Embers Adrift Worldbreaker Stress Test Happening August 13th, and is Open for Signups | MMORPG.com

Uwakionna

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's a leap in logic.

Declaring what one individually finds valuable or not is just that, a singular self-declaration. It's not an impetus for all of society to adopt or reject something. It is, however, a shared thought for others to consider in the exact same token as one talks about ideas.

Ideas are only as useful as they can be put to action. Scrutinizing the merit of an idea is the necessary and inevitable next step to sharing them.

And, as it sometimes turns out, some ideas lack merit. On that same token, it's exactly freedom of choice that then allows people to commit to poor decisions. Calling a poor line of reason out isn't a denouncement of free thought, it's the literal act of such.

Personal values don't create widespread social change except when held by someone with the capacity to force it.

What tends to cause social change is an increasing congruence of values alternate to those currently dominant in many persons that over time accumulates into a new dominant social value.

Be the mechanics of social change as they may such are entirely irrelevant to the personal choices one has available in matters that only affect one's self. There the personal value one finds and merit one sees reigns supreme.

Ideas not used often have value in that they can inspire ideas that are. The merit of ideas is always scrutinized, but not necessarily in the terms one may prefer or consider proper, leading to choices of varying merit and appeal between persons.

One's trash is treasure to another. Reasoning denounced as poor is indicative of contrasting underlying personal values that led to a discrepancy in view at least as often as not.

You're just spouting circular nonsense.

First two comments go nowhere, because first you say personal values change nothing without being forced, but then you say society changes by enough people sharing values.

Guess what? That happens by people sharing personal values and expressing them. You get a change when people establish new perception or understanding through said sharing of values.

Third comment goes nowhere. Rather it contradicts the prior. The choices one has available to the self is managed by physical availability and perception, which are both impacted by others, both physically and through shared thought.

Which also leads to problems with the fourth.  Ideas that don't have value being used as a premise for further ideas, relies on the sharing of ideas to develop new ones. IE, you're using individual values that have been shared to create a new one. You even evoke the subject of it being personal value by saying individuals will perceive varying levels of merit.

Last statement is just a pedantic rewrite of the already stated premise; "calling a poor line of reason out isn't a denouncement of free thought, it's the literal act of such."

This last comment was edited about an hour and a half ago (EDIT: correction, two and a half hours), meaning you quoted this page and then sat here thinking about it for a while. One should never be so focused on winning an argument, that they forget to make a good argument.

All of this similarly, being a very pedantic and esoteric tangent just to avoid the point, which hasn't even been refuted.

Instead of wasting so much time delving into paralogism, move on.

KnightFalz

Uwakionna said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's a leap in logic.

Declaring what one individually finds valuable or not is just that, a singular self-declaration. It's not an impetus for all of society to adopt or reject something. It is, however, a shared thought for others to consider in the exact same token as one talks about ideas.

Ideas are only as useful as they can be put to action. Scrutinizing the merit of an idea is the necessary and inevitable next step to sharing them.

And, as it sometimes turns out, some ideas lack merit. On that same token, it's exactly freedom of choice that then allows people to commit to poor decisions. Calling a poor line of reason out isn't a denouncement of free thought, it's the literal act of such.

Personal values don't create widespread social change except when held by someone with the capacity to force it.

What tends to cause social change is an increasing congruence of values alternate to those currently dominant in many persons that over time accumulates into a new dominant social value.

Be the mechanics of social change as they may such are entirely irrelevant to the personal choices one has available in matters that only affect one's self. There the personal value one finds and merit one sees reigns supreme.

Ideas not used often have value in that they can inspire ideas that are. The merit of ideas is always scrutinized, but not necessarily in the terms one may prefer or consider proper, leading to choices of varying merit and appeal between persons.

One's trash is treasure to another. Reasoning denounced as poor is indicative of contrasting underlying personal values that led to a discrepancy in view at least as often as not.

You're just spouting circular nonsense.

First two comments go nowhere, because first you say personal values change nothing without being forced, but then you say society changes by enough people sharing values.

Guess what? That happens by people sharing personal values and expressing them. You get a change when people establish new perception or understanding through said sharing of values.

Third comment goes nowhere. Rather it contradicts the prior. The choices one has available to the self is managed by physical availability and perception, which are both impacted by others, both physically and through shared thought.

