My OPINION

[Aranticus]

Everyone who has posted here knows the intent of the post but most decided to argue semantics for no reason. Very trollish. You know the point, you are not that dumb.

and your intent was malice?

[bobbryan2]

Where did you get the idea that I have soft skin? I could not care less what some person on the internet says to me via forum. I think poor manners are wrong no matter the the method of interaction and consequently I agree with the intent of the OP.

I never said you had soft skin. I was merely saying that IF being told your wrong bothers you, an online forum is probably not the best place to spend your time.

And for the record, I agree with you on poor manners. But too many times people think poor rhetoric is good manners, and strong rhetoric is poor manners, and I can't abide that.

In person, I am a very very polite person. However, if someone wants to debate me on an issue, I won't hold back what I believe, either.

[oogly54]

and your intent was malice?

The intent of my OP was malice? No, not at all. It was to prevent it. I could re-phrase it again, but I already have about 10 times.

[Borror0]

/snip

You avoided my question. Do you see the importance to define the concepts discussed?

I happen to agree with your quest for balance, but that does not make me right.

An opinion can be right or wrong within a frame.

For example, if I was to simplify my argument for balance it would look like:

1. Balance leads to more viable build options.
2. More options is good as it increases the likelihood of a player to find something he enjoys playing.
3. This injects more replayability to the game for the player, making him more liekly to renew his subs.
4. Players renewing their subs is what Turbine wants, hence why they should do that.

From that argument, we could isolate #2 and conclude "More options is good for the game". That would be an opinion.

However, it is right in the framework "more options leads to more subs, which are needed to run the game". Unless you can prove the opposite of course, but let's not go down the road of "there is no truth because you cannot prove the negatives". It is annoying and pragmatically meaningless.

[SableShadow]

The core issue isn't "opinion" vs "fact"...it's the degree of willingness to be found wrong and change a point of view.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, and with far fewer excuses for it.

[Angelus_dead]

However, it is right in the framework "more options leads to more subs, which are needed to run the game". Unless you can prove the opposite of course

If, for whatever reason, a person believes that balance is bad for a game, he is fully justified in telling you that you're wrong.

Whether or not he can prove it (or is even correct) is a separate question from if it's appropriate for him to say so. To say "Balance is good" is not inherently better than "Wrong, balance is bad", although hopefully both sides will continue to justify why they think so.

If they don't justify it then their ability to convince others is reduced, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been permitted to state what he believes.

[oogly54]

You avoided my question. Do you see the importance to define the concepts discussed?

An opinion can be right or wrong within a frame.

For example, if I was to simplify my argument for balance it would look like:

1. Balance leads to more viable build options.
2. More options is good as it increases the likelihood of a player to find something he enjoys playing.
3. This injects more replayability to the game for the player, making him more liekly to renew his subs.
4. Players renewing their subs is what Turbine wants, hence why they should do that.

From that argument, we could isolate #2 and conclude "More options is good for the game". That would be an opinion.

However, it is right in the framework "more options leads to more subs, which are needed to run the game". Unless you can prove the opposite of course, but let's not go down the road of "there is no truth because you cannot prove the negatives". It is annoying and pragmatically meaningless.

This is more semantics. Borro, you understand what I am getting at, I know you are not that dumb.

[oogly54]

If, for whatever reason, a person believes that balance is bad for a game, he is fully justified in telling you that you're wrong.

Whether or not he can prove it (or is even correct) is a separate question from if it's appropriate for him to say so. To say "Balance is good" is not inherently better than "Wrong, balance is bad", although hopefully both sides will continue to justify why they think so.

If they don't justify it then their ability to convince others is reduced, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been permitted to state what he believes.

This is what I disagree with. If both are arguing positions, neither is wrong, you can disagree, but to rudely state someone is wrong when they are not is wrong itself.

Stating disagreement /= wrong.

[Angelus_dead]

This is what I disagree with. If both are arguing positions, neither is wrong, you can disagree, but to rudely state someone is wrong when they are not is wrong itself.
Stating disagreement /= wrong.

You think that, do you?

Care to argue with this?
"Next week, William Clinton will be sworn in for his 5th term as President of the USA"

[Borror0]

If they don't justify it then their ability to convince others is reduced, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been permitted to state what he believes.

