"I like to play the real Smash Bros."

[Jack Kieser]

This is getting stupid, I'll just go do a poll or something. Still, though, I shouldn't have to prove everything I'm saying when it is common knowledge that the majority of the existing community is not too fond of items.

I shouldn't have to prove everything I'm saying

Wat.

Seriously, this is a problem. Of course you have to prove everything you say. Dude, a populist argument doesn't work here. Ok, so a majority of players don't play with items on. I agree with you on that. That has nothing to do with whether or not they are competitive, objectively. A million people could all rise up and say that items are anti-competitive, and they can all still be wrong. How do you not get this?

Just because a lot of people think the same thing, that doesn't make it true, right, or correct. See: "Shape of the Earth, The".

Now, you're just being a silly goose.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Ok, so a majority of players don't play with items on. I agree with you on that.

Okay, there, that's my main thing I've been trying to argue since a page ago! I don't care about "competitive" anymore, my main argument is that it will split and even drive away a gigantic portion of the existing community for some worse-than-scrubs who'll probably get scared off my the "cheap spammers", which I hope you're not going to demand me to prove would be a not-so-great thing.

 

[Jack Kieser]

...of course I'm going to demand you prove that.

First of all, I could easily contend that the community we have NOW is full of scrubs who are worth driving away. Second, we already know that, for instance, our stance on items is a big point of contention on SRK, and instituting an item play policy could bring more SRK players into the community, which I assert (considering their pedigree) would be a good thing. Finally, using this argument means that you have to now prove two more implicit claims:

1 ) That people who play with items on are "worse-than-scrubs".
2 ) That an items policy would ONLY attact these people, or even that it would attract a majority of those people over any other type.

So, using that argument is WORSE for you. You now have MORE to prove, because YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM, AND CLAIMS ALWAYS HAVE TO BE PROVEN.

So, are you up for it?

EDIT: Just to clarify, as I said a couple of posts ago, I do not think, and I think any philosopher or rational, thinking person would agree, that "splitting the community", or more precisely, "driving away a portion of the community" is an intrinsically bad thing. It CAN be bad, but that depends on circumstance and context; if the portion of the community we'd drive away were, for instance, all racists and homophobes, than I'm sure it'd be a good thing to drive them away. So, that's why you have to prove your point, because you are making an empirical claim that "splitting the community" is always, 100%, forever and always a bad thing.

Which, obviously, is a claim and needs to be proven.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

There's this thing called "exaggeration", where you say your point but push it to an extreme for dramatic/comedic effect. I was using this thing for the latter effect because I felt like we needed a laugh after all this down syndrome-ness. Anyway, items will not drive all of the racists and homophobes out of the community, nor will it specifically drive out any other horrible section of the community. And, if you are making the claim that it will, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it will. I admit, though, my statement of "never being a good thing" was technically incorrect, although I was using the "exaggeration" technique at a minor level for dramatic effect, because I thought that any rational person would agree that those groups are bad and we don't want them here, but apparently people can't just infer obvious things like "racism is bad".

 

[Jack Kieser]

Of course items wouldn't drive racists or homophobes away; why would it? Items have nothing to do with either of those. I brought them up to show why sometimes splitting the community is justified (for instance, on the subject of hate speech during live streams we had in the URC thread a few months ago; a policy restricting what can or can't be said on livestreams would probably drive people away, but most of those would be people who were saying those terrible things anyway, so it'd be ok).

Anyway, you still have to prove things if you want to use the "social cohesion" argument (that splitting the community is bad). You would have to prove:

1 ) That items would split the community (an easy point to make, probably the easiest).
2 ) That splitting the community is bad (specifically, that the people lost by adding items would be a net negative to the community).
3 ) (Possibly) that the people gained by adding items would be a net negative (depending on it you want to go the "worse-than-scrubs" route, which isn't integral to your argument).