Which also leads to problems with the fourth.  Ideas that don't have value being used as a premise for further ideas, relies on the sharing of ideas to develop new ones. IE, you're using individual values that have been shared to create a new one. You even evoke the subject of it being personal value by saying individuals will perceive varying levels of merit.

Last statement is just a pedantic rewrite of the already stated premise; "calling a poor line of reason out isn't a denouncement of free thought, it's the literal act of such."

This last comment was edited about an hour and a half ago (EDIT: correction, two and a half hours), meaning you quoted this page and then sat here thinking about it for a while. One should never be so focused on winning an argument, that they forget to make a good argument.

All of this similarly, being a very pedantic and esoteric tangent just to avoid the point, which hasn't even been refuted.

Instead of wasting so much time delving into paralogism, move on.

Guess what? People can share and express their personal values relentlessly but that in itself produces no change.

I said the choices that affect only one's self need only consider one's personal values. This remains true regardless of available choices.

All ideas start at the individual level. Many do not end there as they are often part of a collaborative process with the results potentially affecting many that may not even be involved. None of that applies in the choices one makes that only affect one's self.

My last statement is entirely contradictory to your reading of it.

What it means is that I initiated the quote but didn't immediately set about responding to it. That done in the interim is unknowable to you. One should not consider what they imagine to be fact.

You don't even understand some of my arguments as is clearly shown by your complete misreading of my last paragraph. Instead of one of your rambling diatribes why don't you actually take the time to grasp what I am saying before you respond to it.

KnightFalz

Kyleran said:

Can't decide where I've heard such before, Ghandi, Marx, Freud, Orwell, or Hari Seldon...

One of those for sure....

If so it is by coincidence alone.

Uwakionna

KnightFalz said:

You don't even understand some of my arguments as is clearly shown by your complete misreading of my last paragraph. Instead of one of your rambling diatribes why don't you actually take the time to grasp what I am saying before you respond to it.

You'd be better off formulating a statement that doesn't ramblingly contradict itself, and finding a basic point that actually addresses the subject.

You ramble about choices that only affect one self are irrelevant to the topic. Even cycling to the subject of people volunteering for a stress test, their overt participation is already a choice that impacts more than the self.

In additional counterpoint, the choice that one ignores outside considerations for an element that may only apply to the self, such as their personal motivation, does not impact the objective reality beyond that, nor the outside perception or appraisement of their chosen action.

Do not assume your argument is clear just because you believe what you said. You say the interpretation is wrong, yet you fail to verbalize how.

Again, one should never be so focused on winning an argument, that they forget to make a good argument.

Why you're even trying to press such a nonsensical tangent is already a mystery.

Uwakionna

worldsbestdad said:

Most people who aren't JRPG characters in real life don't talk this way, a lot of what you have to say feels like a reference to a Family Guy skit or a guy playing with a thesaurus. There is no need to turn 2 sentences worth of thought into 5 paragraphs, you're not writing a paper for your professor.

It's unfortunate you think that way, but I won't hold it against you.

Do you perhaps have a reason small words that summarize larger concepts scare you?

Uwakionna

worldsbestdad said:

Funny how you ignore my original point

Your only two points were you didn't like the words I used and you didn't like the length.
It's interesting, since you've seemed to single me out in spite of the person I have been talking to being both equally wordy and similarly using "thesaurus" phrases to like "congruence".

If you feel the statement was too long, feel free to show how, as the comments were segmented to address the segments of the person I was responding to. The length was a direct result of their comment.

Similarly, the words you chose to quote were themselves used to avoid making the comment longer, which makes it quirky you complain about them in relation to your "original point".

Do you have anything meaningful to add to the conversation, or is your only reason for commenting to make a personal attack on writing style?

Uwakionna

worldsbestdad said:

In other words, you have no point. You can't even counterpoint the fact both topics you brought up have been addressed.

BTW, you haven't answered my question.

KnightFalz

Uwakionna said:

KnightFalz said:

You don't even understand some of my arguments as is clearly shown by your complete misreading of my last paragraph. Instead of one of your rambling diatribes why don't you actually take the time to grasp what I am saying before you respond to it.

You'd be better off formulating a statement that doesn't ramblingly contradict itself, and finding a basic point that actually addresses the subject.

