Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All

Author Topic: Make an attack that dishes out Debt  (Read 22190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2016, 05:16:09 pm »
0

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.
I just hate hate hate - King's Court hate - the attitude that off-the-cuff evaluation is an adequate substitute for testing.
I never made such an argument. Other posters dismissed a debt attack based on purely theoretical considerations wheras I argued that it is an empirical matter whether an attack with pin potential like Saboteur really is too nasty or not. ^^
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 05:22:08 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2016, 05:56:22 pm »
0

"It's only a fan card" is such a poor cop-out excuse.  A card that hands out debt should undergo rigorous testing.  Whether it actually happens or not is a different matter, and most fan cards never get any testing at all.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2016, 06:17:09 pm »
0

"It's only a fan card" is such a poor cop-out excuse.  A card that hands out debt should undergo rigorous testing.  Whether it actually happens or not is a different matter, and most fan cards never get any testing at all.
Bullshit detector went off the scale. As if you tested your own cards rigorously with dozens of people and dozens of methods.
Most published games are undertested. Dominion is no exception. You just gotta look at the development time or the list of playtesters or laugh about cards like Rebuild to see that this ain't the same intensity as guys like Rosenberg who tests with hundred folks and more.
Now if this pisses off actual playtesters, so be it.
Given this background your notion that fan cards should be seriously tested (wait, aren't you the theory guy who us afraid of pins?) is fanboy wishful thinking.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2016, 06:25:45 pm »
+3

I never made such an argument. Other posters dismissed a debt attack based on purely theoretical considerations wheras I argued that it is an empirical matter whether an attack with pin potential like Saboteur really is too nasty or not. ^^

tristan - it's a bit disingenuous to take one line out-of-context and argue against a misreading of that one line. You've argued multiple times against exclusion testing, stating that "decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy" and claiming Donald X only uses it rarely. If you have to mischaracterize my words to refute them, well, that says something as well.

As for your argument about Saboteur (and other trasher) pins... Apples and oranges. Whether or not a Saboteur pin is awful has no effect on whether or not a debt pin is awful. Or the likelihood your card will generate a debt pin.

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2016, 06:33:09 pm »
0

"It's only a fan card" is such a poor cop-out excuse.  A card that hands out debt should undergo rigorous testing.  Whether it actually happens or not is a different matter, and most fan cards never get any testing at all.
Bullshit detector went off the scale. As if you tested your own cards rigorously with dozens of people and dozens of methods.
Most published games are undertested. Dominion is no exception. You just gotta look at the development time or the list of playtesters or laugh about cards like Rebuild to see that this ain't the same intensity as guys like Rosenberg who tests with hundred folks and more.
Now if this pisses off actual playtesters, so be it.
Given this background your notion that fan cards should be seriously tested (wait, aren't you the theory guy who us afraid of pins?) is fanboy wishful thinking.

I never claimed to test all my fan cards.  I don't -- like I said, most fan cards don't get that treatment.  Only a few have the means and dedication to do it, like LF and Asper.  Fan cards should be tested though.  Being a fan-made doesn't change that it should be tested well, all the more so if it does something novel that isn't easily comparable to long-standing cards.
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1851
  • Respect: +1741
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #80 on: July 20, 2016, 03:32:17 am »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.

Gear was changed from $4 to $3 late in the picture and probably should have been caught as overpowered.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #81 on: July 20, 2016, 05:55:49 am »
0

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.
If somebody claimed that a card is unbalanced or boring and I said that I playtested it a zillion times and found it to be decent I have proven nothing.
What I actually do is print fan cards, play with them and if they are boring / unbalanced I either trash them or change them. This might not be systematic enough for you but I have serious doubts about highly structured playtesting. I played some of the prototypes of Feld and he never used systematic stuff like playtesting sheets or guess what not. Far more important is a heterogenous group of playtesters, i.e. not always the same guys, to avoid groupthink.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #82 on: July 20, 2016, 11:01:14 am »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.

Gear was changed from $4 to $3 late in the picture and probably should have been caught as overpowered.

