STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Absolutely brilliant! Priceless! Messed up part is this is pretty much what happened when I started a thank you thread about the last winter event. I had so much fun with the event that I just wanted to thank Cryptic for, in my opinion, doing a great job with it. The flaming spun so far out of control that I actually contacted support and asked if they would just remove the thread. It was down a day or two later.
Anyway, thanks for posting this. Definitely put a smile on my face!
I don't care what the header says, I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, an "ARC user".
It's always funny when posters 1 and 7 start throwing around phrases like "ad hominem", "logical fallacy", "strawman", and...and uh...there's another one I'm forgetting. Oh well, I'm sure it will pop up soon lol.
It's always funny when posters 1 and 7 start throwing around phrases like "ad hominem", "logical fallacy", "strawman", and...and uh...there's another one I'm forgetting. Oh well, I'm sure it will pop up soon lol.
That typically shows someone who is focusing on the actual argument being made rather than debating just to debate.
Ad hominem attacks attempt to attack the argument by discrediting the person making the argument. This is one step above actual name-calling. By attempting to discredit the poster, the idea is that if the poster is seen as unintelligent, morally corrupt, etc., that the argument being made is therefore corrupt and illogical.
Example: Poster 1: "I think Romulans need more warbirds. The current selection is rather light compared to the Federation." Poster 2: "You already have the Scimitar, which is the best ship in the game forever, why do you need more ships? It's people like you who ruin this game. You get a ship that can fire while cloaked, has a hangar, and a thalaron weapon, and you're here sitting and whining like a little kid asking for more. Maybe mommy and daddy should take away your credit card priviledges."
By attacking the poster and not the argument he makes, this is one of the most common logical fallacies. It doesn't address his original point, but instead goes towards the poster with a personal attack making him sound self-entitled, childish, or immature. The only thing worse than an ad hominem attack is name-calling which would be poster 2 just saying, "You're a child. Noone needs to listen to you."
Logical fallacies can be any number of things, but are not always limited to ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments. Typically someone accusing another of a logical fallacy is attempting to retaliate against their own argument being made. Depending on what the fallacy is, it either distracts from the original argument, or it clarifies that the counter-argument of a person should be disregarded.
Strawmen arguments are one of the more easily discredited logical fallacies. It attempts to tackle the argument by trying to discredit it through misrepresentation of a similar but fundamentally different point. This is where the 'strawman' point comes into play, since they are creating a fake person (or fake issue) to have an argument with who can not fight back.
Example: Poster 1: "I think the Romulans need more warbirds." Poster 2: "Why? Romulans are already best at everything forever with the warbirds they have. Cryptic should be making more KDF ships instead, we have very little ships. I bet you think it'd be just fine if the KDF didn't have any ships. lol"
The strawman is attempting to change the point of Romulan warbirds to KDF ships. Since it's basically known KDF ships have very few ships compared to the Federation, this isn't an argument that can really be fought, since the person is right -- but the point wasn't about KDF ships, it was about Romulan ships.
Another popular logical fallacy in the STO forums is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I've seen this used more often than either Ad Hominem attacks or Strawman arguments. The "No True Scotsman" argument is a very particular logical fallacy which I'm sure you've seen before. It basically has its origins in "What makes someone a scotsman?" "Well, all scotsmen should wear kilts. Any man from scotland not wearing a kilt isn't really a scotsman. He ignores his cultural heritage." This is despite the fact men from Scotland come from many walks of life with different beliefs and lifestyles. If you ask multiple people their opinions on what really makes a scotsman a scotsman, you'll come up with a variety of opinions and you won't find a single agreed-upon answer like "A man who was born/lives in Scotland.", since there are many ideas of what a scotsman should be. Thus, there is "No True Scotsman" because not a single person would fit everyone's definition.
