There's a thing in D&D forum spaces called the Oberoni Fallacy. The fallacy goes that, if someone says there's a problem with a D&D rule, they're wrong because they can just Rule 0 it away. It's a fallacy because they have just proposed a solution to what apparently isn't a problem.
People constantly saying "the rules are just guidelines" to any D&D problem is the same sort of idea. Yeah, I know you can ignore them, but I paid for the damn book, so I want what's IN the book to actually matter.
Quick question: Who do you mean by "them"? Who are you saying to kick?
Because the only information given is that an exploit exists. Nobody has said, at any point, that anyone has used an exploit at a table where the others found it to be detrimental. You invented that scenario. You invented the person acting badly, and you specifically imagined them to be toxic and ruining everyone's fun.
A person who doesn't exist cannot be kicked. A ruleset that exists can be changed. And changing a ruleset doesn't mean I can't also kick a person.
Once again, nobody has done anything. There is no bad behaviour anyone needs to stop. You don't even know what the exploit is, or how the group feel about using it. You are inventing a hypothetical person to punish for a hypothetical misdeed while the actually flawed rules (by WotC's admission, as proven by the erattas and rules revision) are right in front of you.
If D&D isn't a set of rules, why do they charge so much for their rulebook?
It's also worth noting that nobody has said an actual exploit. Nobody has DONE anything toxic. Someone just noticed a POTENTIAL exploit and suggested fixing it before any problems occur. Yet ostracizing people is a more acceptable position than a rules patch?
If the rules aren't something to be changed, why do they charge so much for the rules revision they just put out?
Not really. You're placing blame on players using a system as written and a DM for being unable to handle an exploit in the rules. At no point do you open the rules themselves up for criticism. In fact, you deflect all criticism away from the rules, as if the impossibility of a perfect system excuses every bad decision ever made.
Just like how there is no ruleset that cannot be exploited, there is no ruleset that cannot be improved. It's only by acknowledging the flaws that something can improve, but you seem hellbent on dismissing flaws entirely. That's unhealthy.
The nirvana fallacy is to substitute a good solution (fix a broken rule or exploit) with a perfect solution that is obviously impossible (create an airtight ruleset), then use that to justify doing nothing.
If you think "masturbators" needs censorship, I'm not sure how much depth you'll get from this conversation. Plus, you're asking wankers, but you surely need the opinion of ex-wankers instead, or you're not going to get a useful answer.
If you want advice to stop wanking so much, maybe get a hobby? Something to keep you occupied so you don't just wank out of boredom.
Not the first that comes to mind, but I have to add Nausicaa into the mix. She shows her strength through nothing but kindness and determination, without the need for violence or cold cruelty. A frightened critter bites her, and she endures the pain to keep soothing it without interruption. Ripley's a badass, but she'd never be able to do that.
Did we fail the test because we're wrong, or was the answer sheet wrong? Maybe we say conservatives are bad not because of some hidden bias but because conservatives are bad.
That's not far left. "Everyone is equal" is left-wing, but adding "except the leaders" is right-wing. It's not that the far left is like the right, but that those claiming to be far left and doing right wing stuff aren't as far left as they say they are.
But when they say they're left-wing, I'm sure you'll trust the soviet leadership. Why would they have a reason to lie?
Their name only matches ONE pronoun they use, not ALL of a given person.
Their first person and third person pronouns aren't the same.
Think of the line "I am Gandalf, and Gandalf means me." Ai would say "I am Ai, and Ai means me", which sounds odd but hey ho. You would say "Drag is Drag, and Drag means drag", which is borderline nonsense.
You refer to yourself as "Drag", which I understand is short for "Dragon". And given your proclivities towards dragons, I have to assume this is intentional. So, yes, you are referring to yourself by your name, or at least a nickname.
Also in Japan, if someone refers to themself with their own name, that's seen as childish or arrogant.
If your first person pronoun is the same as someone referring to you in third person, then you are referring to yourself in third person every time you refer to yourself in first person. And since the idea of a first person neopronoun is exceedingly rare, most people will only think of you as speaking in the third person.
I don't think money has any effect on it. Some billionaires are willing to keep to themselves and roll in their money pit. Some billionaires try to buy the white house and publish a book with their face on it. If they don't care what people think, they're wasting a lot of money on something they don't care about.
Okay, my conspiracy is that this is a conspiracy by Elon so people think he's an evil genius instead of the bumbling, idea-stealing moron with an inflated budget that he really is.
The only reason Bluesky isn't more active is because it isn't as active, which is becoming less of an issue by the day. And I STILL see activists gathering on twitter.
Susaga @ Susaga @sh.itjust.works Posts 5Comments 539Joined 2 yr. ago
There's a thing in D&D forum spaces called the Oberoni Fallacy. The fallacy goes that, if someone says there's a problem with a D&D rule, they're wrong because they can just Rule 0 it away. It's a fallacy because they have just proposed a solution to what apparently isn't a problem.
People constantly saying "the rules are just guidelines" to any D&D problem is the same sort of idea. Yeah, I know you can ignore them, but I paid for the damn book, so I want what's IN the book to actually matter.