$4 to $3 isn't that big a deal, and it's still too early to say that Gear is too strong. There are plenty of good players that say it is decent but not the be-all-end-all that some are making it out to be.

I actually agree with you about the level of testing for fan cards. It's just a fan card. It can be broken or unbalanced. It only has to be fun to the people who play it. But if you want to prove your card is not broken or unbalanced, armchair analysis is not enough. You have to playtest the card, including exclusion testing.
If somebody claimed that a card is unbalanced or boring and I said that I playtested it a zillion times and found it to be decent I have proven nothing.
What I actually do is print fan cards, play with them and if they are boring / unbalanced I either trash them or change them. This might not be systematic enough for you but I have serious doubts about highly structured playtesting. I played some of the prototypes of Feld and he never used systematic stuff like playtesting sheets or guess what not. Far more important is a heterogenous group of playtesters, i.e. not always the same guys, to avoid groupthink.

You play tested with Feld, or you happened to play a prototype of Feld's? Did you report results to him? Ambiguous name drop is ambiguous. Funny thing, he apparently does use mostly the same guys when testing.  In any case, the little bit of Feld's play testing process that you may or may not have experienced isn't really relevant. Feld's prototype game isn't Dominion. The play testing strategies that are useful for one game may not be good for another. Moreover, the exclusion method is only one part of it; of course you just play the game normally too.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #83 on: July 20, 2016, 01:40:02 pm »
0

Man, it feels like you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say, even when I agree with you. If I said the sky is green, you'd say it was blue just to argue with me.

I really don't understand your opposition to exclusion testing. It's just a tool, much like a hammer or a plumbus. It's an especially apt tool for testing the whether dominion cards are overpowered or not. I use it on my own fan cards. No one is claiming it is the only tool to use or there are no other considerations. So I don't understand why you are working so hard to discredit it.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #84 on: July 20, 2016, 02:24:48 pm »
0

Ambiguous name drop is ambiguous.
I play in Offenburg and I playtested some of Stefan's games. You are welcome to join us if you ever happen to be in Germany.

Quote
In any case, the little bit of Feld's play testing process that you may or may not have experienced isn't really relevant. Feld's prototype game isn't Dominion. The play testing strategies that are useful for one game may not be good for another. Moreover, the exclusion method is only one part of it; of course you just play the game normally too.
Sure, actual playtesting experiences are not relevant in a discussion about playtesting. ::)
Carry on with the bullshit.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #85 on: July 20, 2016, 02:27:13 pm »
0

I really don't understand your opposition to exclusion testing.
I am not opposed to it. Do whatever you want. I just doubt that it is actually useful as the strength of a card is influences by all the other cards. You control for the very card itself via this exclusion thingy but you don't control for all the factors that make it weak/strong in a particular kingdom.
You don't need such a method to determine that cards like Rebuild or Wharf or Cultists are overpowered, simply more playing would have sufficed.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #86 on: July 20, 2016, 02:56:54 pm »
0

Ambiguous name drop is ambiguous.
I play in Offenburg and I playtested some of Stefan's games. You are welcome to join us if you ever happen to be in Germany.

Quote
In any case, the little bit of Feld's play testing process that you may or may not have experienced isn't really relevant. Feld's prototype game isn't Dominion. The play testing strategies that are useful for one game may not be good for another. Moreover, the exclusion method is only one part of it; of course you just play the game normally too.
Sure, actual playtesting experiences are not relevant in a discussion about playtesting. ::)
Carry on with the bullshit.

Level of involvement is still ambiguous. How much behind-the-scenes stuff do you see?

Playtesting experience with Feld prototypes is less relevant than playtesting experience with Dominion.  You want to talk about BB?  You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #87 on: July 20, 2016, 03:50:35 pm »
0

You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.

Looks like that "diligence" did not prevent Rebuild, Wharf or other obviously overpowered cards. So it looks like the method doesn't work or is at least not better than ordinary playtesting.

Anyway, this is very entertaining as you are the very guy who rambled about pins in principle. So you might wanna make up your mind and decide whether the power of a card is determined empirically, during playtesting, or in theory (NO PINS EVAAA!).
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 03:53:20 pm by tristan »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #88 on: July 20, 2016, 04:28:42 pm »
0

"I never argue from authority" as you name drop Stefan Feld.  OK.