It can apply to Star Trek in many ways, and has often been invoked to create the illusion that "something" isn't really Star Trek. "JJ Abrams isn't really Star Trek because lens flares." "Generations isn't really Star Trek because Kirk was killed off and everyone knows Kirk wouldn't die like that." "The Borg in STO aren't really the Borg because we can kill borg cubes in less than 10 seconds with our escorts." "The Federation isn't really the Federation because they ally themselves with the Romulan Republic who use thalaron weapons." "The Romulan Republic aren't really romulans because they're too much like the Federation."
Which isn't to say that the spirit of the ideas aren't particularly wrong, but it makes a blanket statement based on an extremely arbitrary measure which can often differ from person to person and their opinions that something isn't "really" something unless it has "this quality".
---
I actually enjoy debating, and it's not unusual to find people on the forums with poor debating abilities. The people you describe are either experienced at debates (maybe they were part of the debate team in school) or they've been properly schooled by a professional debater and are trying to throw those terms out without really knowing what they mean in an attempt to make themselves sound more intelligent than they are.
That typically shows someone who is focusing on the actual argument being made rather than debating just to debate.
Ad hominem attacks attempt to attack the argument by discrediting the person making the argument. This is one step above actual name-calling. By attempting to discredit the poster, the idea is that if the poster is seen as unintelligent, morally corrupt, etc., that the argument being made is therefore corrupt and illogical.
Example: Poster 1: "I think Romulans need more warbirds. The current selection is rather light compared to the Federation." Poster 2: "You already have the Scimitar, which is the best ship in the game forever, why do you need more ships? It's people like you who ruin this game. You get a ship that can fire while cloaked, has a hangar, and a thalaron weapon, and you're here sitting and whining like a little kid asking for more. Maybe mommy and daddy should take away your credit card priviledges."
By attacking the poster and not the argument he makes, this is one of the most common logical fallacies. It doesn't address his original point, but instead goes towards the poster with a personal attack making him sound self-entitled, childish, or immature. The only thing worse than an ad hominem attack is name-calling which would be poster 2 just saying, "You're a child. Noone needs to listen to you."
Logical fallacies can be any number of things, but are not always limited to ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments. Typically someone accusing another of a logical fallacy is attempting to retaliate against their own argument being made. Depending on what the fallacy is, it either distracts from the original argument, or it clarifies that the counter-argument of a person should be disregarded.
Strawmen arguments are one of the more easily discredited logical fallacies. It attempts to tackle the argument by trying to discredit it through misrepresentation of a similar but fundamentally different point. This is where the 'strawman' point comes into play, since they are creating a fake person (or fake issue) to have an argument with who can not fight back.
Example: Poster 1: "I think the Romulans need more warbirds." Poster 2: "Why? Romulans are already best at everything forever with the warbirds they have. Cryptic should be making more KDF ships instead, we have very little ships. I bet you think it'd be just fine if the KDF didn't have any ships. lol"
The strawman is attempting to change the point of Romulan warbirds to KDF ships. Since it's basically known KDF ships have very few ships compared to the Federation, this isn't an argument that can really be fought, since the person is right -- but the point wasn't about KDF ships, it was about Romulan ships.
Another popular logical fallacy in the STO forums is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I've seen this used more often than either Ad Hominem attacks or Strawman arguments. The "No True Scotsman" argument is a very particular logical fallacy which I'm sure you've seen before. It basically has its origins in "What makes someone a scotsman?" "Well, all scotsmen should wear kilts. Any man from scotland not wearing a kilt isn't really a scotsman. He ignores his cultural heritage."
It can apply to Star Trek in many ways, and has often been invoked to create the illusion that "something" isn't really Star Trek. "JJ Abrams isn't really Star Trek because lens flares." "Generations isn't really Star Trek because Kirk was killed off and everyone knows Kirk wouldn't die like that." "The Borg in STO aren't really the Borg because we can kill borg cubes in less than 10 seconds with our escorts." "The Federation isn't really the Federation because they ally themselves with the Romulan Republic who use thalaron weapons." "The Romulan Republic aren't really romulans because they're too much like the Federation."
