Rebuke of CDavis7M

Announcements & discussion of CoE related issues.
Post Reply
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Rebuke of CDavis7M

Post by Theo »

Since the below quote did not seem relevant to questions about rules, but seemed to be just another character attack such as we have seen numerous times against numerous people from CDavis7M, I am moving out of the subforum on Rules Questions.
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:11 pm
I understand your flawed perspective. You find one line and take it out of context and run with it. You argue based on what you think makes sense in English and not based on what the rules actually say. You also take my words out of context to argue against snippets of my statements instead of against my position. You make up things that I supposedly said and then argue against that.

We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished.
I suspect that some jurisdictions would classify your parting line as a "veiled death threat". Would you like to clarify your intent?

I can understand there being some differences in values between us. Here are some ways that my perspective differs from yours:

1) In my perspective, the rules are written in English. I'm fairly sure the rules do not say anything that is not English; there isn't even any Elvish or Orcish mixed in.
2) It is impossible for someone to know your position when you cannot articulate it. One way to articulate it is with statements. If you make statements that contradict your position, a potential outcome that would not be surprising to me is that others misunderstand your position.
3) In a similar vein, if the rules/rulings make general statements without explicit context, one cannot differentiate between the possibilities that those statements were intended to be general and that those statements were intended to have some specific unspecified context. At best one can consult other rules/rulings statements to establish stylistic norms. Lacking conclusive interpretation on that front, I will tend to default to the statements being intended as written, versus introducing my own biases in imagining what specific contexts might have been intended.
4) My interest in rules questions is in considering possible interpretations to decide which are the most reasonable. I do not care who originated the possible interpretations. In particular, when you fail to convey your interpretation it provides an opportunity to consider what not just your interpretation might be but the interpretation of any hypothetical player. I typically clearly state when I am hypothesizing what your (or others') interpretations might be. I apologize if your own insignificance in such cases troubles you; that is not my intent. However, other times I can genuinely misunderstand your description of your interpretation; that is a normal part of communication, but I propose that it is reasonably exacerbated through the use of imprecise statements.
5) I hear your opinion of my perspective being flawed, and agree. This is part of my purpose in considering other interpretations of rules and rulings, that I may improve generally (if not always monotonically) over time. I hear that you believe certain rules and their context are obvious, as you have repeated that many times, but they are not for me. If there is a possible valid interpretation using a different English parsing or hypothesized context then we can only modulate our posterior expectations on which was intended based on believed-related cases and norms. To the extent that such believed-related cases and norms are needed to elevate one interpretation over others, this becomes an increasingly subjective (and thus, because each subject can differ: uncertain) process.

You may be certain in your own beliefs, but such a certainty does not make your beliefs universally true (or in this case, accurate with regards to ICE's intentions), as your language often suggests to me that you believe.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Rebuke of CDavis7M

Post by CDavis7M »

Again, taking this out of context.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Rebuke of CDavis7M

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:11 pm
I understand your flawed perspective. You find one line and take it out of context and run with it. You argue based on what you think makes sense in English and not based on what the rules actually say. You also take my words out of context to argue against snippets of my statements instead of against my position. You make up things that I supposedly said and then argue against that.

We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished.
I suspect that some jurisdictions would classify your parting line as a "veiled death threat". Would you like to clarify your intent?
You are very good at taking things out of context, yet even then, you are not the "dark master." My quoted text was certainly not a "veil death threat," or anything of the sort, neither when I said nor when Theoden King said it to Saruman.

You're taking my statement out of context. You quoted from Saruman's speech to Theoden and I quoted from Theoden's speech to Saruman.

And you're here pretending like I'm making character attacks when your quote in context is a character attack itself.

Here is the context of my quote:
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:11 pm
Theo wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:42 pm
I offered you [perspective] beyond... your wit. I have offered it again, so that those whom you mislead may clearly see the choice of roads. You give me brag and abuse. So be it.
I understand your flawed perspective. You find one line and take it out of context and run with it. You argue based on what you think makes sense in English and not based on what the rules actually say. You also take my words out of context to argue against snippets of my statements instead of against my position. You make up things that I supposedly said and then argue against that.

We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished.
'We will have peace,' said Théoden at last thickly and with an effort. Several of the Riders cried out gladly.... 'Yes...' he said, now in a clear voice, 'we will have peace, when you and all your works have perished — and the works of your dark master to whom you would deliver us. You are a liar, Saruman, and a corrupter of men's hearts. You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor.... Even if your war on me was just as it was not... even so, what will you say of your torches in Westfold and the children that lie dead there? And they hewed Háma's body before the gates of the Hornburg, after he was dead. When you hang from a gibbet at your window for the sport of your own crows, I will have peace with you and Orthanc.... A lesser son of great sires am I, but I do not need to lick your fingers. Turn elsewhither. But I fear your voice has lost its charm.'

The Riders gazed up at Théoden like men startled out of a dream. Harsh as an old raven's their master's voice sounded in their ears after the music of Saruman. But Saruman for a while was beside himself with wrath. He leaned over the rail as if he would smite the King with his staff. To some suddenly it seemed that they saw a snake coiling itself to strike.

