Rebuke of CDavis7M
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:03 pm
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.
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.
I suspect that some jurisdictions would classify your parting line as a "veiled death threat". Would you like to clarify your intent?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 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.