things.


This answer of yours is a real jewel, and I don't doubt that it is indeed honest and represents your way of deflecting concepts potentially able to challenge your mind, thank you.

Now could you present the comparative definitions of Objectivity and Subjectivity ?


What is a comparative definition? Are you asking what the differences between the two meanings? If so, why is "comparative definition" plural?

Dungar is not challenging anything. He is trolling.

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:50:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Semkhet on 19/05/2008 15:01:58

Originally by: Goumindong

What is a comparative definition? Are you asking what the differences between the two meanings? If so, why is "comparative definition" plural?

Dungar is not challenging anything. He is trolling.


Comparative definitions allows you to define a specific entity multiple times according to the contexts you choose to include. If I would write a comparative definition of the moon, I could define the moon in an astronomic context as a body, then as gravitational force in the context of the physics governing earth, then both as a reflector and shield in the context of electromagnetic emissions, then as deity in a given culture, etc...

Hence I am not trying to box you in a corner, at the contrary. I am interested in your definitions of Subjectivity and Objectivity while leaving you full freedom in choosing the number of contexts and their nature.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:24:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 19/05/2008 15:24:08
Originally by: Semkhet

Comparative definitions allows you to define a specific entity multiple times according to the contexts you choose to include. If I would write a comparative definition of the moon, I could define the moon in an astronomic context as astral body, then as gravitational force in the context of the physics governing earth, then both as a reflector and shield in the context of electromagnetic emissions, then as deity in a given culture, etc...

Hence I am not trying to box you in a corner, at the contrary. I am interested in your definitions of Subjectivity and Objectivity while leaving you full freedom in choosing the number of contexts and their nature.


Ahh. Ive never come across that way of defining things. I didn't think you were boxing me into a corner, its just that i can't even look up such a term with my resources[Google of course, will give me the definition of 'comparative and not 'comparative definition'] so I was at a loss to answer the question.

With regards to Eve i would say objectivity is using the facts of the matter with no direct personal interest. Subjectivity would be using anecdotes of the matter with no direct personal interest or using facts of the matter with direct personal interest.

In this case, "interest" would be akin to "profit or benefit" and not akin to "something that catches your attention".

It is very hard to determine when someone is using facts to further their personal interests rather than without that regard, though it can be determined as the defect lies in the argument. It is quite easy to determine when someone is making a determination based on anecdotes.

That is to say its without deference to personal interest or experience. "Balance" as you might find in many "journalistic" definitions does not come into play. There are only two things that matter. What is happening, and what ought to be happening.

Normally i would give Dungar a fair shake here, but the the evidence shows that he is not interested in making an argument[in both this thread and the thread he stormed out of rather than form an argument based on something other than personal attacks].

If we were dealing with something not obviously designed to illicit a response[that could be then mocked for falling for the troll] rather than to further a discussion on the topic he would likely get a reply from me explaining to him why he is wrong. And doing that(the reply furthering the discussion) would not really be hard, there are a lot of topics which have legitimate complaints. Sniping battleships really isn't one of them but, to pick something related to one of the threads that Dungar created, remote repair capital gangs are[because all or most the tactics available to kill RR gangs are no longer effective on that scale]

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:47:00 - [40]
 

Dungar's point is that the same arguments that people, specifically you Goumindong, give for nano-ships being "broken" or "unfair" can be applied to other fittings that those same people do not consider broken or unfair.

I think it's fair to ask "If nano-ships are broken/unfair and need a nerf to be balanced, why can't the same be said of sniper battleships?"

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:09:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Dungar's point is that the same arguments that people, specifically you Goumindong, give for nano-ships being "broken" or "unfair" can be applied to other fittings that those same people do not consider broken or unfair.

I think it's fair to ask "If nano-ships are broken/unfair and need a nerf to be balanced, why can't the same be said of sniper battleships?"


Because your logic is faulty. The same arguments cannot be made. Ergo the same cannot be said of sniper battleships because they are not broken/unfair. Sniping battleships have many limitations and counters that will kill them regardless of the actions of the sniping BS team after engagement. We even went over these counters and how they kill sniping BS in the nano-thread.

Here would be a good way to separate it. A sniping gang will beat an opponents gang when engaging of the opponent is not a direct counter to them[like RR BS] with some leeway on the size of the opposing gang. If the size of the enemy gang is increased beyond a certain point the enemy will win. Such, sniping gives a limited advantage.