Which isn't to say that the spirit of the ideas aren't particularly wrong, but it makes a blanket statement based on an extremely arbitrary measure which can often differ from person to person and their opinions that something isn't "really" something unless it has "this quality".
---
I actually enjoy debating, and it's not unusual to find people on the forums with poor debating abilities. The people you describe are either experienced at debates (maybe they were part of the debate team in school) or they've been properly schooled by a professional debater and are trying to throw those terms out without really knowing what they mean in an attempt to make themselves sound more intelligent than they are.
Man, and after all of that you didn't even give me the one phrase that I was thinking of that I couldn't think of!
I am dissapoint.
Why are you not a mind reader?!
I could have sworn it was the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Was it "Kettle Logic"? Using multiple inconsistent arguments in an effort to see if one of them sticks. "We don't need more Warbirds! We already have a bunch of Federation ships that Romulans can play up until 50! They already have the Scimitar which is the best warbird forever! The KDF don't have any additional ships, so the romulans shouldn't either!"
I've seen that on the STO forums a lot.
"Moving goalposts"? I use that one a bit. "Cryptic has never given the KDF anything!" "They gave you a revamped Qo'noS and shipyard." "Yeah, but we didn't get any new ships!" "You got the Bortasqu' variants." "Yeah, but we didn't get any ships after that!" "You got the Fleet Kamarag." "Yeah, but we didn't get any new consoles!" "You get Federation consoles in the reward packs for lockboxes." "Yeah, but the Federation got our consoles which means the KDF is worthless!" "You get the upper hand on the economy, since you get contraband easier and KDF doffs are worth much more than Federation doffs, typically." "Yeah, but noone plays KDF!" ... so on and so forth. Cite examples and watch them push the goal posts further in order to make it appear the original point has not been resolved.
"Argumentum Ad Nauseam" is something I've seen a few times in the STO forums. This is basically an appeal to the person to just stop posting, typically because a topic has been discussed so much before that we're really quite tired of debating it. Therefore, don't argue it to begin with.
Example: "I hate lockboxes, please give us everything for free." "Give it a rest, we've had this conversation a million times before. This isn't new ground, and you aren't getting lockbox ships for free."
... trying to think what other common fallacies are used in the STO forums often.
this thread is clearly a slap in the face to all the normal forums out there. The oP is clearly a fanboy of forums and a hater of posters and somewhat ambivalent to the current economic situation and is trying to paint posters in a negative light when we all know that most posters are sensible people with superb Grammar and speling.
i would continue talking but im currently being thrown under a bus right now.
this thread is clearly a slap in the face to all the normal forums out there. The oP is clearly a fanboy of forums and a hater of posters and somewhat ambivalent to the current economic situation and is trying to paint posters in a negative light when we all know that most posters are sensible people with superb Grammar and speling.
i would continue talking but im currently being thrown under a bus right now.
/rage quit AND I'M NEVER POSTING AGAIN!!!!1
See you again in 2 days.
I have cancelled my subscription until this forum issue is addressed. Once it's addressed, I will reactivate it in order to really prove my point. Until another issue crops up, at which point I will publically announce in the forums that I'm cancelling my subscription again until that future issue is fixed as well.
"Moving goalposts"? I use that one a bit. "Cryptic has never given the KDF anything!" "They gave you a revamped Qo'noS and shipyard." "Yeah, but we didn't get any new ships!" "You got the Bortasqu' variants." "Yeah, but we didn't get any ships after that!" "You got the Fleet Kamarag." "Yeah, but we didn't get any new consoles!" "You get Federation consoles in the reward packs for lockboxes." "Yeah, but the Federation got our consoles which means the KDF is worthless!" "You get the upper hand on the economy, since you get contraband easier and KDF doffs are worth much more than Federation doffs, typically." "Yeah, but noone plays KDF!" ... so on and so forth. Cite examples and watch them push the goal posts further in order to make it appear the original point has not been resolved.
