EVE General Discussion

This is simple logic. A non sequitur is an argument that does not follow from the premises. From the premises: ' It was bad after', and 'it's improved', the conclusion : 'it was bad before' does indeed follow. if you want to make an argument that those weren't his premises, fine, go for it--but simply saying "it was about me, not him" isn't a valid argument,; if he makes a non sequitur, it's contained in his premises and his conclusions, not yours. To spend the entire thread saying that he can't understand what you are saying, and then decide in this one instance that he's adopted your premises word-for-word, is untenable.

If you agree that those were his premises, then it's not a non sequitur. QED.

…which wasn't a premise to begin with. That it was bad before was a conclusion he reached based on the premise “it's improved” — a conclusion that does not follow. He then used this conclusion as the premise for another conclusion: that I should have quit… but the first conclusion is still a non sequitur, so that conclusion second falls.

Sure it is. It explains why you're getting your premises mixed up.

OP, your character was created a week before me. I will have all necessary skills trained to take advantage of the BC/Destroyer 5 changes with about 16 days to spare, and I trained enough before embarking on that skill plan that I'm not a total gimp in the mean time. I can even fly mining barges if I wanted to. Your lack of planning does not constitute unfairness on CCP's part.

TL, DR version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLdBrx-ijwQ

That's what NCOs are for.

Sergeants and their Airforce/Navy equivalents and the cooks are the backbone of the military, officers are there to learn from them.

Let's examine the OP's statements on that issue:

"It gives unfair advantage to older players and players who already have Destroyers V and Battlecriusers V over newer player."

"But y I am punished for that?"

"Do u understand that if we (noobs) leave this game there will be noone to sell your crap to and noone shoot in low sec at?"

"But I see that I'm put into disadvantageous position over older players by CCP change (concerning combat ships) and I don't like."

"
The only reason I expected criticism is that I already know that EVE society is corrupted."

"I see how bad EVE society because I played many games and read many forums. "


Based on the fact that the OP is complaining on the forums about the skill tree after, saying that it's "unfair", a "punish[ment]", making her think of quittin the game, putting her into a "disadvantageous position", and fostering a "corrupt" and "bad" Eve society, I have evaluated her premise to be that "The current EVE skill tree situation is bad".

Apparently you disagree, and think that the OP believes that the current EVE skill tree situation is good. On what do you base that conclusion?

No, let's examine the actual line of argumentation instead, since that's all that matters. Again:

Me: “you're already getting a much more optimise skill tree, so you have nothing to complain about”
Him: “If the skill tree was so bad, then y did u play it then at that time? U should have left then.”
Me: “Non sequitur.”

He is asking me “why did I play” at the time “if the skill tree was so bad”. It's a question that hinges on a conditional that hinges on my saying that it has been improved. The conditional is about a subjective matter and it relates to my situation. It's my view and my choice that matters — not his — and he makes it so by asking why I acted the way I did. His view is irrelevant because what he thought does not matter one whit for my choice to play back then. So let's rewrite those:

Me: “You're getting a much more optimise skill tree, so you are getting something out of this change to “compensate” for the fact that older players retain their pre-existing abilities.”
Him: “Why did you play it at the time if you thought the skill tree was so bad?”
Me: “Your question is nonsensical because I never said I thought the skill tree was bad — just that it will be improved. I played at the time because it was good. Now it will be even better, but I'm past the point where this will matter to me.”

No. I think that I believe the current skill tree situation is good, and I'm pointing out that the he is making a nonsensical question that relies on a conclusion that does not follow from my saying that the skill tree is being improved.

So no. The premise was never that it was bad after — only that it is getting improved.

You're probably quite right about one detail: he probably thinks it will be bad now, and (presumably) worse back then. But injecting that as an assumption about what I thought about the game is what makes it a non sequitur: he's adding unrelated and irrelevant conditions to the basic premise and reaching a conclusion that the given premise (singular) does not support.

At best, it leads to another non-sequitur: if we accept this injection, he's essentially asking “I didn't like it back then, so why didn't you quit?” — once more, one does not follow from the other.

A lot of the really good stuff vanished with the house-cleaning. *shrug* Some epic troll-bait blown away, but that's how it goes sometimes.

You are in RvB. You should know that new players aren't disadvantaged as anyone can succeed in Eve.

As far as the SP goes the ONLY time that CCP gives free SP is when they delete a skill (like the learning skills) or the servers go down for longer than normal. That's it. If you can fly it before you can fly it now. If you can't then tough.

The fact is that you will now have an easier train than anyone older.

…which is why I'm supplying quotes from the poster in question. You don't seem to be aware of this.

…and the formal definition of a non sequitur means that he can't interject unrelated information and that his conclusion that it was bad before does not follow from the single premise that it has been improved.

He is asking about my actions, as directed by the one premise I provide. His conclusion that I should have acted differently is a non sequitur since it relies on a premise I did not provide, in a situation where I must provide it.

Oh, and if it doesn't matter what I think people believe, why did you bring it up? It was a play on words, see — I was pointing out that you're making assumptions about my thinking that has no basis in the text. As a matter of fact, it matters what I think I believe — not because it has anything to do with formal fallacies, but because it shows you are building something of a straw man in telling me what I think about the OP.