You ramble about choices that only affect one self are irrelevant to the topic. Even cycling to the subject of people volunteering for a stress test, their overt participation is already a choice that impacts more than the self.

In additional counterpoint, the choice that one ignores outside considerations for an element that may only apply to the self, such as their personal motivation, does not impact the objective reality beyond that, nor the outside perception or appraisement of their chosen action.

Do not assume your argument is clear just because you believe what you said. You say the interpretation is wrong, yet you fail to verbalize how.

Again, one should never be so focused on winning an argument, that they forget to make a good argument.

Why you're even trying to press such a nonsensical tangent is already a mystery.

I've decided I'm better off disregarding the opinion of someone that feels they can make conclusions about me on what I may or not be doing based on the lapse of time before I initiate a quote and complete it. Such is astoundingly absurd in both conduct and whatever reasoning caused it to appear sensible to you. It somewhat feels stalker-lite to be frank. As such I will leave you to your diatribes henceforth and focus on responding to those less concerned about my off screen activities. I wish you well.

Uwakionna

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

KnightFalz said:

You don't even understand some of my arguments as is clearly shown by your complete misreading of my last paragraph. Instead of one of your rambling diatribes why don't you actually take the time to grasp what I am saying before you respond to it.

You'd be better off formulating a statement that doesn't ramblingly contradict itself, and finding a basic point that actually addresses the subject.

You ramble about choices that only affect one self are irrelevant to the topic. Even cycling to the subject of people volunteering for a stress test, their overt participation is already a choice that impacts more than the self.

In additional counterpoint, the choice that one ignores outside considerations for an element that may only apply to the self, such as their personal motivation, does not impact the objective reality beyond that, nor the outside perception or appraisement of their chosen action.

Do not assume your argument is clear just because you believe what you said. You say the interpretation is wrong, yet you fail to verbalize how.

Again, one should never be so focused on winning an argument, that they forget to make a good argument.

Why you're even trying to press such a nonsensical tangent is already a mystery.

I've decided I'm better off disregarding the opinion of someone that feels they can make conclusions about me on what I may or not be doing based on the lapse of time before I initiate a quote and complete it. Such is astoundingly absurd in both conduct and whatever reasoning caused it to appear sensible to you. It somewhat feels stalker-lite to be frank. As such I will leave you to your diatribes henceforth and focus on responding to those less concerned about my off screen activities. I wish you well.

Honestly, it's more weird you focus on that even though my response didn't even touch upon it.

That was a one-off comment that noticed you held onto the unedited version of the comment for two and a half hours before making a post. You would think that if you did something in the interim, you'd think to refresh the page.

And, as noted, you just responded a comment where I didn't even bring up that topic, yet it's what you single out and latch onto?

Please, try not to be so overtly disingenuous.

Uwakionna

worldsbestdad said:

If you didn't notice, those comments you quoted were followed by statements that explain what they mean and the logic they were meant to counterpoint.

You cherry-picking them and quoting them in a vacuum deprives the subject of it's contextual value.

Plus that still does not answer my question, but it does reaffirm my observation.

Iselin

worldsbestdad said:

Uwakionna said:

One should avoid reducing their argument to clever wordplay solely for the sake of "winning" it.

Uwakionna said:

impetus

Uwakionna said:

pedantic

Uwakionna said:

esoteric tangent

Uwakionna said:

paralogism

Most people who aren't JRPG characters in real life don't talk this way, a lot of what you have to say feels like a reference to a Family Guy skit or a guy playing with a thesaurus. There is no need to turn 2 sentences worth of thought into 5 paragraphs, you're not writing a paper for your professor.

You know, some people are educated enough that they don't need a thesaurus to use accurate words to describe complex thoughts.

[mod edit]

Uwakionna

worldsbestdad said:

Uwakionna said:

If you didn't notice, those comments you quoted were followed by statements that explain what they mean and the logic they were meant to counterpoint.

You cherry-picking them and quoting them in a vacuum deprives the subject of it's contextual value.

Plus that still does not answer my question, but it does reaffirm my observation.

You are focusing on trivial details in an attempt to draw attention away from what you are blatantly ignoring. You complain about personal attacks and not having questions answered, when that's all you've done throughout this whole thread and almost everywhere else on the forums that you haven't already posted a one-line instigation. The point is that your hypocrisy speaks for itself, to
any reader here willing to take the time to find it.