Man, you need to learn something about me: I am at the University of Washington right now to get a degree that will allow me to teach general philosophy, ethics, and applied logic at a collegiate level. Sometimes, what I'm doing is simply pointing out your own flaws, not making a claim about items. It's like, imagine we're playing chess. I can call you out on your turn and say "Hey! A knight can't move like that, try again." That doesn't mean I'm trying to move one of my pawns out of turn, it just means I'm calling you out for making a mistake.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

So this whole time you were just trying to argue a technicality. I don't know if I was just trolled really hard or if you're actually like this, but there has been so much counterproductivity as a result. This whole thread has down syndrome and I love it too much to leave.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Counterproductive for your point, sure. I guarantee you, it's not counterproductive to me.

I assure you, I'm not trolling you. I'm trying to teach you how to argue, specifically, I'm trying to teach you how to make your anti-items argument stronger and better. I'm being entirely honest when I say that. You have a hard point to prove; sometimes, it's just better to change your mind than it is to continue arguing a point just to spite logic / reason / other people.

Look, I changed positions a couple of times in relation to the MK ban debate. Different data / arguments came along at different times, and instead of being hard-headed and stubborn, I just said "You know what? You're right; my position does not have logic or proof on its side", and I just changed my mind. Of course, not everyone can do that. But, it's a good quality for a philosopher to have: the ability to be persuaded.

It's not all about winning or losing. Sometimes, reason just is what it is.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I will never change my mind about items, you can hold me to that. However, there will be no more exaggerating or assumptions of peoples ability to infer things from hereon out.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Hmm... then let me ask you this. What would change your mind? You must have some personal burden of proof that, once met, would make you change your mind, no? At least, I hope so; if not, then your beliefs are just purposeless dogma. What would you have to see / experience in order for you to think items could be competitive?

Keep in mind, this could be an entirely impossible burden of proof. For instance, I don't think a round cube exists. Now, even though I know this, and I know that a round cube could never exist, I still also know that I would change my mind and acknowledge that round cubes exist if someone could present to me a round cube that I could hold in my hands. Impossible, but if it was done, I'd change my mind.

What's your "round cube criteria" for items?

 

[The Ben]

I will never change my mind about items

So further discussion with you is pointless. Got it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

This thread is awful.

 

[Jack Kieser]

So further discussion with you is pointless. Got it.

Eh, don't be too hard on the guy; most people new to debate think that the only reason to have a discussion is to convince the other people to think like you do. It takes time to learn that debate is more about finding truths than winning arguments.

This thread is awful.

Why do you say that? Was it something I did?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You guys stopped arguing anything worth reading a few pages back :/

No one's fault (k, maybe Robotnik's), just the way it is.

 

[theunabletable]

Seriously, this is a problem. Of course you have to prove everything you say. Dude, a populist argument doesn't work here. Ok, so a majority of players don't play with items on. I agree with you on that. That has nothing to do with whether or not they are competitive, objectively. A million people could all rise up and say that items are anti-competitive, and they can all still be wrong. How do you not get this?

No, they can't be wrong. Competition is a social thing. The objectivity of anything being "competitive" must take into account the people-factor. It's subjective by nature.

So I'd say that, yeah, an approach taking into account what the majority believes is a very important one to take, it's the only one that's consistent, and it aims for the best results.

Although maybe I misunderstand by what you mean by "competitive". It has become a pretty throwaway, filler term around here, and that's why I tend to avoid using it.

Even the use of "objective" is iffy here; there isn't an objective answer. I dare you to find me a criteria that is internally objective, as well as providing a worthwhile goal.

First of all, I could easily contend that the community we have NOW is full of scrubs who are worth driving away.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly, and ask you to back that up.

Second, we already know that, for instance, our stance on items is a big point of contention on SRK, and instituting an item play policy could bring more SRK players into the community, which I assert (considering their pedigree) would be a good thing.

I'd contend that this would not accomplish getting more SRK players to join, that the mindset that would perform this is flawed, and that we hardly need more elitist players in our community.

It would be bad to change the standard to "items on".

 

[Cassio]

The last two quotes were speculation with his primary point being that theres two sides to the arguments and either would require proof. So yeah...the opposing argument is understood, I dont think it was really a major point.

Although maybe I misunderstand by what you mean by "competitive". It has become a pretty throwaway, filler term around here, and that's why I tend to avoid using it.