Oh, that wasn't where I was getting at.

I meant that an opinion can be right for as long as you are with the presupposition. For example, Evolution is "right" if you agree with the non-scientific argument that "more information allowing us to predict the world around us is better". Note that by "right" I do not mean "what has obviously happened" but "what is worth assuming".

This is more semantics.

Statement without any justification.

[bobbryan2]

This is what I disagree with. If both are arguing positions, neither is wrong, you can disagree, but to rudely state someone is wrong when they are not is wrong itself.

Stating disagreement /= wrong.

But now you're arguing semantics.

telling someone the wrong is the equivalent of saying that you disagree with them.

Saying: No, you're wrong on this point. Because A, B, C, and D all refute your position isn't really much different from saying: No, I couldn't disagree more with you because of A, B, C, and D.

Neither way is wrong. The former might be slightly more aggressive, but I've already conceeded that point. And... it's an opinion. (which ironically, you've said it's WRONG to do)

[Samadhi]

You think that, do you?

Care to argue with this?
"Next week, William Clinton will be sworn in for his 5th term as President of the USA"

Unless you stand outside of space and time, any prediction for the future is inherently an opinion. As is any opinion of the past, due to the fallability of memory and perception. There is only this instant, which cannot be described in terms of normal language/communication, because of the limitations of the communicative medium in requiring certain substrates (sound or vision, and namely time). That does not mean that this instant does not exist however.

[EKKM]

You think that, do you?

Care to argue with this?
"Next week, William Clinton will be sworn in for his 5th term as President of the USA"

You're making his point

[branmakmuffin]

Whether you are doing it intentionally or not, it still comes accross poorly and usually enrages the person you said WRONG!!!!!!!! to. Not conducive to good debate.

Flame-bait posts such as your OP are not conducive to good debate. But perhaps flame-baiting is your goal.

[Borror0]

Unless you stand outside of space and time, any prediction for the future is inherently an opinion. As is any opinion of the past, due to the fallability of memory and perception.

While that is true, an argument cannot be built without common ground.

Without common ground, it is possible to say that "the Earth is round" is an opinion. While that is true, it is not pragmatic.

[bobbryan2]

You're making his point

His point is an inherent contradiction that has all the substance of a post saying, "Everybody should be nice to everyone."

[Angelus_dead]

Neither way is wrong. The former might be slightly more aggressive, but I've already conceeded that point. And... it's an opinion. (which ironically, you've said it's WRONG to do)

More aggressive, but also more concise. What happens on many web forums is that a lot of viewers don't read things closely, or just skim the first few few words. If the refutation of a false statement doesn't start out with a simple counterclaim before proceeding into nuanced justification, many readers won't follow through and just keep on believing the misinformation.

An analogous problem has been observed in politics: politicians know that most voters will only listen to 10-20 seconds of any speech in a sound bite, so they can't go in gently and reply to an opponent by working through all the ways in which his reasoning is sound until finally coming to the point where flaws emerge. You've got to lead off with your conclusion if you want it to be heard.

[kaidendager]

Saying: No, you're wrong on this point. Because A, B, C, and D all refute your position isn't really much different from saying: No, I couldn't disagree more with you because of A, B, C, and D.

I think this is actually getting back to the original point of the post. If I say "I like red" it is perfectly acceptable for you to say "I like blue" without saying "Wrong! Red is terrible! I like blue." HAving a differing viewpoint does not equate to thinking (or more importantly in this case verbalizing) that the other party is incorrect.

If however someone *claims* that William Clinton is accepting his fifth presidential term it is acceptable to disagree with as this is not presently or historically correct and can be verified (for all intents and purposes). Though it should be noted that there is a certain amount of couth that should follow such disagreements.

[Strakeln]

wrong.

wrong.

wrong.

wrong

These are from four separate posts in this thread.

Please tell me you're joking and my radar is out of tune today.

[branmakmuffin]

Without common ground, it is possible to say that "the Earth is round" is an opinion. While that is true, it is not pragmatic.

Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion. Unless by "common ground" you mean "agreement on the definition of 'round'." "As a general rule, water freezes at 32 F" is not opinion. "32 F is cold" is opinion.