'Gibbets and crows!' he hissed, and they shuddered at the hideous change. 'Dotard! What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?'.... Now his voice changed, as he slowly mastered himself. 'I know not why I have had the patience to speak to you. For I need you not, nor your little band of gallopers, as swift to fly as to advance, Théoden Horsemaster. Long ago I offered you a state beyond your merit and your wit. I have offered it again, so that those whom you mislead may clearly see the choice of roads. You give me brag and abuse. So be it. Go back to your huts!
----------
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
2) It is impossible for someone to know your position when you cannot articulate it.
This is a character attack.
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
If you make statements that contradict your position, a potential outcome that would not be surprising to me is that others misunderstand your position.
If I make a statement, and then I make secondary statement a follow up to the original statement, you should take my secondary statement in the context of my original statement instead of trying to make believe contradictions with something else I have said.

You constantly take one thing I said and try to twist it as an argument against something that is not even my position. Like in the previous discussion, you were hell-bent on arguing that "company" is not plural even though I never argued or suggested that it was, and I agreed that it was not.
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
3) In a similar vein, if the rules/rulings make general statements without explicit context, one cannot differentiate between the possibilities that those statements were intended to be general and that those statements were intended to have some specific unspecified context.
ALL of the statements in the rules and rulings are made in context. It is always explict.
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
when you fail to convey your interpretation...
This is another character attack
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
I apologize if your own insignificance in such cases troubles you...
And another one.

--------

Going back to the original concept, there is a ruling in the CRF "Turn Sequence Rulings" under "Organization Phase" and then "Organizing Companies." This is explictly the context. This ruling describes what to do about resource permanent events on a company when that company becomes 2 companies. This ruling was given to explain the MEDM rule labeled as "permanent-events (clarification)." The ruling is obviously a ruling on permanenent-events and there is no suggestion or need to apply it to the "history" of the company as far as facing attacks or having defeated certain attacks. I literally explained this in the very first post I made in "How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?"
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:13 pm
A "company" is just a group of characters. That's all. An effect on a group of characters can only affect one group of characters. When a group of characters faces an attack, any subgroups of characters have also faced that same attack.

An "effect" that is "on" a company "targets" the company. There can only be 1 target of the effect. The rule on resource permanent-events also applies to resource or character effects on a company. Meaning that when a company is split, the resource player chooses which company gets the effect and which doesn't.

On the other hand, a company having "faced an attack" is not an "effect" that targets the company. Having faced an attack is not limited to 1 particular company. So if a company faces an attack and is later split, all resulting companies are considered to have faced the attack regardless of the new companies being different companies.
----------

Here is some help on determining context:
Image

--------

The bottom line Theo, many of your rule/card interpretations go against ICE's rulings. Those interpretations are not invalid according to English, but they are according to MECCG.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Rebuke of CDavis7M

Post by CDavis7M »

Still, if I come off as rude, it's because it's a result of being shocked and then frustrated at several actors in this game's community.

Coming back to this 20 year old game as a beginner, I expected the rules and strategies to have been completely sorted out, just by comparison to dozens of over card games from that same area.

But when a new player came to MECCG in 2018, they found things in disarray: players not agreeing about simple things, a few people are suggesting completely bogus conclusions about rules or cards, and an overall lack of any organization or consolidation of rules and gameplay, despite the continued requests and promises. It also appeared that some actors were intentionally making up stuff. And what is worse, others that were supposed to be community leaders were apparently knowingly making incorrect rulings for their own competitive advantage to the overall detriment and confusion of the community.

----------

Back in 2018, I read the rules once or twice and I could play the game just fine. But I did not have a deep understanding of the game's history or knowledge of the changes made to the game and the reasons for those games.

But one month I decided to just read the rules cover to cover several times. And then I read the key sections on timing and conditions probably a dozen times. And then the rules really started to make sense, everything was consistent. And then it blew my mind when I realized how lost and confused so many discussions on MECCG were. So then I went and spent months reading posts by ICE's Netreps and rulings from the Designers in the Yahoo METW mailing list archives and the trading-cards.misc archives. And then I realized how the game had changed over time, and I understood the reasons for those changes. I also understood how the ICE rulings were made, when and why the Designers came back with changes, and how the CRF was created, modified, and what it represented. I understand what the complete errata listing is and what errata is. I also understand what a clarification is and which clarifications changed the rules and which were merely explanations of the rules.

I read a lot of pages (6,000+) to understood the history of the changes to the game, ICE's ruling and errata rationales, all while unlearning what I had picked up from certain players here. So my interpretations are not just my interpretations--the framework of my understanding comes from ICE's own rationales and game design principles.
Theo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
You may be certain in your own beliefs, but such a certainty does not make your beliefs universally true (or in this case, accurate with regards to ICE's intentions), as your language often suggests to me that you believe.

My interpretation of the games rules and cards are consistent with the game Designer's interpretations, how the Netrep and Designers made rulings, and with the other rules and rulings in the game. It is not merely a "belief."

On the other hand, your beliefs are often inconsistent with the game Designer's interpretations and with how the Netrep and Designers made rulings.

Post Reply

Return to “Town Hall”