test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Stealth Nerf?
ikonn
Member Posts: 1,450 Arc User
It was reported earlier today that the Fleet Starbase "commission Duty Officers" has been locked, preventing people from accessing who are map invited. There is a message stating that only the owning fleets' members can access the vendor.
Is this true?
If true, why was this done in an underhanded manner with no announcement?
Is this true?
If true, why was this done in an underhanded manner with no announcement?
-AoP- Warrior's Blood (KDF Armada) / -AoP- Qu' raD qulbo'Degh / -AoP- Project Phoenix
Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
0
Comments
Edit, in case it wasn't clear enough: "Stealth nerf" and "underhanded manner" is flaming not civil discourse, especially about a change you didn't verify.
I will verify these reports myself after i get home from work. The intent of this post was to basically see who else had any information as this was discussed in the NOPPS channel earlier.
If true, yes, this was a stealth nerf, and yes it was an underhanded move.
Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Beta Fleet member in armada: Was able to buy one of each color "Fleet Duty Officers" Doff from hosting fleet's SB.
Character from a fleet with no armada: Was able to buy one of each color "Fleet Duty Officers" Doff from hosting fleet's SB.
At least on my end, I can only prove that the characters involved were able to buy Doffs from a different fleet's Starbase.
Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
My character Tsin'xing
Uh, no. Spreading a rumor is making a statement without evidence based on hearsay. He didn't make a statement, he asked a question. The title of the thread is phrased as a question. The topic post is phrased as a question. Questioning a rumor isn't spreading a rumor.
if only that was true
A question is a statement.
Is X going to wait to do Y until Z?
Statement, as in; a declaration, an affirmation or an assertion.
The specific definition was spelled out through the context.
Have you stopped robbing 7-11s yet?
He didn't make a complex question fallacy.
My character Tsin'xing
I was just asking a question. Why are you getting so defensive? No statements were made so obviously no false information that could start or be part of a rumor was transmitted.
Except he started by asking for confirmation or denial, plainly making it obvious he wasn't sure. And by the time you posted...
... he already gave a reason for not testing it himself at that point, and said he would when he got the chance. He also said where he'd heard it. And also prior to your response...
... he got home, did the testing, and disproved the rumor himself on his end.
Saying you don't know for sure, asking for confirmation or denial, giving a reason why and a source, then correcting the information at your first opportunity is a pretty lousy way to spread misinformation.
So no, I don't believe based on what's posted that he was spreading rumors or "pretending" to ask a question. However, based on what's posted I do believe that of the four short posts that existed prior to your contribution that you couldn't be bothered to read at least two of them before responding.
Again, he didn't make a complex question fallacy. He bluntly asked, "Is this true?" Yours was not a legitimate question because the assertion is made through the question itself. That's why it's a fallacy. You're trying to equate two things which are not alike. Apples and oranges.
My character Tsin'xing
The thread title "Stealth Nerf?" seems less innocent question than attempted rumor mongering as well.
"Do you still beat your wife?"
Complex question fallacy. Why? If someone answers "Yes" then they're a wife beater. If someone says "No" then they're a wife beater who has stopped beating their wife. Either way someone responds to the question... they're a wife beater.
It's an assertion that someone is a wife beater, not a legitimate question. No matter how someone answers the response is negative due to the framing of the question. You can't provide a legitimate response to the question without attacking the validity of the question.
"Is this true?" (the exact question in the topic post)
Not a complex question fallacy. Why? If someone answers "Yes" then the previous account is true. If someone answers "No" then the previous account is false. The question isn't phrased in such a way that you can't provide a legitimate answer to the question.
See the difference?
"If true..."
There's a qualifier to the question. You know how qualifiers work, right?
Sure... because he maliciously didn't include a question marrrr... oh wait he did. But hey, he included a massively inflammatory accusation in the title, didn't he? He asked if they stealth nerfed... uh... something. What? Oh, well... the title doesn't actually tell us that.
I am desperately hoping that the two of you are ESL students...
Questions can communicate information and not just request it.
Do you have a problem comprehending that?