THEY STILL HAVENT FIXED TEH DAM MARAUDING BOFF TAILOR ISSUE.
P2.
My actual number one gripe. ^^^
Oh, and leveling in this game is way too freaking easy. It took me three months of hardcore play to reach level 50 in this other game you've never heard of, and it was FUN! P4.
And PvP was way better there too. P1.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Comments
You could put in a line that says "This is what the forums look like" or something, and link it.
Just kidding.....:D
Thanks OP, very.....on target, and funny.
pointy hats rule....
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Anyway, thanks for posting this. Definitely put a smile on my face!
That really is every MMO forum ever.
It's always funny when posters 1 and 7 start throwing around phrases like "ad hominem", "logical fallacy", "strawman", and...and uh...there's another one I'm forgetting. Oh well, I'm sure it will pop up soon lol.
Mine Trap Supporter
From now on, we can only post P1, P2, P3....etc
I told you we're being watched *adjusts tin foil hat*
Harden up Princess
Looking for an Oceanic fleet? Check out our website:
www.ausmonauts.com
That typically shows someone who is focusing on the actual argument being made rather than debating just to debate.
Ad hominem attacks attempt to attack the argument by discrediting the person making the argument. This is one step above actual name-calling. By attempting to discredit the poster, the idea is that if the poster is seen as unintelligent, morally corrupt, etc., that the argument being made is therefore corrupt and illogical.
Example: Poster 1: "I think Romulans need more warbirds. The current selection is rather light compared to the Federation." Poster 2: "You already have the Scimitar, which is the best ship in the game forever, why do you need more ships? It's people like you who ruin this game. You get a ship that can fire while cloaked, has a hangar, and a thalaron weapon, and you're here sitting and whining like a little kid asking for more. Maybe mommy and daddy should take away your credit card priviledges."
By attacking the poster and not the argument he makes, this is one of the most common logical fallacies. It doesn't address his original point, but instead goes towards the poster with a personal attack making him sound self-entitled, childish, or immature. The only thing worse than an ad hominem attack is name-calling which would be poster 2 just saying, "You're a child. Noone needs to listen to you."
Logical fallacies can be any number of things, but are not always limited to ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments. Typically someone accusing another of a logical fallacy is attempting to retaliate against their own argument being made. Depending on what the fallacy is, it either distracts from the original argument, or it clarifies that the counter-argument of a person should be disregarded.
Strawmen arguments are one of the more easily discredited logical fallacies. It attempts to tackle the argument by trying to discredit it through misrepresentation of a similar but fundamentally different point. This is where the 'strawman' point comes into play, since they are creating a fake person (or fake issue) to have an argument with who can not fight back.
Example: Poster 1: "I think the Romulans need more warbirds." Poster 2: "Why? Romulans are already best at everything forever with the warbirds they have. Cryptic should be making more KDF ships instead, we have very little ships. I bet you think it'd be just fine if the KDF didn't have any ships. lol"
The strawman is attempting to change the point of Romulan warbirds to KDF ships. Since it's basically known KDF ships have very few ships compared to the Federation, this isn't an argument that can really be fought, since the person is right -- but the point wasn't about KDF ships, it was about Romulan ships.
Another popular logical fallacy in the STO forums is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I've seen this used more often than either Ad Hominem attacks or Strawman arguments. The "No True Scotsman" argument is a very particular logical fallacy which I'm sure you've seen before. It basically has its origins in "What makes someone a scotsman?" "Well, all scotsmen should wear kilts. Any man from scotland not wearing a kilt isn't really a scotsman. He ignores his cultural heritage." This is despite the fact men from Scotland come from many walks of life with different beliefs and lifestyles. If you ask multiple people their opinions on what really makes a scotsman a scotsman, you'll come up with a variety of opinions and you won't find a single agreed-upon answer like "A man who was born/lives in Scotland.", since there are many ideas of what a scotsman should be. Thus, there is "No True Scotsman" because not a single person would fit everyone's definition.
