Best Assassin Guide?

I'm not asking which one I should read, I'm curious as to what the public opinion of both are. I have read them both and have commented on both threads as well.

Ra_oh - Heavens Tear wrote: »

they both suck how bout that?

Now that we have heard from the ever so important Blademaster, Ra_oh, on his opinion, let's hear from the Assassins who can actually say if it helped them or think one is of better quality and has better content.

skyxiii wrote: »

I would say read all guides and play the class yourself if you wish to learn.

You shouldn't put those two guide writers on the spot. There are tons of things wrong with this.

For one, it can be considered disrespectful.
Two, have you asked them both for permission for this poll?

First, I have played the class, I know the class very well, with the exception of the new skills added in this update.

Now, it is not disrespectful, it is pure curiosity. Are we not allowed to ask whether Pepsi is better than Coca-cola? Are we not allowed to ask if Wuthering Heights is better than Pride and Prejudice? Are we not allowed to ask if Jaws is better than American Graffiti? It's not disrespectful to compare two public ideas and/or products. Once you make something available to the public, it is open to critique. This therefore answers your question.

No, I did not ask permission, nor do I need to ask permission to compare them as they are now in the public domain. Just as I do not need to ask permission to cite a book for a synthesis paper. If you want to try to put down this poll, that is your choice, and you don't need my permission to post in it either saying whatever you want (so long as it is on topic).

Understand I am not trying to make it so everyone thinks one guide is better than the other. In a month, no one will even remember these polls unless they happen to dig them up or someone necros them. In the end, it doesn't matter what comes out of this, but I will hopefully get results which answer my own questions and will allow me to process them in whatever way I plan to.

skyxiii wrote: »

You can't simply write off that it's not disrespectful. A statement like that is incredibly subjective.
If I were to pose the the question: Who is the better Sin, X or Y - in a public forum collecting answers with a poll - The argument can be made that the poll is, in a particular sense, disrespectful for putting heat on the two persons concerned.

No, I am not at all saying that this is what your poll intends to do, but when one reads your thread, which is a direct comparison of two guides associated with only two people, chances are that people will misinterpret your intentions and certain negative implications are bound to spawn. So yes, ignoring the courtesy to ask the two writers about the poll beforehand may be seen as disrespectful.

For example, lets say one of the two writers actually doesn't want you to have this poll about his or her thread. Yes, it was the writer's mistake by making a public guide - but to go against his wishes and start a poll anyway would be disrespectful - considering the rude insinuations that may be interpreted by the readers or the negative feelings that may be evoked from the writers.

It should be taken into account that this situation is occurring on a much more personal level. Examples like the movies you mentioned earlier are group efforts and about people who we'll probably never hear from personally. If something in Jaws sucked, it may not be the director's fault, it could be the cameraman's, the actor's etc.. Same goes for Pepsi and Coke ~ the level at which the comparison takes place is much more removed.

Like I mentioned earlier, it's a question of courtesy. Of course you don't have to ask for permission, you don't have to do anything - but wouldn't it have been more considerate to do so?

If you could care less about the feelings of the authors and don't feel the need for courtesy, then there's nothing more I can say. That would be your opinion, and since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, arguing further about it would be pointless.

Your argument then obviously is one of morals, which dictates what is courtesy (in my personal opinion). However, as morality cannot be proven one way or another, we will just have to settle with one of the most common morality systems, that being utilitarianism. So, under utilitarianism, I can still argue I am right as it is about providing the best positive result.

So, under such, the only people who "suffer" would be the authors of the guides. However, aside from myself, any number of people could do a search, find this thread, and by seeing the result get a better guide, hence benefiting from this thread. Now, log in all the possible negative outcomes and positive outcomes, and decide if this will create more positive or negative results, both in short and long term. I'm quite certain you will see that this is doing more good than evil, and is therefore beneficial.

Now, if you want to take this to another philosophical idea, by all means please do and explain your argument. If you wish me to argue under the one you choose as well though, please make your first argument under utilitarianism. As incentive (just because I love a good discussion), should you make me change my mind, I will edit the OP to ask the GM's to delete this thread, and will send a message to one asking to delete this and all other threads with the same subject matter.

This goes to anyone else who wishes to join. I'm more than open to debate and willing to discuss this if it offends anyone else, be it another anonymous, or the authors of the guides.

skyxiii wrote: »

I see no reason further to continue this argument...

Just the fact that you're approaching this under a utilitarian system of morality bewilders me. I can see why you did it though, for indeed it does complement your actions here well.
I just simply disagree with the belief that moral worth is to be dictated by the degree of happiness/pleasure/utility a certain action brings to sentient beings.

If you feel that it is O.K. for lots of people to obtain the knowledge about which of these two guides is more useful at the expense of ignoring the two authors' feelings about the subject, then I really don't have much more to say - because I, for one, believe that such a decision belongs to them and not you - and that should they disagree with the poll, the correct course of action would not be to implement it against their preferences.

But if that's what you truly believe in, then by all means, leave this thread as it stands.

But what about all the animals that are slaughtered to feed humans? What does your utilitarian perspective say about that?

and hell, even slavery can be justified under utilitarianism.

The bottom line is I just don't agree with you nor with your utilitarian approach, and we probably wont get much further than that.

It's interesting to note how the ideology of utilitarianism was brought up when this entire matter revolves around a game that has its origins in China, seeing how unsuccessful Mohism was there.

As you should have guessed, I use the tools at my disposal. However, it does not necessarily mean I completely believe in them. Personally, I favor St. Thomas Aquinas over Jeremy Benthem, but why use a screwdriver when a powerdrill is better fitting for the work at hand? I do not believe in utilitarianism, but in some places it works while in others it does not.

For example, the "slaughter" of animals to feed humans is actually nature done in a more advanced and efficient way. Humans are naturally omnivores (hence the reason we have both canines and molars), so animals are a part of our natural diet. We can choose to not eat them, as many do, but you cannot deny that we were biologically designed to. Therefore, unless you plan to turn lions, sharks, wolves, and dolphins into vegans, your argument holds no place in this subject. Now lets assume you just mean that we have a choice where they do not. You still need to figure out how many humans would die as well, and how many species would overpopulate due to the lack of a major predator in the food chain. Add it all up, you will still find that us remaining in the food chain provides more benefits to the ecosystem as a whole.

Slavery though cannot be justified. You first have to figure how much one person can do to please how many others, and what the value of their pleasure is to that one person's suffering, which is impossible, as first it would depend on the owner. Second, if the slave did not want to do it, he would have to be punished, as in beaten, tortured, or some other manner of discipline, most likely something with pain. If the owner did not do this, nothing would stop the slave from leaving, hence not making him a slave, but an employee. If he were killed, you would still have to calculate how much good could have come, which is immeasurable, hence killing cannot be justified. Slavery itself would be a vicious circle of what can or cannot happen, and it boils down to that a person cannot be owned, because if they choose to not work at all, nothing can come as a benefit as punishment won't work, and they would therefore have to be freed.

However, I disagree that this revolves around a game. This is a discussion about two pieces of literature (or text), which only affects (negatively) one person as of yet, possibly three (including yourself) based on your assumptions, and can help dozens, even hundreds of others.

Now, if you honestly do wish to not discuss this anymore, I'll respect that, but I do hope you will continue to discuss this, if for nothing else, the sake of finding a common logic we can both agree on and be content with. Such is, after all, the point of these forums, to find common ground on which we all agree is right. Until such time, we must discuss all subjects.