Seemingly innocent questions are one of the tools of the trade for stirring the internet pot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
"Voters in South Carolina reportedly were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This hypothetical question seemed like a suggestion, although without substance. "
An inflammatory question followed by a condemnation of the act is not always an innocent request for information.
Yes, and the information communicated is that the topic creator doesn't know if the account provided is true or not, and that he would like to know that. If that's not what you got from it then the information communicated by your posts is that you lack the reading comprehension skills expected of a second grader.
If you take what he posts as fact when he's clearly asking a question about it's validity that's on you.
Did you get your strawmen on sale?
He was posing a "question" to make a statement without having to make the statement. The fact you won't admit to seeing that is quite telling.
Does that seem like an innocent question to you? The effect is to cause outrage even if this was just a random rumor in zone chat.
seriously? wow
Rumor: can't buy doffs by visiting a fleet?
I heard this in zone chat, is this true? I was planning to buy more doffs soon.
Without the flamebait title and "underhanded tactics."
The fact that you're seeing conspiracies in a simple question is telling.
He asked if the account were true. He did so clearly.
Following your logic no one can ever inquire about the validity of a rumor without being a rumor monger and guilty of spreading it. So how does one ask about something they've heard? Well, in your world they don't without being tarred and feathered.
I mean, the only real retort has been, "Why didn't you check it yourself" and... a perfect reasonable response was given there. Beyond that it's just been a mess of accusing the TC (without evidence or basis I might add) of some terrible conspiracy to sow trouble because he asked a question about whether something negative was true or not. And hey, you know who actually provided the not negative answer? Oh yeah, he did.
Does your reaction to this actually make sense and seem appropriate to you?
How should he have asked? The title comes equipped with a question mark, and isn't particularly nasty (nerf is the appropriate term for stuff like this in an MMO and the change, had there been one, wasn't announced), but an accurate description of what he'd heard... false as that may have been. The use of the word "underhanded" may have been a poor choice, but hardly inaccurate had what he'd been inquiring about been true, and he qualified it.
But hey, it's not like this could have been him honestly inquiring about something because... I guess because if anything even remotely negative exists it's trolling, so kill it with fire.
Seriously, how should he have asked? Used a particularly non-threatening pink font and attached a .gif of pretty daisy? Exactly how lightly would he have to have walked on those eggshells for people not to start jump to the trolling conclusion?
And it's not as though there could have been a simple mistake in the first place to start such a rumor, like someone going to another person's starbase that they thought had the DOff store unlocked, but didn't and them seeing it locked leading them to jump to a half-assed conclusion. Oh wait, that makes perfect sense.
And really, jumping to that conclusion is a lot more reasonable than jumping on the TC for trolling over... what? A clearly stated question, which was asked fairly reasonably, and which he gave the correct (not trolly) answer to himself.
Difference being:
This being a "false" question breaks down on too many levels. It doesn't work as a method to incite because it's clearly framed as a question by the topic creator. It isn't overly inflammatory. He answers his question himself, dispelling the rumor. And most importantly; Anyone could have come along at any time and simply said, "No it's not true," and provided the requested information to defuse the situation. That would have been it. The topic would have been done right there.
And what did we get instead? Well, instead of someone answering the question we got a bunch of pointless accusations concerning the topic creator that made the topic needlessly inflammatory.
Honestly, the question the topic creator asked is the least inflammatory thing in this thread.
He wasn't yelling "Doom!" or saying the account he provided was fact, quite the opposite since he was asking if it was.
Seriously... if you hear something negative you can't ask if it's true or not without being a troll? Does that seem reasonable?
Regardless, the TC answered his own question. The topic itself was over the third time he posted, and any controversy should have died there since he disproved the account himself after no one else bothered to, instead seeing fit to hurl accusations because... God forbid something negative be posted without someone trying to kill it with fire, even when it's just a question that they could have simply answered instead.
EDIT
And no, the title was not "flamebait." The term "Stealth Nerf" is hardly trollworthy. Nerf is the proper term, and any unannounced change would be a "Stealth Nerf" by definition. You're confusing anything that's not saccharine enough to cause diabetes due to all of the sugar coating with flamebait... he was far from inflammatory, one step removed from wearing kid gloves in fact...