Perhaps you are conflating me with someone else.

Any reader willing to take the time to read back in my post history will quickly find your claim is distinctly incorrect. Posting one-line instigations? Ignoring subjects? 

My post history is a log of me discussing very particular subjects in-depth.

If you want to verbalize what you think I've ignored, go ahead. I make a point of addressing conversations in full, as is even demonstrated where I directly addressed your "original" point. Your responses to me on this page are the first interaction we've had that I can even think of.

Much like my conversation with Falz was a regular structure of responding down the line to his comments, making again a point of not missing points. The one time he claimed I had missed a point, he based the claim on misinterpretation not avoiding. Even this I addressed.

You also seem to incorrectly impose the aversion on me, even though my point multiple times was that the conversation Falz was engaging in was a tangent avoiding the actual point. Ironically, you quoted one of my statements that even was meant for such, and originally included links to the original topics in emphasis. 

And now here you are, pushing personal attacks while avoiding the original subject and points in their entirety. You claim hypocrisy, while yanking random comments out of context.

It's ironic you quote my "try not to be so overtly disingenuous" statement at the end of doing so as well.

Slapshot1188

So… who was joining this test again?

Kyleran

Iselin said:

worldsbestdad said:

Uwakionna said:

One should avoid reducing their argument to clever wordplay solely for the sake of "winning" it.

Uwakionna said:

impetus

Uwakionna said:

pedantic

Uwakionna said:

esoteric tangent

Uwakionna said:

paralogism

Most people who aren't JRPG characters in real life don't talk this way, a lot of what you have to say feels like a reference to a Family Guy skit or a guy playing with a thesaurus. There is no need to turn 2 sentences worth of thought into 5 paragraphs, you're not writing a paper for your professor.

You know, some people are educated enough that they don't need a thesaurus to use accurate words to describe complex thoughts.

[mod edit]

Actually, he's not wrong, especially when one is creating content for the average conversation.

This article does a brilliant job of explaining the concepts behind readability  on the web which is actually different than other forms of communication.

According to the Literacy Project
"Whether your website is targeted toward the general public or a specific demographic, it is important to realize that the average reading age is lower than you might expect."

"The average American is considered to have a readability level equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old). This level is actively used as a benchmark for written guidelines in the medical industry." 

"In the UK, the central government encourages content writers to aim for a readability level of age nine. Their reasoning for this is that around the age of nine, children stop reading common words and just recognize their shape. This allows them to read faster. By reducing long sentences and words, you can help keep text simple and easy to read."

"Interestingly, using long words can result in readers missing shorter words that follow them, which can greatly affect text interpretation. Using shorter words and shorter sentences will present content in a much more user-friendly way and will suit the way they approach text on a website better."

"It’s also important to remember that writing clearly for the web is a skill. Writing well on paper does not necessarily mean that someone communicates well online."

"Regardless of literacy level, people read differently online than they do when reading printed text. Studies have shown that people scan web pages and only read about 18% of what’s on the page. The same studies say if you convert print text to the web, you should reduce content by about 50%."

https://centerforplainlanguage.org/what-is-readability/

Uwakionna

So gotta use short simple words to not hurt the the attention-deficit.

EDIT: Think while that's a great general rule, how does that reconcile with the fact the words quoted are largely just middle school (6th-8th) level (save for paralogism)?

Even by those standards, those words should be understood by most.

Scot

The thread has already been edited by a moderator:

Keep Calm and Carry on Posting.

lahnmir

Uwakionna said:

So gotta use short simple words to not hurt the the attention-deficit.

EDIT: Think while that's a great general rule, how does that reconcile with the fact the words quoted are largely just middle school (6th-8th) level (save for paralogism)?

Even by those standards, those words should be understood by most.

Yes! Good. Thanks.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

KnightFalz

Slapshot1188 said:

So… who was joining this test again?

I'll be there as part of my regular play. It will be interesting to compare the response of this Worldbreaker to the last. I expect the developers are curious about that as well, in addition to the technical data they hope to gain.

cheyane

I signed up but no invitation yet. I hope they do invite me.

Kyleran

cheyane said:

I signed up but no invitation yet. I hope they do invite me.