Well thats sort of the main point. Smash has become a game of 'we the people'/'lets turn this game into whatever we want'. However theres a worthwhile portion of people that wish to return to playing the game as it was developed, which ideologically has a stronger footing.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I would be very interested in trying a competitively designed ruleset involving items. Any time I play with items ON, I hate it cuz pokeballs, bombs and exploding boxes tend to ruin it. It's a lot easier to just say "items are dumb" and turn them off, which is what the community at large seems to have done. I can really appreciate that someone took the time and thought to craft a competitive environment where legit items can see use.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Jack Keiser has already done such a ruleset

 

[theunabletable]

The last two quotes were speculation with his primary point being that theres two sides to the arguments and either would require proof. So yeah...the opposing argument is understood, I dont think it was really a major point.

Ahh okay haha.

Well thats sort of the main point. Smash has become a game of 'we the people'/'lets turn this game into whatever we want'. However theres a worthwhile portion of people that wish to return to playing the game as it was developed, which ideologically has a stronger footing.

I don't think it has an ideologically stronger footing, and I feel that's why a lot of people tend to push for "Sirlin-esque" rulesets. I know that when I didn't want to ban anything, it was because I felt that it was more ideologically consistent, rather than being an actually more enjoyable game. Actually I recall even desiring to only play on smashville at the time, and never CPing people, despite defending adamantly for a liberal ruleset.

So I do agree that there's a worthwhile amount of people who want to play the game in a more "pure" way (even though I do disagree with this view, I do think we should do what the community tends to want), but I definitely don't think that means I shouldn't argue against such a mindset, and that I shouldn't try to convince everybody that there's more reason to play the game exactly how you prefer to play it, and the way you and your friends have the most fun playing it.

Those who want to play with lots of stages should. Those who want to play with items should. But I think it's important to discuss, as there is also a noteworthy amount of people who prefer playing a different ruleset than a "purist" ruleset, but think that a purist ruleset is more logical.

Advocating ruleset federalism isn't the end of the debate, it's purely a baseline to start with. It still doesn't tell us what ruleset we should use, really it just tells us how to find a ruleset we should use.


Sorry if my posts seem weird, vague, or even possibly more rambly than usual, I drank a bit lol

I would be very interested in trying a competitively designed ruleset involving items. Any time I play with items ON, I hate it cuz pokeballs, bombs and exploding boxes tend to ruin it. It's a lot easier to just say "items are dumb" and turn them off, which is what the community at large seems to have done. I can really appreciate that someone took the time and thought to craft a competitive environment where legit items can see use.

You should try bumper brawl sometime.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Jack Keiser has already done such a ruleset

I know he has, but that doesn't mean I've had an opportunity to try it in tournament

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

What's your "round cube criteria" for items?

There is none. I cannot legitimately think of a way that items would be a thing that I wouldn't want to give the Hitler treatment. My problem with items can't be fixed.

You guys stopped arguing anything worth reading a few pages back :/

The problem was that he thought I was still arguing the randomness thing when I was actually arguing the "it'll split the community" thing, while at the same time denying that anyone but me made any statements at all that they needed to back up but didn't (see below response to Cassio), and then once we were on the same page, he proceeded to argue a technicality.

Smash has become a game of 'we the people'/'lets turn this game into whatever we want'. However theres a worthwhile portion of people that wish to return to playing the game as it was developed, which ideologically has a stronger footing.

"We the people" have made a ruleset that fits what "we" think is the most effective way to play Smash, based on testing in Melee and Brawl. The reason why items were kept off in Brawl was probably because not enough about the game changed for items to be any better. Someone, possibly you, mentioned it was the explosives, but there was no proof given. There was also zero proof given that items can be used viably in tournaments. Both of these go back to my cries of hypocrisy which were met with complete denial that anyone made any claims they needed to back up except me.

EDIT: unabletable actually has a really good point about objectivity.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Unabletable! Hey, how's it been? Sorry this is so late; I had a midterm today that I had to study for last night, and I just got home from class. Anyway, good to see you! ^_^

No, they can't be wrong. Competition is a social thing. The objectivity of anything being "competitive" must take into account the people-factor. It's subjective by nature.