Asper has spoken out of his experience.  Destry has spoken out of his experience.  Donald has spoken out of his experience.  So in a discussion about Dominion play testing, why is your play testing experience with a different game more relevant than these other experiences play testing Dominion?  Seriously.  You're dismissing their experiences while making the exact same kind of arguments in your own favour, except with less relevant examples.

There are always going to be cards that are stronger than others.  Rebuild is problematic; it was added late to the game and didn't get enough play testing.  Cultist and Wharf aren't problematic, IMO.  In any case, nobody has claimed that exclusion testing is the only way, nor that the playtesting process is perfect.  The only claims are that playtesting is important and exclusion playtesting is useful -- both claims that have been given plenty of evidence and should be self-evident anyway.

Pins are bad, period.  Experience with other pins has already confirmed this, and it's easy to see from a theoretical perspective too.  A game is no fun if you can't play it. 

As for "making up my mind", my position hasn't changed and I've already explained fully:

A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.

Theory is a good start, especially for ideas that are easily comparable to previous ideas that are already well understood.  And then you should test.

I'm disappointed in myself for continuing to try to talk to you as if you were willing to engage in reasonable discourse.  It's always shifting goalposts, straw men and selective quoting with you.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #89 on: July 20, 2016, 04:33:20 pm »
+1

Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.

And here you're calling it nonsense. I really want to know why you hate exclusion testing so much. Did it blow up your Death Star? Steal your high school girlfriend? Or worse, it passed when you opened two clubs?

You presume only exclusion testing was done with Rebuild, Wharf and other cards. Surprisingly, just playing with the new cards - what you might call, ordinary playtesting - is the more common way of testing out new cards. Since that too did not reveal how powerful those cards are, ordinary playtesting is also nonsense. I guess we're just left with making stuff up.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #90 on: July 20, 2016, 04:36:17 pm »
0

Pins are bad, period.
Sure, that's why Saboteur doesn't exist. Oopsie, it does. Now what?

What you don't seem to get is that this is a purely theoretical argument. Kinda like the initial reaction of a guy who first sees Saboteur, thinks that it is crazy with this immense deck destruction pin potential.
But in practice the card is actually fine and if anything on the weaker side.

So it looks like you made up your mind; pro theory, contra empirics.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #91 on: July 20, 2016, 04:37:49 pm »
0

Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.
I really want to know why you hate exclusion testing so much. Did it blow up your Death Star? Steal your high school girlfriend? Or worse, it passed when you opened two clubs?
How about engaging with my actual argument?  ::)

Quote
I am not opposed to it. Do whatever you want. I just doubt that it is actually useful as the strength of a card is influences by all the other cards. You control for the very card itself via this exclusion thingy but you don't control for all the factors that make it weak/strong in a particular kingdom.
You don't need such a method to determine that cards like Rebuild or Wharf or Cultists are overpowered, simply more playing would have sufficed.


Quote
You presume only exclusion testing was done with Rebuild, Wharf and other cards.
Nope. All I said is that more ordinary playtesting would have revealed that these cards are overpowered.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:40:03 pm by tristan »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5330
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #92 on: July 20, 2016, 04:44:16 pm »
+2

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #93 on: July 20, 2016, 04:50:00 pm »
0

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.
Still mad because I did not roll over when you treated me like scum after I joined this forum?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #94 on: July 20, 2016, 04:51:10 pm »
0

Pins are bad, period.
Sure, that's why Saboteur doesn't exist. Oopsie, it does. Now what?

What you don't seem to get is that this is a purely theoretical argument. Kinda like the initial reaction of a guy who first sees Saboteur, thinks that it is crazy with this immense deck destruction pin potential.
But in practice the card is actually fine and if anything on the weaker side.

So it looks like you made up your mind; pro theory, contra empirics.

Man, Saboteur was already discussed earlier.  Go read it again if you've forgotten.  The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card.  That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that.  And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall.  Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.

Way to selectively quote once again.

