11-12-2014, 07:40 PM
Hello folks! I've noticed that recently (Read: Since Forever), people haven't been treating the suggestions thread very well! Yes, of course, it's okay to disagree, but people aren't disagreeing productively. Hopefully, this guide will fix some of that!
Also, I found a pretty neat photo guide that I think will help illustrate my point. Which spurred this.
--
Now! A primer! The basis of a suggestion, argument, or refuting an argument is "proof"! Things aren't so cut and dry with a suggestion, though, so "reasons" are more needed! Without reasons and decent support for them, no one will (or should) care about your opinion! Make sure you back up everything you say with reasons, and when applicable, proof.
Now, here is the Pyramid of Reasoning!
![[Image: UA6quoP.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/UA6quoP.jpg)
First off, Refuting the Central Point
This is the easiest way to "win" an argument, if you want to put it that way. In this instance, quite simply, your opponent is flat-out, without a doubt wrong, with proof. There is no room for a counter-argument, because the whole basis of their argument is flawed.
EX:
P1: Shaitans need a boost to make up for their 300% Water weakness!
P2: Shaitans don't have a 300% Water weakness!
P1: My mistake!
Secondly, Refutation
This is a step down from the all-powerful Refutation of the Central Point, as instead of targeting the other side's central argument, you target a "pillar" of their argument, so that their argument is no longer as strong or valid! This still uses "proof", however, so it's very useful.
EX:
P1: Umbrals are too weak! Their 50% Light Weakness at night time completely keeps them from grinding, as Spatials will attack that weakness and kill them!
P2: If the Light weakness is a problem, you could only grind during the day time. You can also use Light-resisting equipment to make the damage less severe, as well as Blind Spatials so that they won't use Light-based attacks.
P1: I don't agree, but that's true. I'll look for some Sunglasses and an Irisgold.
Third, Counterargument!
Down at this stage, "opinions" are mostly used instead of "facts". You may not be able to change someone else's mind, but you can state why or why not you think a suggestion is viable or not! Counterarguments can be counter-argued as well, since, of course, it's all very opinionated!
EX:
P1: Humans need a buff. They don't have anything which makes them stand out like other races, and are overly balanced, leading them to be underpowered.
P2: Humans aren't made to be powerful, in my opinion. They get extra SP because they're made to have higher utility instead of raw strength.
P1: I don't believe that extra SP make Humans viable as a race, though I see where you're coming from. I would like if they got more benefits.
Halfway there, Contradiction!
Down at this level, you're not being very productive. You're essentially telling the other person they're wrong, without a -reason-. You might as well not post.
EX:
P1: Wraithguard needs to have a higher chance to activate, in my opinion.
P2: Wraithguard is strong enough, and works just fine.
(As you can see, nothing worthwhile was said. P2 is essentially just showing off their opinion, which is good, but they have no reasons or evidence! Which is not!)
Over the hump, Responding to Tone.
We're getting more and more useless. At this point, you aren't even responding to a person's ideas, but how their ideas are voiced. Of course, being pleasant is a plus, but it shouldn't have any bearing on the ideas themselves! Of course, flaming people is never allowed, but reprimanding someone should be separate from your opinions.
EX:
P1: Vampires having a Holy weakness is stupid, that should be removed, or lowered. Whoever thought of this is an idiot.
P2: Dev isn't an idiot. Shut up before you get banned.
(Obviously, both people are wrong in this. Can you tell why?)
Second to last, Ad-Hominem.
A very dastardly technique used to discredit someone else's opinion! It may be valid, but if their opinions are truly invalid, you should be able to discredit them without stooping to this level.
EX:
P1: I think Ghosts need to get some buffs.
P2: You're just saying that because you play a Ghost. Stop trying to twist the game in your favor.
Last for Worst, Name Calling.
If you do this, may whatever gods exist have mercy on you. You've flamed, added nothing to the conversation, and have taken up space. Shame on you. There's no excuse for this.
EX:
P1: I have an idea!
P2: You're a fucking idiot, shut up. That's not true at all. You might as well not even post here, go kill yourself retard.
--
This concludes the lesson! Go forth and prosper, my children.