So I'd say that, yeah, an approach taking into account what the majority believes is a very important one to take, it's the only one that's consistent, and it aims for the best results.

Although maybe I misunderstand by what you mean by "competitive". It has become a pretty throwaway, filler term around here, and that's why I tend to avoid using it.

Yeah, that's not what I mean by "competitive". I'm using a more Platonic-Realm-of-the-Forms interpretation that says that there is a concept, "Competitive", that exists independent of humanity, and the best explanation we have of that concept is "of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by engaging in a contest", and that is not inherently contradictory to the concept of "random chance". You're entirely right that the expression of competition in humans is a social construct, but that's not what I'm talking about, since R.O.B. here is trying to argue (or did try to argue, at any rate) that the concept of items play is inherently contradictory to the concept of "competition".

Even the use of "objective" is iffy here; there isn't an objective answer. I dare you to find me a criteria that is internally objective, as well as providing a worthwhile goal.

I guess we should be saying "deductive" instead of "objective", since we're talking about arguments. And in that case, I've provided R.O.B.'s deductive argument and shown how premise 1 (see earlier posts) is not supported, therefore his argument is unsound. We also tend to throw around "objective" in ways we shouldn't be, and I'm trying to get better about that, so feel free to also call me out on that in the future.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly, and ask you to back that up.

And...

I'd contend that this would not accomplish getting more SRK players to join, that the mindset that would perform this is flawed, and that we hardly need more elitist players in our community.

I think this was covered already? If not, let me know, and I can deal with it then; I'm already behind...

It would be bad to change the standard to "items on".

Well, that depends on the definition of "bad". I think it'd be fine, but that's because I haven't seen proof that it would be "bad", and also because my definition of "bad" doesn't include "losing the players we have now", just like it didn't during the MK ban debate. I'm cool with shrinking the community, I guess.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I've provided R.O.B.'s deductive argument and shown how premise 1 (see earlier posts) is not supported, therefore his argument is unsound.

You stretched out an argument for an entire page because of a technicality and a refusal to assume literally anything, and when you finally stopped trying to play king of philosophy, you agreed that it's bad if the group of people driven out weren't obvious bad people like racists and homophobes, which was my original point in the first place. You didn't do ****, you just said something that was completely obvious while trying to sound like Captain Socrates, so don't brag about it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Someone sounds salty. -_-;

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Not really "salty" as much as "this lawyer-type arguing is what's wrong with SWF discussions and I'm not going to put up with it".

 

[Jack Kieser]

Lol, having high standard for proof, accuracy, and argument structure is not what is wrong with SWF. What's wrong with SWF is that too many people act as though they are the end-all-be-all of knowledge without being able to back up or support their views, and then refuse to admit they are wrong when proven so. SWF's problem is that too many people, like you, are so stubborn, prideful, and hardheaded that they are incapable of admitting that they have faults and can be wrong.

SWF's problem is that its members are so ignorant to how true intellectualism works that they can't even allow for the possibility that they could be wrong and would have to change their minds... you know, kind of like you, by your own admission.

It's fine if you don't want to be an intellectual; it's not everyone's thing, and it is wrong to judge people who don't want to be simply because they don't want to be an intellectual. After all, different strokes. But, don't you dare debase actual intellectuals who actually care about the pursuit of knowledge by disingenuously lumping yourself and those like you on SWF with them. If you don't want to be a thinking person, that's fine. Just don't insult actual thinking people.

Christ, it's viewpoints like R.O.B.'s that prove how much young people need to be taught logic / debate / philosophy when they are in 6-12th grade.

And... now you're added to the ignore list. I tried to be nice, civil, calm, and reasonable with you. I tried treating you like an adult. Now, I'm done; I'll let someone else deal with you.

 

[Delta-cod]

I love reading threads that Jack posts in. They're some of the best.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The question is: is that because I'm a good poster, or just an entertaining one? ^_-

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Alright, then. Since he won't see this, I guess I'll just dissect Dr. So Pro at Philosophy's statement for the amusement of everyone else.

