Oli!

Saga Bearclaw and Adalhaid Rask would like to go again!

This on its own eliminates a broad spectrum of mental disabilities and ranges of them, because many of them do not allow for proper / healthy self-care at certain levels or by their very nature, so it might depend on what specifically you're looking to do. That said, rule of thumb is to do your research for proper usage, ensure that you're not just tacking this on to the character, make sure that this actually becomes a viable part of their daily struggle and not something that comes up every once in a while but is otherwise Whatever, while simultaneously making sure that it doesn't become the complete total of everything your character is and will ever be. That said though, more useful advice would probably come depending on what specific disability or disabilities that you had in mind.

I'd be pretty interested to meet up sometime! Hit me up whenever you would like to RP or even feel free to add me to your friend's list. Can do! I'll keep an eye out!

10/10 do it, I want to see.

Oliwat dabbles in it, and also knew someone else like that once. He might be helpful somehow.

I just wanna say that those first two summaries are amazing.

gZEdDMQZaCU

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact. Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is , no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement. It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally , regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison." For the record, I'd like to thank you for indulging my petty semantics thirst Warren denied me (That dirty Highlander scum). I feel more than sated now lol. And ah, I see what you're getting at. The initial reason I pointed it out is because generally when I see people say that phrase it always sounds like a cop out so everyone can have people play things beneath the level the phrase user is saying. And seeing as how majority of the people on this forum love putting some skeletal aspect of realism in this game you can see how I came to that observation. In any case I think a more appropriate term when talking confines of parameters would be "Special always to some, never special to all." Because rpers generally always want to be more more skilled than others for the most part or stand out in something. It'll impress some but it'll never impress everyone. Which again I guess this just reverts back to your earlier statement of it being all relative. Seems I was so into this discussion I got sidetracked myself trying to keep it going lol The thing is, personal takes on what people use an argument for doesn't make it a fallacy. It's still a Logically True Statement, and one that happens to relate to some capacity to what someone is saying. The post where I quoted the Heroes All fallacy is perhaps the most concise highlighting of why it isn't a fallacy. Logical Statements are like tools. Although it may be used in a certain way, when examined properly, it will remain the same, as it is self-contained and still retains its stated meaning. You can use a hammer to bash someone's head in just as readily as you can use it to build a house, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, objectively, a hammer. You can describe it as a murder weapon or a construction tool, but when pressed for details, it will be a Hammer. Similarly, you can use a logical statement for one side of an argument, or another side of an argument, but when examined, the meaning and truth of it will be intact. And yes, this does bring us back around into Subjectivity. (I also happen to play some dirty highlander scum.)

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact. Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is , no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement. It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally , regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison." If logical statements had to be True when compared to the current observable state of reality, not only would the logic-based scientific speculation that got us to our point of technological advancement be "wrong," but market and political analysts, theoretical physicists, speculative mathematicians, artists and philosophers, Astro- and Xenobiologists, and just about anyone in any field that does not deal solely with what's immediately demonstrable in reality itself, would be absolutely worthless and always wrong according to that frame of thinking.

This is all irrelevant, because the argument itself does not address this situation. It addresses that if Dave, Tim, and Jimmy are the only people in the universe, Dave is better, and then Tim and Jimmy attain his exact level of mastery, then everyone is therefore just as skilled as Dave was, and therefore no one is more skilled than anyone else, meaning that any notion of High Skill becomes impossible because there is no comparison.

The Heroes, All fallacy is actually just a form of this statement that is constructed in order to argue against the opposite of what this statement says. "Heroes All (also Everybody's a Winner). A contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's tee shirt. This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by American comedian Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everyone wins nobody wins, and if everyone's a hero nobody's a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as author Alice Childress writes, "a hero ain't nothing but a sandwich." See also "Soldiers' Honor." The counterpart of this is the postmodern fallacy of "Hero-Busting," under which, since nobody in this world is perfect, there are not and never have been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was a racist, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye for women, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), the Pope is wrong on women's ordination, Mother Teresa was wrong on just about everything, etc., etc. " source If you look closely, you'll actually see the phrase we're arguing is used to define the argument itself. It's not a fallacy at all.