If you do get in let us know what you think afterwards.

Slapshot1188

Scot said:

The thread has already been edited by a moderator:

Keep Calm and Carry on Posting.

So Scot... are you interested in the Striker class or one of the others?

Iselin

Kyleran said:

Iselin said:

worldsbestdad said:

Uwakionna said:

One should avoid reducing their argument to clever wordplay solely for the sake of "winning" it.

Uwakionna said:

impetus

Uwakionna said:

pedantic

Uwakionna said:

esoteric tangent

Uwakionna said:

paralogism

Most people who aren't JRPG characters in real life don't talk this way, a lot of what you have to say feels like a reference to a Family Guy skit or a guy playing with a thesaurus. There is no need to turn 2 sentences worth of thought into 5 paragraphs, you're not writing a paper for your professor.

You know, some people are educated enough that they don't need a thesaurus to use accurate words to describe complex thoughts.

[mod edit]

Actually, he's not wrong, especially when one is creating content for the average conversation.

This article does a brilliant job of explaining the concepts behind readability  on the web which is actually different than other forms of communication.

According to the Literacy Project
"Whether your website is targeted toward the general public or a specific demographic, it is important to realize that the average reading age is lower than you might expect."

"The average American is considered to have a readability level equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old). This level is actively used as a benchmark for written guidelines in the medical industry." 

"In the UK, the central government encourages content writers to aim for a readability level of age nine. Their reasoning for this is that around the age of nine, children stop reading common words and just recognize their shape. This allows them to read faster. By reducing long sentences and words, you can help keep text simple and easy to read."

"Interestingly, using long words can result in readers missing shorter words that follow them, which can greatly affect text interpretation. Using shorter words and shorter sentences will present content in a much more user-friendly way and will suit the way they approach text on a website better."

"It’s also important to remember that writing clearly for the web is a skill. Writing well on paper does not necessarily mean that someone communicates well online."

"Regardless of literacy level, people read differently online than they do when reading printed text. Studies have shown that people scan web pages and only read about 18% of what’s on the page. The same studies say if you convert print text to the web, you should reduce content by about 50%."

https://centerforplainlanguage.org/what-is-readability/

Yeah... then there's this:

"Dumbing down is the deliberate oversimplification of intellectual content in education, literature, and cinema, news, video games, and culture. Originated in 1933, the term "dumbing down" was movie-business slang, used by screenplay writers, meaning: "[to] revise so as to appeal to those of little education or intelligence".[1] Dumbing-down varies according to subject matter, and usually involves the diminishment of critical thought by undermining standard language and learning standards; thus trivializing academic standards, culture, and meaningful information, as in the case of popular culture."

But even worse, this:

"Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits. Anti-intellectuals present themselves and are perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people.

Totalitarian governments manipulate and apply anti-intellectualism to repress political dissent. During the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) and the following dictatorship (1939–1975) of General Francisco Franco, the reactionary repression of the White Terror (1936–1945) was notably anti-intellectual, with most of the 200,000 civilians killed being the Spanish intelligentsia, the politically active teachers and academics, artists and writers of the deposed Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939)."

But hey, we can always:

Uwakionna

Iselin said:

Kyleran said:

Actually, he's not wrong, especially when one is creating content for the average conversation.

Yeah... then there's this:

Quirky thing is/was, the words used and sentence length already falls under the guidelines any ways, with the exception of a single word.

Which kinda goes to say he is wrong, unless one wants to argue we should be dumbing things down even further.

Might as well review our ABCs while we're at it I guess.

But on the context of the game, yeah I'll play it, probably not going to be inspired by it, and don't really forsee much in the way of technical hiccups. They aren't stress testing anything particularly novel in terms of how much they're trying to push to/from clients.

Uwakionna

Kyleran's excerpt was describing writing at a 7-8th grade level. The words quoted were themselves 6-8th grade level words.

Much like the word "phenomenal" from the example paragraph world just used.

If anyone thinks those are words to sound smart, they should probably go finish middle school.

Fact is, world is just trolling, and he's getting away with it.

Iselin

Uwakionna said:

Fact is, world is just trolling, and he's getting away with it.

Oh I know he is and I'm trolling him right back by pointing out the pro dummying down, anti-intellectual and downright fascist underpinnings of his posts. The cat was just for Kyleran's benefit