Lol, having high standard for proof, accuracy, and argument structure is not what is wrong with SWF.

Argument structure; apparently so important that even the most minor error is worth the complete derailment of the thread.

What's wrong with SWF is that too many people act as though they are the end-all-be-all of knowledge without being able to back up or support their views, and then refuse to admit they are wrong when proven so. SWF's problem is that too many people, like you, are so stubborn, prideful, and hardheaded that they are incapable of admitting that they have faults and can be wrong.

Unlike Jack, who is so completely open-minded that he always considers the viewpoint of others and looks deeper than the words that are written, into the very core of the point that was attempted to be made, to best achieve absolute understanding. And who is so completely humble that does not look down upon anyone, no matter how many more philosophy classes he has taken than them. Clearly, Jack Kieser is the pinnacle of humanity!

SWF's problem is that its members are so ignorant to how true intellectualism works that they can't even allow for the possibility that they could be wrong and would have to change their minds... you know, kind of like you, by your own admission.

Yes, because my personal opinion about me not liking items is clearly a thing that can and has been disproven.

It's fine if you don't want to be an intellectual; it's not everyone's thing. But, don't you dare debase actual intellectuals who actually care about the pursuit of knowledge by disingenuously lumping yourself and those like you on SWF with them. If you don't want to be a thinking person, that's fine. Just don't insult actual thinking people.

That is the most pompous thing anyone has ever said. "Yeah, you don't have to be smart, not just sitting around and soiling diapers all day isn't for everyone, BUT DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION THE ABSOLUTE INTELLIGENCE OF PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME!!! You have made the choice to be ********, and I respect that, as long as you don't even think of trying to argue against people with my viewpoints 'smart people.'"

Christ, it's viewpoints like R.O.B.'s that prove how much young people need to be taught logic / debate / philosophy when they are in 6-12th grade.

"*sigh* it just goes to show how much everyone else needs to be like me".

And... now you're added to the ignore list. I tried to be nice, civil, calm, and reasonable with you. I tried treating you like an adult. Now, I'm done; I'll let someone else deal with you.

Oh what a fool I have been! He tried to reach out to me, to share his wise elder knowledge and lead me down the divine path to liking items in Smash Bros., and I have foolishly cast him away like the brutish simpleton I am! Oh, why did I not see the truth in his infinite wisdom sooner? OH, WHY OH WHY DID I NOT AGREE WITH HIM ABOUT ITEMS IN SMASH BROS.!?!?!?!?

Fin.

Oh, wait, there is one more thing:

What's wrong with SWF is that too many people act as though they are the end-all-be-all of knowledge without being able to back up or support their views, and then refuse to admit they are wrong when proven so.

It's fine if you don't want to be an intellectual; it's not everyone's thing. But, don't you dare debase actual intellectuals who actually care about the pursuit of knowledge by disingenuously lumping yourself and those like you on SWF with them.

"The problem on SWF are the people who think they're the end-all-be-all of knowledge; even though that cannot be, because clearly I am the end-all-be-all of knowledge!"

Seriously, though, you can't claim to be an intellectual and then call literally everyone who doesn't share your opinions and ideals dumb (that's pretty much all of you, by the way). That's just ignorant, especially when there are people on your side who act exactly the way you're accusing me of acting (his name starts with a "the").

Actually Fin.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, man... I love the ignore feature. It's like internet meditation; everything just gets... quieter. More calm. Not to mention, shorter page lengths and less scrolling.

It nice to be able to ignore people who just like arguing for the sake of arguing, and instead talk only to people who argue for a discrete point, like learning something about the world. Makes you appreciate the good posters, that's for sure. ^_^

 

[theunabletable]

Unabletable! Hey, how's it been? Sorry this is so late; I had a midterm today that I had to study for last night, and I just got home from class. Anyway, good to see you! ^_^

haha it's cool, I only had time to make that post because I'd actually JUST finished studying for a midterm today lol. What classes are you taking, just wondering?