How about engaging with my actual argument?  ::)

He did, right here:

Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if it is nonsense it is nonsense.
And here you're calling it nonsense. I really want to know why you hate exclusion testing so much. Did it blow up your Death Star? Steal your high school girlfriend? Or worse, it passed when you opened two clubs?


See how he quoted you there?  That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically?  I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #95 on: July 20, 2016, 04:55:19 pm »
0

The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card.  That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that.  And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall.  Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.
How the hell can you quantify whether Saboteur pins games are a good or a bad experiences? Some people enjoy such games, some don't. You might not enjoy them, I personally do.
Also, please point out where Donald said that deck trashers like Saboteur or Knights are a grave mistake or that deck trashing pins are an unintended feature of these cards. That you hate them is totally fine as long as you don't pretend that your personal preferences are more than that.


See how he quoted you there?  That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically?  I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Reading skills are essential.
I made a general statement about you arguing from authority and did not call exclusion testing nonsense.
As usual it is pointless to engage with your distortions.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:57:15 pm by tristan »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10626
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #96 on: July 20, 2016, 05:04:26 pm »
+2

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.

Gear was changed from $4 to $3 late in the picture and probably should have been caught as overpowered.

It was "caught". I was very worried it was overpowered and Donald obligingly played several games with me where I went Gear-BM. I lost every one of those games.

Now you can argue that Gear is too powerful compared to other, similar cards like Haven and Smithy. I mean that's certainly possible. And I do wish it cost $4. But I don't think it's ruining games by forcing you to go mono-Gear, which would be the worst-case scenario.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7453
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10626
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #97 on: July 20, 2016, 05:05:49 pm »
+3

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.

Seconded. You don't have to get tristan to agree with you in order for the rest of us to see that you're in the right, Destry. tristan is just a real horatio83 when you come right down to it.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #98 on: July 20, 2016, 05:11:08 pm »
+1

The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card.  That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that.  And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall.  Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.
How the hell can you quantify whether Saboteur pins games are a good or a bad experiences? Some people enjoy such games, some don't. You might not enjoy them, I personally do.
Also, please point out where Donald said that deck trashers like Saboteur or Knights are a grave mistake or that deck trashing pins are an unintended feature of these cards. That you hate them is totally fine as long as you don't pretend that your personal preferences are more than that.

- Tons of new players who don't know better play a 3+ player game with Saboteur where everything anybody buys gets trashed almost immediately by another player.  Then they go online and complain about how broken and unfun Saboteur is. 

- Likewise, tons of players including it in their list of cards to ban for the same reason. 

- Numerous players who, after playing a game where they pin an opponent, opt to apologize in chat and/or in the "Sorry..." game reports thread in these forums.  Because they have empathy and realize how unfun that would have been for their helpless opponent.

- The KC-Goons-Masquerade pin was acknowledged by Donald as a problem that slipped through playtesting which, if caught, would have been addressed.  I'm not going to bother looking for the quote this time.  Last time you asked for a source and I provided it, you immediately dismissed it.  Why should I bother?

See how he quoted you there?  That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically?  I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Reading skills are essential.
I made a general statement about you arguing from authority and did not call exclusion testing nonsense.
As usual it is pointless to engage with your distortions.

If you meant something else, it's a problem with your writing skills.  The post history is here.  Let me provide you with the context that you so love to ignore.

You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if [exclusion testing] is nonsense it is nonsense.

Are you now saying that what you meant was, "if [argument from authority] is nonsense, it is nonsense"?  Doesn't really make sense in context.

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made.  Not that these were arguments from authority -- these were arguments from experience, just like yours, except their experience is more relevant.

I think I'm done for today.  Feel free to take the last word.  I'll take Asper and LF's advice.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #99 on: July 20, 2016, 05:16:59 pm »
0

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. 
You really deny enlightenment principles like 'arguments should be analyzed independently of who made them'? No wonder these discussions are so pointless, you are quite literally a man from the Middle Ages.

If calling you out on basically denying the enlightenment and modernity makes me the bad guy, makes everybody call me a troll and guess what not, so be it.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 05:19:04 pm by tristan »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
 

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 22 queries.