EVE General Discussion

This is as much of "yes/no" question as:

Have you stopped beating your wife.

A) I am not married, nor ever been.
B) I have never beaten my wife (Ive never had one).

So the answer is yes, I have stopped beating my wife.
Albeit I never had a wife, nor beat her.
If I had one, I would not beat her.
Ergo, I never beat a wife I never had, nor wouls I do so.
Thus the answer is "yes" according to the explanation above.

Its simple logic.
My response fulfills the parameters of your question.

---

Yes.
I have stopped beating my non-existant wife, whom I would never beat.

---

Are you suggesting that NPC dynamic changes in EVE are equivalent to beating ones wife?

Whatever, "Have you stopped beating your partner?"

Please answer yes or no. The point is it is loaded question in that either way you come off looking like a douche. And your answer is like Torin's because your question was not really very honest. The correct answer is "It depends." Framing it as "yes/no" means I could also answer it with,

"Yes, and no." Because the question is complex and not simply answered with "Yes" or "No" because in one context the answer could be "Yes" and in another, "No".

This is misrepresentation. Im not one anyones "side" except the game's and its comprehensive communities.
I have no vested interests either way.

Discussion of this would be nice, I agree.

Im trying to do that, but Im constantly beset by players hunkering down into (what was demonstrably YOUR side) camps and sniping/sneering at the other.

Im not a part of that. You can't paint me as such.
I just want whats best for EVE.
Im looking at the universal result and impetus, not the interest of any one camp.

I didnt.

I dont and have never had a wife, much less ever have beat her.

There is nothing new here except that the triggers of the reaction are based on corp standing and not sec status (Facpo) or illegal agression (CONCORD). They just add another NPC fleet with different mechanics, that is all.

Now I am sure you can smoke some special stuff and make some pseudo philosophical bs up about how this is some new never seen paradigm change... Some people have a special need to make everything 10x more complicated that it actually is...

You imply I am on a side.

I am not implying anything.

My position is clear from extensive explanatory posts.
I believe that integrated, dynamic NPC interaction resulting from player behavior is a good thing for this game, according to the premises I have outlined.

If you judge/perceive my position as anything but that, you are wrong.

You can disagree with that, and we can debate it.
But that too doesnt mean/imply I am on anyones side.
What rational person would be?
This is the game we are talking about. Not personal benefit.

All of us can adapt to change, and it wouldn't be the first time.

Salvos, the point is not whether or not you literally beating someone, but that the question is actually a type of logical fallacy. Getting on someone who is not answering a question based on fallacy is not very helpful.

As for "sides" and what not, I reject that out of hand. I reject it because we all have our biases and prior beliefs. When somebody says, "No, I don't," I find that very, very hard to believe.

Yes, I have a "side" or prior beliefs and biases in this discussion. To the regulars they are pretty well known. Stating these things and then having a discussion is possible, IMO. But if one is looking merely to score points then the discussion is going to be harder.

As I said, I think it is a mistake to categorize this change as emergent based on the definition I linked. Further, while this change might lead to emergence it may not be due to seeing cooperation as a means to obtain a desirable outcome, but out of necessity to obtain the outcome one is already obtaining.

In other words, I do not see this change as nothing but good. In fact, in 3 months or so we might be where Ima Wreckyou suggests: with PvErs complaining that they can't do what they used to do. That they need more effort to obtain the outcome they used to obtain with less effort.

And what is even more amazing is that people like Herzog sees this kind of change somehow benefiting casual play.

And to be clear, my "side" is CCP should not make changes that reduce emergence. To the extent that my views also put me in say the "PvP" campe...okay. That's fine too.

Whata fallacy and inversion.

The Socratic model, as the foundation of Western philosophy, relies on a dialectic model whereby we establish what we agree on, until we disagree. Integral to this model, is yes/no questions, as dis/agreement, supported by explanations.

Have you people really strayed so far from this model of establishing consensus first, from which then to discuss differences?

How else do you expect to establish a dialogue or constructive debate?

A yes/no ques4ion is not a threat, or a trap. Answer either or, and justify it.
That is where consensus and debate stems from in a binary system of agreement/disagreement between two points of view..

Much like the EVE system we are discussing in this thread, it is a reciprocating and interactive equation.

You can imply it till you are blue in the face and keel over.
Implying things is an immaterial conjecture.
I can imply you are an alien, or a vegan, or anything I want.
It does not make it true.

But now you have stated it as a fact.

That too I can categorically refute.

I have no personal agenda or benefit from this issue, except what I perceive and have stated as improvement of the game overall. I thought that was our goal? Am I wrong? Do you not share that value?

My "belief", as you put it, is not altruistic, but neither do I personally benefit from it.
I just believe, according to reasons I have explained at length, that it is good for the game.

Furthermore, by your own admission, your post is irrelevant.
If you believe everyone has a personal agenda, then its pointless to accuse anyone else of having one as some kind of refutation of their arguments.on an issue.It means your own refutation of my position is vested in your own bias, and thus rendered moot.

Furthermore, your position means there can be no consensus without defeat. You are positing a system of debate where there are winners and losers. How is that representative of a greater truth? Do you think you know it all? Debate is a constructive, albeit antagonistic, process of achieving a greater understanding and a greater truth, as proven by consensus/agreement through process of the debate.

---

Why do you resist a dynamic, interactive systemic environment in EVE?