Yeah, that's not what I mean by "competitive". I'm using a more Platonic-Realm-of-the-Forms interpretation that says that there is a concept, "Competitive", that exists independent of humanity, and the best explanation we have of that concept is "of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by engaging in a contest", and that is not inherently contradictory to the concept of "random chance". You're entirely right that the expression of competition in humans is a social construct, but that's not what I'm talking about, since R.O.B. here is trying to argue (or did try to argue, at any rate) that the concept of items play is inherently contradictory to the concept of "competition".

Are you sure he was arguing that items play is inherently contradictory to competition, or it's contradictory to the kind of competition we're trying to create (which could easily be referred to as simply "competition")?

I would certainly agree with you if he was asserting the first one, but the second one is at least worth more of a debate haha

Well, that depends on the definition of "bad".

Yeah definitely.

Honestly radical statements are just an excuse for me to try and debate an interesting topic

I think it'd be fine, but that's because I haven't seen proof that it would be "bad", and also because my definition of "bad" doesn't include "losing the players we have now", just like it didn't during the MK ban debate. I'm cool with shrinking the community, I guess.

Hey, we should have a debate on whether it'd be worthwhile or not to ban items, and for whom they should be banned, and on what it means to be worthwhile c:

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Oh, man... I love the ignore feature. It's like internet meditation; everything just gets... quieter. More calm. Not to mention, shorter page lengths and less scrolling.

My favorite thing about the ignore feature is that you can make fun of people in the actual thread without them seeing you.

It nice to be able to ignore people who just like arguing for the sake of arguing, and instead talk only to people who argue for a discrete point, like learning something about the world. Makes you appreciate the good posters, that's for sure. ^_^

"Unlike I, who always argues a point and totally doesn't derail the entire thread to argue technicalities. Oh how awesome I think I am!"

Are you sure he was arguing that items play is inherently contradictory to competition, or it's contradictory to the kind of competition we're trying to create (which could easily be referred to as simply "competition")?

I argued the former for, like, 5 minutes, but I've been arguing the latter for most of the time.

I realize I've been posting mostly not-completely-related things, so let me take this opportunity to introduce you item fans to something that Captain Socrates would've loved to see, the Naturalistic Fallacy. I'd like you to read this article and get back to me.

 

[Cassio]

Jack you were a lot more patient then I was. I gave up after just a few posts. At least he gave you a cool nickname though Captain Socrates has a nice ring to it.

 

[Delta-cod]

The question is: is that because I'm a good poster, or just an entertaining one? ^_-

Both. The entertainment comes form poor posters trying to argue with you, who is a good poster.

Of course, I really love it when other good posters argue with you. Those discussions are usually amazing.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Does that mean that its safe for me to come in and start arguing a point, or is this topic beaten to death by now?

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Go ahead and argue, but I do have one thing to say; due to the naturalistic fallacy, the belief that items should need to be proven detrimental in order to be banned is falsenot necessarily true. If you don't think so, then answer this; why were time matches never tested?

I won't start a huge thing again, but my agreement with the statement that items should stay standard until they were proven detrimental was something that I regretted agreeing to ever since I agreed to it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I agree that it is stupid to ask for proof to every single little thing like those people were doing to you in that thread.

Just because someone cannot provide proof, doesn't mean that the opposite is true. In situations where proof can obviously not be provided, all that asking for it does is halts meaningful conversation for the sake of "Ha ha! I'm right, suck a ****!"

 

[The Ben]

Go ahead and argue, but I do have one thing to say; due to the naturalistic fallacy, the belief that items should need to be proven detrimental in order to be banned is false.

Not that I think your motives are wrong here, but why else would you ban them? What criteria do you have for banning things?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Do not respond to the nat. fallacy post at face value, being used wrong, at work, will post soon.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

The ignore feature's great, isn't it? Also, my point was that it could also be applied to default settings being this games version of "natural". Just clearing it up so we're not on completely different pages again. I'd also appreciate a response to the question of timed matches, as that could easily be a different point on it's own.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I remember the days when debating on SWF had a purpose other than ego-inflating.

Oh wait, that has never been the case, my bad.