With nanogangs if you bring more ships and they are not nano-ships then you tie instead of winning. This means the nano-ships have an infinite advantage. They will win the fights they win, but they will tie the fights they cannot.






An Aside:
Now if you were arguing about locus rigged pulse-pocs you could make an argument. But it would not be an argument regarding it being overpowered with regards to other play choices but regarding it being overpowered within the play choice.

I.E. Even if tanking is not an overpowered play choice it is possible for tanking ships to be overpowered if they severely out-strip their peers.

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:52:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Goumindong

It is very hard to determine when someone is using facts to further their personal interests rather than without that regard, though it can be determined as the defect lies in the argument. It is quite easy to determine when someone is making a determination based on anecdotes.



I've only singled out this paragraph of your reply, not to manipulate your whole answer but because it shows part of the problem you, IMHO, are facing.

It takes a fair share of experience, humility & introspection to achieve enough abstraction to get even remotely objective. None of the players I know or interact with, you & me included, enjoy these requisites to any decent extent.

One of the hardest things to do is abstract from yourself. Aware or not, almost everything we do and/or perceive is linked with affinities which can be positive or negative. In a nutshell, I'm talking about preferences.

These preferences govern our motivations & emotions, hence our actions & reactions, modulate our memory imprints, and finally build this thing named "set of values" we unconsciously cross-reference when processing the multitude of solicitations hitting our senses every day.

To get back to the matter, why don't you try to forget the messenger and focus on the substance of the message ? If the substance is coherent, the nature of the messenger and his mindset are non-issues. The fact of the matter is that you have engaged yourself in a crusade against nanowarfare to such a depth that nowadays you can't neither honestly recognize when your interlocutors raise pertinent issues nor can you integrate said elements in order to question, refine & tune your position.

What are your metrics to define what is pertinent or not ? You can't analyze anything without choosing a prior context, the same way two coordinates marking a point are meaningless without specifying their context. Now by having to choose a context, you are irrevocably introducing a degree of subjectivity, since you have chosen a specific context among many. If you believe that only the specific context you opted for is suitable, then it is either due to your inability to recognize the existence of multiple contexts, either you feel more comfortable in contexts which induce a strong polarization of positions specially when one of these polarized positions encounters your favor.

I know that we are somewhat induced by our judeochristian background to think in naive and oversimplifying terms like good & evil, friend or foe, white or black. But the gap with other ways of perceiving things is abysmal. In buddhism for example, sanctity lies in the ability to push perception beyond good & evil.

Honestly, maybe you should take some time and quietly think why you apprehend and process things you are confronted to the way you do. Nanowarfare is a really futile element in itself, but I'm pretty confident would you understand that it is not as negative you congenitally imply, you could apply the same differentiated and multi-polar perception to a multitude of things for your own benefit.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.19 17:01:00 - [43]
 

Wise words, wise words.

Efdi
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.19 17:05:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
:walloftext:


-dbp

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.19 18:27:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Semkhet

To get back to the matter, why don't you try to forget the messenger and focus on the substance of the message ?


I do, it is the content of the message that caused me to reply as I did. Not the messenger. Context helps further explain truth, but only when that context is logically relevant.

I have always ignored the messenger from the message. That does not mean I will ignore the message.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that you have engaged yourself in a crusade against nanowarfare to such a depth that nowadays you can't neither honestly recognize when your interlocutors raise pertinent issues nor can you integrate said elements in order to question, refine & tune your position.


And what is to stop me from saying the same thing you accuse me of? That you have engaged in a crusade for a personal gain to such a depth that you can neither recognize when a pertinent point is brought nor integrate said elements into your position?

No, the fact of the matter is that this particular issue is very simple. I have ignored a troll and labeled it as such because it was clear the post was trolling.

Quote:
Now by having to choose a context, you are irrevocably introducing a degree of subjectivity, since you have chosen a specific context among many


No, subjectivity only arises when context is tied to interest there is no inherent subjectivity in context.

Quote:
A bunch of other **** implying that I am going to gain directly from a re-balance of speed mechanics


Dressing it up in fancy words does not mask the accusation. Either there is an argument as to why I am wrong, or there is not. Make your case. I will listen and respond.

But what I will not do, is let you and others slander me and call it an argument.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only