That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means. We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is relative, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything. . . . . you do know what fallacy means right? What you said was in fact a logical fallacy. I quoted because I found it weird how people kept using that phrase. You're agreeing with the phrase by arguing it. Warren explained it much more elegantly, but what it boils down to is this: Let's replace Skilled with, say, Special, herein defined as Having a Unique Quality (similar to someone being Uniquely Better than Everyone Else contained in the original argument.) We then say, that "Everyone is Special, therefore No One Is." This is not a fallacy, because it explains that Everyone has a unique quality that sets them apart from everyone else, therefore making "being special" a uniform trait within a population. Because it is then a uniform trait, No One has the Unique Trait of Being Special. Therefore, no one is Special, and the word becomes meaningless in this context. If Everyone is Too Skilled, the word "too" implying that they are more skilled than everyone else, then the word loses its relativity, because Everyone possesses that quality. It can be distilled further into this phrase: If Everyone is , then having quality is Normal (Normal being defined herein as something possessed universally). If everyone is Highly Skilled, being Highly Skilled is Normal. If everyone has Red Skin, then having Red Skin is Normal. If everyone is Special, then Being Special is Normal. The phrase is, therefore, not a fallacy. It merely states that if everyone can claim to be a cut above the rest, or otherwise distinct because of their skillset, appearance, or otherwise, then no one is a cut above anyone else, or distinct because of their skillset, appearance, or otherwise, because these are things that everyone has. If everyone is Highly Skilled, "Highly" being a relative term which relies on someone who is Lowly Skilled for comparison, then, relatively speaking, no one can have any higher skill than anyone else, because no one has a Lower Skillset for comparison. The meaning of the phrase, and the argument that you put forth, are indistinguishable.

That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means. We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is subjective, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.

The Lots of Powerful People vs. Not As Many Powerful People can be summarized like this: A8I9pYCl9AQ Ysale, Raubahn, etc. are special because lots of people are not, by definition. If exceptions are rules, then they can't be exceptions anymore. It's a meta-issue, but it's still an important meta-issue that ties right back into the original topic. After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?

I like to do this thing. Making romantically-untouchable characters seems to do the trick. Adalhaid is trying to be chaste for the sake of focusing on monkhood, so anyone that she isn't head over heels for (which is everyone) gets an automatic No. They'd also have to be very punchy for her to even think about it in the first place. My Roegadyn is an angry, horrible, insufferable person that no one without a boatload of their own problems would want to love anyway. Oliwat is a huffy, condescending, intolerant old-wizard asshole on a bad day. Interestingly, he's being taken on by an even bigger asshole.

Hi! There is no specified chronology between Final Fantasy games; they are, except in the instances of direct sequels, spinoffs, and the like, their own self-contained worlds and stories, usually with no influence on the others. Now, I say usually, because recently Square Enix has been playing around with connecting the games in a "multiverse" fashion; think the multiple-dimensions setups of DC and Marvel. Every once in a while, bits and pieces of one Final Fantasy game might end up in another Final Fantasy game; Lightning has paid two trips to Eorzea, for instance, and FFXI has bled into FFXIV a few times. Whether or not this is canon or just for fun on Squeenix's part depends on who you ask, since these were special two-times-or-so events, but time and dimension travel is a recurring facet of the Final Fantasy series.

Reminder to everyone in the LS that we're having an IC meeting tonight at 8 EST!

I don't know if blackmailing someone into taking them on a date counts as a couple, but.

I know the game has a special font that it uses to make things appear like another language, even though the words used are all in English. At least from what I've seen in other places. That said, let's see if we can translate the Demon Tome.

In-game I don't care as long as it's natural. Out of game I only take relationships where large amounts of hugging are permitted.

I don't really see why people are taking this post seriously. If it were meant to be taken seriously, it would be written differently.

If I had to guess, it's probably less of a time constraint issue and more of a "do we want to pick a fight with our game engine in order to make longer hairstyles possible" issue, because as it stands currently I don't think that they have a way to do that that would work very well. Iceheart's hair looks about as elegant as a stiff surfboard swaying in the breeze, and we all know that that would clip to high hell with certain bits of armor. It's probably less of a time thing and more of an engine constraint / PEE ES TREE LIMITATION. Of course, time factors into this as well, though there's also a solid chance that the amount of time spent grinding teeth over it wouldn't be worth the reward, even if there was infinite time available to do so.

We probably will. People can scream about it all they want, but if the developers don't hear the noise, it's like no screaming happened. If their windows are soundproof, then chances are the impact that complaining has on anything will be minimal. I also have yet to see a player-poll for a video-game go well, and I'm sure the developers have yet to see such either, so I have faith that they knew full well what they were doing when they decided on this.

To invoke Player Choice, there's nothing really stopping people from doing this. If I want to sit down and play Kingdom Hearts and view the True Ending as a reward, all I have to do is not look it up on YouTube. If people want to do content the way that it was intended, all they have to do is get some level-appropriate gear and some friends, and belt it out as best they can. The challenge hasn't been removed, it's still there, it's just that there are ways to bypass it that people are taking. It's possible to hop off of that train at any point and do things the way that they were built if that's really what people want. For those that don't want to do that, the ability to have things be "easy" or whatever is there as well. Everyone can be happy that way, I feel, unless people feel that one option or the other shouldn't exist at all so that everyone can play in one way, which isn't something that I personally endorse.