It can apply to Star Trek in many ways, and has often been invoked to create the illusion that "something" isn't really Star Trek. "JJ Abrams isn't really Star Trek because lens flares." "Generations isn't really Star Trek because Kirk was killed off and everyone knows Kirk wouldn't die like that." "The Borg in STO aren't really the Borg because we can kill borg cubes in less than 10 seconds with our escorts." "The Federation isn't really the Federation because they ally themselves with the Romulan Republic who use thalaron weapons." "The Romulan Republic aren't really romulans because they're too much like the Federation."
Which isn't to say that the spirit of the ideas aren't particularly wrong, but it makes a blanket statement based on an extremely arbitrary measure which can often differ from person to person and their opinions that something isn't "really" something unless it has "this quality".
---
I actually enjoy debating, and it's not unusual to find people on the forums with poor debating abilities. The people you describe are either experienced at debates (maybe they were part of the debate team in school) or they've been properly schooled by a professional debater and are trying to throw those terms out without really knowing what they mean in an attempt to make themselves sound more intelligent than they are.
^ P1 :rolleyes:
Stupid fanboys ruin everything. :mad:
That would be P 1:5 in the new forums...
Man, and after all of that you didn't even give me the one phrase that I was thinking of that I couldn't think of!
I am dissapoint.
Why are you not a mind reader?!
Mine Trap Supporter
I could have sworn it was the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Was it "Kettle Logic"? Using multiple inconsistent arguments in an effort to see if one of them sticks. "We don't need more Warbirds! We already have a bunch of Federation ships that Romulans can play up until 50! They already have the Scimitar which is the best warbird forever! The KDF don't have any additional ships, so the romulans shouldn't either!"
I've seen that on the STO forums a lot.
"Moving goalposts"? I use that one a bit. "Cryptic has never given the KDF anything!" "They gave you a revamped Qo'noS and shipyard." "Yeah, but we didn't get any new ships!" "You got the Bortasqu' variants." "Yeah, but we didn't get any ships after that!" "You got the Fleet Kamarag." "Yeah, but we didn't get any new consoles!" "You get Federation consoles in the reward packs for lockboxes." "Yeah, but the Federation got our consoles which means the KDF is worthless!" "You get the upper hand on the economy, since you get contraband easier and KDF doffs are worth much more than Federation doffs, typically." "Yeah, but noone plays KDF!" ... so on and so forth. Cite examples and watch them push the goal posts further in order to make it appear the original point has not been resolved.
"Argumentum Ad Nauseam" is something I've seen a few times in the STO forums. This is basically an appeal to the person to just stop posting, typically because a topic has been discussed so much before that we're really quite tired of debating it. Therefore, don't argue it to begin with.
Example: "I hate lockboxes, please give us everything for free." "Give it a rest, we've had this conversation a million times before. This isn't new ground, and you aren't getting lockbox ships for free."
... trying to think what other common fallacies are used in the STO forums often.
i would continue talking but im currently being thrown under a bus right now.
/rage quit AND I'M NEVER POSTING AGAIN!!!!1
See you again in 2 days.
I have cancelled my subscription until this forum issue is addressed. Once it's addressed, I will reactivate it in order to really prove my point. Until another issue crops up, at which point I will publically announce in the forums that I'm cancelling my subscription again until that future issue is fixed as well.
THEY STILL HAVENT FIXED TEH DAM MARAUDING BOFF TAILOR ISSUE.
P2.
My actual number one gripe. ^^^
Oh, and leveling in this game is way too freaking easy. It took me three months of hardcore play to reach level 50 in this other game you've never heard of, and it was FUN! P4.
And PvP was way better there too. P1.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
:PTHIS GAME IS DOOOOMMMED!!!!!!:P