"Stealth Nerf?" vs. "Can't buy doffs visiting another fleet?"
"it was reported" vs. "I heard a rumor in zone chat"
"If true, why was this done in an underhanded manner" vs. just "is it true?" until it can be verified.
This might not have been intentional flaming or trolling, but if it was an honest question it could have been asked in a much less inflammatory manner without needing to be "saccharine," merely polite.
You picked a SPECIFIC type of malicious question because you knew it didn't apply and started preaching about how it didn't apply, even though it's not the only type of malicious question, and people corrected you on it.
My character Tsin'xing
You're probably right, we'll likely have to agree to disagree.
Thing is, I think there's a fair bit of distance between what he said and actually being impolite.
To be frank, I don't think the term "Stealth Nerf" is inflammatory. Nerf is, at this point, essentially an industry term (some companies use it in their patch notes), not exactly a volatile word. I'm sure everyone on this board has used it at some point. It's often not used in a "bad" way. People who want balance ask for "OP" items and powers to be nerfed for what they see as the good of the game. And a stealth nerf is just any nerf that's undocumented by patch notes.
I don't see that as inflammatory. I see it using the appropriate term for what was suggested.
Was saying "reported" a poor choice in words? Maybe, but then you do admit this might not have been "intentional flaming or trolling"... just maybe a bad choice of words. Not trolling, but not polite in your eyes. All things considered that's a reasonable interpretation. Here's the things, if it were a poor choice of words... isn't that something we're all guilty of? If you're willing to admit the possibility that this wasn't intentional then how diplomatic was it to break out...
Now, you did say it's "not always an innocent request"... but still. Little harsh for what is potentially just a couple of poorly chosen words, no? Not the most polite thing ever, huh? It happens, especially when people are staring down the barrel of something they don't like. He'd heard about a fictitious nerf he probably didn't appreciate, and you didn't appreciate his terms, trolling or not.
And yeah, I'll admit the use of "underhanded" is a bit questionable, but it was qualified. He didn't say Cryptic was underhanded, unless they did change this without documenting it. And let's be honest, if this had proven true... we probably wouldn't be having the conversation and he'd have a point.
And actually, at the end of the day... can you even say that this something Cryptic wouldn't ever consider doing? While it should be documented, I can not only see Cryptic actually locking stores from some map invites... I think it's a good idea. To be frank, they just introduced the Armada system and the perks are... a little light. It would actually be an excellent time to lock stores for random map invites and make that a perk to the Armada system... you can buy from stores on map invites, but only if you're in an Armada with that particular fleet. I can see this being an excellent addition since, being a member of a few mid-sized KDF fleets, it seems a lot of the smaller fleets are bouncing around, trying to join as many Armadas as they can to soak up spare resources instead of sticking with any Armada in particular since there's not a lot of incentive for it.
On the one hand I'm glad the change isn't real, because undocumented changes are a pain for everyone and lead to as much confusion as any rumor, if not more. On the other hand I'm kind of disappointed because it's not a bad idea for them to limit this stuff.
Still, sorry. My bad there.
Secondly, if you read the thread you'd know full well why I said what I said.
What I put forward was the cliche complex question fallacy, done so in response to this...
You're saying that doesn't apply to the topic post? Yeah... you're right, because the topic post was not a complex question fallacy... cursedwolf's was. That was his straw man attempt to prove how a question can be used to make a statement. And yeah, that example didn't apply. His rebuttal mischaracterized what was said, and yeah was a strawman.
So you disagree with his argument, and you're right to. Sorry to have attributed his argument to you, because yeah it was a bad one.
That said, you're the one who ignored the qualifier and suggested if he weren't trying to start something he'd have checked himself, which he already explained why he didn't at the start of the topic, and then he went on and checked anyway... and all of that before you complained about it.
So you made equally invalid arguments. Sorry for confusing you two, but then I just skipped over your names, you skipped over entire posts in the thread. I think I'm ahead here, and since you're putting up equally invalid arguments the two of you are kind of interchangeable from across the internet...