Also, I found a pretty neat photo guide that I think will help illustrate my point. Which spurred this.
--
Now! A primer! The basis of a suggestion, argument, or refuting an argument is "proof"! Things aren't so cut and dry with a suggestion, though, so "reasons" are more needed! Without reasons and decent support for them, no one will (or should) care about your opinion! Make sure you back up everything you say with reasons, and when applicable, proof.
Now, here is the Pyramid of Reasoning!
First off, Refuting the Central Point
This is the easiest way to "win" an argument, if you want to put it that way. In this instance, quite simply, your opponent is flat-out, without a doubt wrong, with proof. There is no room for a counter-argument, because the whole basis of their argument is flawed.
EX:
P1: Shaitans need a boost to make up for their 300% Water weakness!
P2: Shaitans don't have a 300% Water weakness!
P1: My mistake!
Secondly, Refutation
This is a step down from the all-powerful Refutation of the Central Point, as instead of targeting the other side's central argument, you target a "pillar" of their argument, so that their argument is no longer as strong or valid! This still uses "proof", however, so it's very useful.
EX:
P1: Umbrals are too weak! Their 50% Light Weakness at night time completely keeps them from grinding, as Spatials will attack that weakness and kill them!
P2: If the Light weakness is a problem, you could only grind during the day time. You can also use Light-resisting equipment to make the damage less severe, as well as Blind Spatials so that they won't use Light-based attacks.
P1: I don't agree, but that's true. I'll look for some Sunglasses and an Irisgold.
Third, Counterargument!
Down at this stage, "opinions" are mostly used instead of "facts". You may not be able to change someone else's mind, but you can state why or why not you think a suggestion is viable or not! Counterarguments can be counter-argued as well, since, of course, it's all very opinionated!
EX:
P1: Humans need a buff. They don't have anything which makes them stand out like other races, and are overly balanced, leading them to be underpowered.
P2: Humans aren't made to be powerful, in my opinion. They get extra SP because they're made to have higher utility instead of raw strength.
P1: I don't believe that extra SP make Humans viable as a race, though I see where you're coming from. I would like if they got more benefits.
Halfway there, Contradiction!
Down at this level, you're not being very productive. You're essentially telling the other person they're wrong, without a -reason-. You might as well not post.
EX:
P1: Wraithguard needs to have a higher chance to activate, in my opinion.
P2: Wraithguard is strong enough, and works just fine.
(As you can see, nothing worthwhile was said. P2 is essentially just showing off their opinion, which is good, but they have no reasons or evidence! Which is not!)
Over the hump, Responding to Tone.
We're getting more and more useless. At this point, you aren't even responding to a person's ideas, but how their ideas are voiced. Of course, being pleasant is a plus, but it shouldn't have any bearing on the ideas themselves! Of course, flaming people is never allowed, but reprimanding someone should be separate from your opinions.
EX:
P1: Vampires having a Holy weakness is stupid, that should be removed, or lowered. Whoever thought of this is an idiot.
P2: Dev isn't an idiot. Shut up before you get banned.
(Obviously, both people are wrong in this. Can you tell why?)
Second to last, Ad-Hominem.
A very dastardly technique used to discredit someone else's opinion! It may be valid, but if their opinions are truly invalid, you should be able to discredit them without stooping to this level.
EX:
P1: I think Ghosts need to get some buffs.
P2: You're just saying that because you play a Ghost. Stop trying to twist the game in your favor.
Last for Worst, Name Calling.
If you do this, may whatever gods exist have mercy on you. You've flamed, added nothing to the conversation, and have taken up space. Shame on you. There's no excuse for this.
EX:
P1: I have an idea!
P2: You're a fucking idiot, shut up. That's not true at all. You might as well not even post here, go kill yourself retard.
--
This concludes the lesson! Go forth and prosper, my children.
![[-]](https://neus-projects.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
![[Image: B35DQfdIQAAwtFl.png]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B35DQfdIQAAwtFl.png)
![[Image: WIvIHIX.png]](http://i.imgur.com/WIvIHIX.png)
![[Image: 95e2774f19.png]](http://puu.sh/gWUIp/95e2774f19.png)
