RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

SicketySix · **04-23-2015, 04:42 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:41 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb.Â

>_>

Nope I'm right there with you.

Warren Castille · **04-23-2015, 04:42 PM**

I think it's asking for objective proof of... something? We're discussing art, in essence. There's nothing objective about art.

Verad · **04-23-2015, 04:42 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:41 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb.Â

>_>

An attempt to use strictly formal logic with a set of presupposed axioms to resolve an apparent contradiction between two halves of a commonly-stated piece of roleplaying advice.

Edda · **04-23-2015, 04:43 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:41 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb.Â

>_>

Fear not, you are not dumb.

No Longer Exists · **04-23-2015, 04:47 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:30 PM)GloryRhodes Wrote: <UNREDACTED BY POPULAR DEMAND>

Hat, as it was posited in your OP, it has no meaning or relevance to the actual discussion you want to have. Â If you want to have a discussion about being nonjudgmental, or being judgmental, about RP, then please rephrase the prompt in such a manner so as to promote productive conversationÂ insteadÂ of condemnation.

This mostly feels like a bait thread, honestly.

Verad said it better. Â See below.

I gladly accept that it appears to be a bait thread, difficult topics tend to be perceived as such. I can assure you that it is not, which is why I asked for rationale instead of emotional responses. It is quickly becoming an illustration of perceived intent though, which I find fascinating as the post itself was written as literally and directly as possible; but is being received as if it is intentionally incendiary. I had the same feeling about your popularity post, but felt no need to pass judgement (see what I did there) on it openly.

I will reiterate the purpose though, to attempt to find a rational, empirical conclusion for a looping statement. That is all it is for.

Harmonixer · **04-23-2015, 04:47 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:41 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb.Â

>_>

I thought that when I read the OP I was being fucked with, but as this thread continues it's becoming quite clear what this is.

You aren't dumb here, quite the opposite actually.

FreelanceWizard · **04-23-2015, 04:47 PM**

I have to confess, I'm not entirely sure what the topic of this thread is. I will say, though, that we're going to be watching it and will lock it if it gets out of hand or starts going... crazy, I guess?

To the OP, could you clarify what you're trying to do or what you're asking? I think that'd help get things on track.

#magicAdminHat

No Longer Exists · **04-23-2015, 04:48 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:42 PM)Verad Wrote:
(04-23-2015, 04:41 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb.Â

>_>

An attempt to use strictly formal logic with a set of presupposed axioms to resolve an apparent contradiction between two halves of a commonly-stated piece of roleplaying advice.

Correct. And it is overly complex, that is also correct.

Verad · **04-23-2015, 04:49 PM**

The looping argument only exists within the context of your presuppositions, relying strictly on the set of definitions you've given for "rights" or "judge." That these are the correct definitions for these two statements is as much conjecture as anything prefaced by the use of the first-person. Remove or change the suppositions. The argument ceases to loop.

Warren Castille · **04-23-2015, 04:50 PM**

There are four lights.

SicketySix · **04-23-2015, 04:51 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:50 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: There are four lights.

Is that a fact, or is that conjecture?

Desu Nee · **04-23-2015, 04:51 PM**

Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Nebbs · **04-23-2015, 04:54 PM**

Â How does one have the right to play how they want to IF they cannot judge?

A right does not require awareness or judgement on the part of the individual wishing to play.

It is likely that such derived rights are determined through some means involving judgement, but such a right is not a prerequisite to play.

Aaron · **04-23-2015, 04:54 PM**

Yolo.

On a more serious note. You can play how you want and judge at the same time. It's called selective choosing.

And reading Verad exquisitely vocab posts makes me feel helluva lot smarter than I should be. Like im reading rare dialect with my 500 IQ.

Nebbs · **04-23-2015, 04:55 PM**

(04-23-2015, 04:51 PM)Desu Nee Wrote: Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide...

The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
.

The Vicious Cycle (Now with Science!)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes