Did you guys read the Bottomless Trap HOle ruling?

[krazykidpsx]

thats so outrageous. Only becuase konami didnt think about the ruling on Magical Dimension doesnt mean that BTH had to suffer. talk about inconsistances. man thats wack, BTH has lost ubber power today.

just like Kevin Tewart put it:

it's no longer an uber-destroyer that floats on the field
annihilating all in its path once it resolves.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

People believe false things even after they have been proven false.

Simplest is the fewest assumptions.

And another thing "wrong" doesn't mean "false."

A square has 4 equal sides and 4 right angles for example. That's True.

But it is wrong to define a square as 4 equal sides and 4 right angles.

Why?

Because it makes more assumption than necessary.

If you take 4 equal sides, you only have to measure one angle to make a square. The other 3 fall into place.

Now you assumed without proof nor analysis that Konami was wrong. And that is how you "posisoned the well."

The burden of proof would have been on you to make the case against konami. Not on raijinili to counter your argument.

That's how "doubt" works. He doesn't have to prove you wrong, he only has to prove that you didn't prove your proof.

 

[Jason_C]

A square has 4 equal sides and 4 right angles for example. That's True.

But it is wrong to define a square as 4 equal sides and 4 right angles.

Why?

Because it makes more assumption than necessary.

If you take 4 equal sides, you only have to measure one angle to make a square. The other 3 fall into place.

Huh? :confused_

If I said that the least conceivable information used to determine if a given polygon is a square is the measurement of 4 sides and 4 angles, then I'd be wrong. But that doesn't make me wrong for for saying that a sqaure is a polygon with 4 congruent sides and 4 congruent angles. It's common practice when defining something to give more information than is absolutely necessary, so that the definee (word?) will better understand the concept. I'm wrong to give false info. But wrong to give more info than was absolutely necessary?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

You can describe a square as 4 right angles and 4 equal sides.

But you can't define it as such.

 

[masterwoo0]

You can describe a square as 4 right angles and 4 equal sides.

But you can't define it as such.

You could, but you're also not taking into account which plane of reference you are using.

1 dimensional = 4 right angles
2 dimensional = 4 right angles
3 dimensional = 24 right angles

But I always hated math and specifically Geometry, so lets stick to Yugioh related material.

All this existential quantifier garbage is way above most of the average yugioh players ability to even "want" to expand upon.

 

[Jason_C]

Aren't most squares two-dimensional? Come to think of it, aren't all polygons two-dimensional?

 

[masterwoo0]

2 dimensional means that I can see the front AND back side of a Square. Which would mean the same right angles would be used to form the same square from the front and back.

A 3 dimensional square would mean that I can see front, back, and all sides, to include, "left, right, up, down".

When you draw a simple 4-sided square on a piece of paper, what plane is it in?

 

[Jason_C]

I was messing with you, oh great master of wooing women. Referencing dimensions of space. You know, all polygons exist in 2 spacial dimensions. I'm not arguing with you. You're not the one I'm angry at.

 

[Raijinili]

No, only the simplest argument is valid until proven wrong.

Occam's razor

True, but you know what my point was. That people believe false things until they are proven to be false.

Not true. People CAN be CONVINCED that the false things are true, but they don't necessarily believe them to be true, nor do they have any obligation to.

That a statement presented with Reasoning behind it is a valid statement until such time as it is proven invalid.

A statement with reasoning behind it has validity, but it is still not right until it is proven. I was asking you not to make assertions without proof. Just as I was when I told people I didn't like the word "wrong" in a debate.

By proclaiming a point of view as "wrong", you are intentionally using a word to convince, rather than a point. Thus, poisoning the well.

If I say 2 + 2 = 5, and come equipped with a mathematical proof involving denominators of value 0, I'm wrong, but you shouldn't tell me I'm wrong unless you're prepared to prove that 2 + 2 =/= 5 because my logic involved mathematical impossibilities.

I didn't say you were "wrong". I said what you were doing was improper and disrespectful to a meaningful debate. AKA I called you on "poisoning the well".

 

[Jason_C]

Then you believe I was making more of a persuasive argument than a logical one?

Time to berate my English teacher. >_<

And "Crazy spammer" is both an insult and an accusation. You accuse me of being a spammer. You insult me by saying I'm crazy. Intentionally?

 

[Raijinili]

Then you believe I was making more of a persuasive argument than a logical one?

I believe you were making an assertion of a viewpoint and demeaning any opposing viewpoint rather than making an argument.

And "Crazy spammer" is both an insult and an accusation. You accuse me of being a spammer. You insult me by saying I'm crazy. Intentionally?

Many on the Internet would take "crazy" as a compliment. I'm offending you by my use of "crazy"?

 

[Jason_C]

Many on the Internet would take "crazy" as a compliment. I'm offending you by my use of "crazy"?

Well, if you had said...

Dude, you're crazy!

...then I would take that as a compliment. But "YOU CRAZY SPAMMER!" is not a compliment. It's an insult.

 

[Raijinili]

If I had called you crazy based on an opinion of yours, that would certainly be insulting. It implies a lack of basic Reasoning skills.

I called you crazy based on certain extensive actions you took. It implies a large quantity (as in, you sent me a crazy amount of spam) or lack of good judgement (as in, you did something that most "sane" people wouldn't do).

 

[Jason_C]

I called you crazy based on certain extensive actions you took. It implies a large quantity (as in, you sent me a crazy amount of spam) or lack of good judgement (as in, you did something that most "sane" people wouldn't do).

But surely your realize that:

1) I had no idea you were receiving PMs when I did what I did. It wasn't until hours later that I found out.

2) The PMs where an automated side effect of what I was doing. I was not directly responsible.

3) I was merely playing the game and using a function the administrator had enabled.

4) You turned around and did the same thing to me later, except that you blatantly stated you had no intentions other than sheer revenge.

 

[Raijinili]

1) I had no idea you were receiving PMs when I did what I did. It wasn't until hours later that I found out.

2) The PMs where an automated side effect of what I was doing. I was not directly responsible.

3) I was merely playing the game and using a function the administrator had enabled.

There were at least 150 messages. Meaning you used "Thief" at least that many times. This is good judgement?

4) You turned around and did the same thing to me later, except that you blatantly stated you had no intentions other than sheer revenge.

I never claimed to be sane, though.

 

[Jason_C]

There were at least 150 messages. Meaning you used "Thief" at least that many times. This is good judgement?

It is indeed. Allow me to dissect why this was good judgement based on the information that was available to me at the time. *gets tools* Dissect away!

First of all, when I saw the theif function, I had no idea how it would perform. In addition to not knowing that you would get PMed, I also did not have the slightest idea what the chances of failure were. So I began to test using small volumes of points. If memory servers, I succeeded the first 9 times, failed the 10th, succeeded the next 9, and failed the 20th. Not exactly a subtle pattern. But was it coincidence? After more testing, I decided it was. By the time I could be sure of that, I had done at least 50 trials, perhaps more. Then I began to "step it up" a little at a time, because I was worried the chances of success might go down as the stakes went up. Either that's not true, or I got amazingly lucky. Because I kept bumping it up a notch, and then another, and still the majority of the time I was making profit. So finally I just inputted like 10 million and ran a l00p for a while. Thus, I ended up stealing many, many times.

I never claimed to be sane, though.

It would seem I am guilty of ad hominem.

 

[Raijinili]

First of all, when I saw the theif function, I had no idea how it would perform. In addition to not knowing that you would get PMed, I also did not have the slightest idea what the chances of failure were. So I began to test using small volumes of points. If memory servers, I succeeded the first 9 times, failed the 10th, succeeded the next 9, and failed the 20th. Not exactly a subtle pattern. But was it coincidence? After more testing, I decided it was. By the time I could be sure of that, I had done at least 50 trials, perhaps more. Then I began to "step it up" a little at a time, because I was worried the chances of success might go down as the stakes went up. Either that's not true, or I got amazingly lucky. Because I kept bumping it up a notch, and then another, and still the majority of the time I was making profit. So finally I just inputted like 10 million and ran a l00p for a while. Thus, I ended up stealing many, many times.

Let's analyze this.

1) You used "Thief" on a guinea pig without permission.
2) You ran it on a loop, on this guinea pig, again without permission or thoughts of consequences past "he sometimes loses iggi and I sometimes gain iggi".
3) You got PMs, yet did not think of the strain that many PMs would put on the database when you set up your script.

Good judgement?

 

[Jason_C]

1) You used "Thief" on a guinea pig without permission.

Wait . . . I'm confused. I didn't realize I needed your permission to play a game. That function was enabled in the game. It would be different if I had hacked to get it or something. I didn't. I saw it in the game, I took it. I don't need your permission to play a game.

2) You ran it on a loop, on this guinea pig, again without permission or thoughts of consequences past "he sometimes loses iggi and I sometimes gain iggi".

I thought of what consequences I knew of. That I would receive an enormous number of PMs, and what you mentioned of iggi. Or "Souls", as the hip young people call it now. Those were the consequences of which I was aware.

3) You got PMs, yet did not think of the strain that many PMs would put on the database when you set up your script.

>_>

<_<

o_0?

What script? I have no script. I say this again: I don't get computers. Even the most basic of these scripts / programs / blah confuse me. What makes you think I have a script?

*looks around*

>_>

<_<

Nope, definitely no script here.

 

[Raijinili]

Wait . . . I'm confused. I didn't realize I needed your permission to play a game. That function was enabled in the game. It would be different if I had hacked to get it or something. I didn't. I saw it in the game, I took it. I don't need your permission to play a game.

Sarcasm. Great.

I didn't say "play the game". I said "used a guinea pig". You're making my point different than I expressed it, and attacking the new, weaker point.

I thought of what consequences I knew of. That I would receive an enormous number of PMs, and what you mentioned of iggi. Or "Souls", as the hip young people call it now. Those were the consequences of which I was aware.

That there's one more consequence you knew about and considered (your PMs) doesn't invalidate the point that you didn't think about what would happen to the guinea pig past what you could see.

>_>

<_<

o_0?

What script? I have no script. I say this again: I don't get computers. Even the most basic of these scripts / programs / blah confuse me. What makes you think I have a script?

*looks around*

>_>

<_<

Nope, definitely no script here.

I see that as a derisive tone, teasing the opponent, and I wouldn't be surprised if others do as well.

It seems that you are unaware of what a script is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripting_language

"Scripting languages (commonly called scripting programming languages or script languages) are computer programming languages initially used only for simple, repeated actions."

 

[Jason_C]

I didn't say "play the game". I said "used a guinea pig". You're making my point different than I expressed it, and attacking the new, weaker point.

I was able to "use a guinea pig" within the confines of "playing the game". I didn't step out of bounds at all.

If I play the card Brain Control and take your Jinzo, would you call me crazy? No, because, while I did benefit at your expense, I did so in a fair and legal manner that was part of the game.

I see that as a derisive tone, teasing the opponent, and I wouldn't be surprised if others do as well.

I'm teasing you, yes. But not intending to insult you. I just enjoy messing with you.

It seems that you are unaware of what a script is:

I disagree; I think I do know what one is.

"Scripting languages (commonly called scripting programming languages or script languages) are computer programming languages initially used only for simple, repeated actions.

I was aware of that. I have no such script. Or anything similar, for that matter.

 

[Raijinili]

I was able to "use a guinea pig" within the confines of "playing the game". I didn't step out of bounds at all.

Relating personal, I bring up the time I went thief-crazy.

First, I tested it on helpoemer316, since he was an admin and had the option of Admin Donate.

Then, when I figured out how the thing worked, I robbed all admins and non-members (people that never logged into their accounts) who had lots of points.

The difference between what you did and what I did was that I knew for a fact that the only negative side effects would be the loss of points for people who didn't need them and my loss of reputation, while as you yourself stated, you didn't know all of the side effects, especially those on your victim. If you wanted a guinea pig, it would have been best to experiment on someone who you asked, so you would find out the side-effects first.

If I play the card Brain Control and take your Jinzo, would you call me crazy? No, because, while I did benefit at your expense, I did so in a fair and legal manner that was part of the game.

If you played the card Brain Control, you know exactly what the effects are. You know that the Brain Control wouldn't suddenly jump up and bite me in the nose.

I'm teasing you, yes. But not intending to insult you. I just enjoy messing with you.

Regardless, it can be seen as a lack of respect in the course of a serious discussion. Especially since the teasing it is directed at the opponent rather than yourself.

I was aware of that. I have no such script. Or anything similar, for that matter.

Unless you were manually refreshing the page every second (which seems unlikely given that you can't seem to do the same in Firefox), you were using a script whether you knew it or not.