Here's what you'd be left with

Sponge said:
k.

from your wiki link:



The move in question is not banning Hilde.

sliding down the slope, she will ruin the game for people playing and watching. People will see Youtube videos of this, and decide not to play. Word will spread. She will be the death knell to competitive play.

Do I need to be clearer? Do YOU not understand what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

[edit: This is not directed at you Sponge, I'm just using this quote to start my post.]

Funny, because the death combo has been known about for a very long time. It's been on youtube already for a long time. It's been used in videos for a long time. Norcal, the area where we don't have ANYTHING banned is thriving more than it ever has from what I've been told.

Maybe all you people are just pansy banning bitches and need to learn how to roll with the punches.
 
Sponge said:
The move in question is not banning Hilde.

sliding down the slope, she will ruin the game for people playing and watching. People will see Youtube videos of this, and decide not to play. Word will spread. She will be the death knell to competitive play.

Do I need to be clearer? Do YOU not understand what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

I see that the problem is that you are unable to distinguish the difference between the slippery slope argument and the slippery slope fallacy.

Organous fell into the fallacy by assuming that the same logical reasoning used to ban Hilde would be applied to other characters as well, for superfluous reasons like hitbox issues. Certainly, hitbox issues carries less weight than what Hilde can do. One move leading to a chain of multiple conclusions of banned characters.

My argument is different in that there is only one premise and one conclusion; Doing nothing about Hilde will result in damaging competitive play. The youtube and viewing examples are merely supporting arguments, not a different conclusion. Are you honestly suggesting that people would not watch videos and that word of mouth doesn't spread? It certainly did for VC in SCIII.


You can criticize my post however you like, but you cannot stretch out a lie and call it an argument of fallacy. You're just plain wrong.
 
What BH, no response to me "Logic Map" you asked for?

Or are you currently searching wikipedia for another variation of (il)logical arguments to try and use to prove your lame-ass point? If that is the case, I suggest you invest a couple of minutes studying the difference between soundness and validity. Your argument is Valid, but not Sound. It isn't so much the argument that makes you look like a tool, just the way you go about discussing it, and talking down to those who disagree. What you fail to realize about your argument is that none of your points are absolute truths, instead they are personal truths that you happen to share with a handful of others. Passing them off as absolute truths is the fallacy of your argument.
 
Ivy also needs to be banned. Three characters in one, two 80-100 damage command grapples and a few combos (WP 22_88B 3B+K) that will ring out all the way across the stage. She also has ridiculous range, and a mid unblockable (SW A+B [A+B]) that doesn't have fire and can ring out.
 
And you completely missed the point of my post. You assume that Hilde is the only reason I brought this up. No, I bring it up because of all the whiny ban arguments I've seen. Everyone I've listed in the first section has seriously had a ban called for, and I've stated this same argument before when arguing on behalf of Yoda, Vader, Starkiller, and Algol. This is just the first time I've put it all together.

The point: just about everybody has unique properties about them that would "break the rules" compared to other characters. I absolutely admit that your play has to change for whoever you play against, and I have no problem with this. One mistake has always had the capability of leading to defeat, even when they're not as obvious as it is with Hilde, and I do support a community where flawless play is supported.
 
Sponge said:
What BH, no response to me "Logic Map" you asked for?

Or are you currently searching wikipedia for another variation of (il)logical arguments to try and use to prove your lame-ass point? If that is the case, I suggest you invest a couple of minutes studying the difference between soundness and validity. Your argument is Valid, but not Sound. It isn't so much the argument that makes you look like a tool, just the way you go about discussing it, and talking down to those who disagree. What you fail to realize about your argument is that none of your points are absolute truths, instead they are personal truths that you happen to share with a handful of others. Passing them off as absolute truths is the fallacy of your argument.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-study the difference between validity and soundness.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_valid_and_sound_argument

Thanks for agreeing that my argument is Valid, because it's based on facts, and not Sound, because it's not merely attempting to make sense.


Honestly though, it's obviously only a prediction. Maybe you're the one taking things the wrong way?
 
Ceirnian said:
[edit: This is not directed at you Sponge, I'm just using this quote to start my post.]

Funny, because the death combo has been known about for a very long time. It's been on youtube already for a long time. It's been used in videos for a long time. Norcal, the area where we don't have ANYTHING banned is thriving more than it ever has from what I've been told.

Maybe all you people are just pansy banning bitches and need to learn how to roll with the punches.
Click to expand...

I understand you aren't pointing that at me, etc. but I have to quote when I say I agree ^_^.

I play Taki. I play against a good amount of people, Im not incredible, but I don't suck. I play against one guy in particular that plays Hilde, with a handful of other characters. I don't have any problems with him when he plays those characters, and I feel that I am a better player than him (which is not to be offensive, he is relatively new to the seen, but he is getting better and better). However, when he plays Hilde, it is pretty much a free win.

To some, that means Hilde should be banned.

However, I do not. I don't have a full understanding of her, and haven't played all that much about her. I have no excuse as to why I lose to her other than my own lack of knowledge and preparation.

If some one doesn't want to play because they don't find ways around her, or they see a video on Youtube and decide its "cheap" then so be it, 1 less scrub to cpmplain about everything he can't be bothered to find a way around.

on a side note, I would like to see the doom combo toned down a bit. But banning her over it is silly.
 
BanHilde said:
Maybe you should re-study the difference between validity and soundness.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_valid_and_sound_argument

Thanks for agreeing that my argument is Valid, because it's based on facts, and not Sound, because it's not merely attempting to make sense.


Honestly though, it's obviously only a prediction. Maybe you're the one taking things the wrong way?
Click to expand...

You are correct, and I apologize that I had the two switched.

Now that I have admitted to my mistake, how about you own up to my response on your slippery slope argument?

edit: I see the post now, I will respond after I read it.
 
Sponge said:
on a side note, I would like to see the doom combo toned down a bit. But banning her over it is silly.
Click to expand...

And I agree for now. The consensus is that we should play the wait and see approach.


Organous, I support going for the ideal of flawless play. But when one player has to be completely flawless while the other isn't under the same handicap, I see something wrong there.


Sponge, my arguments in that first post are what they are, my own analysis and predictions. They could be wrong, who knows? It's certainly not a slippery slope though.
 
BanHilde said:
Thanks for agreeing that my argument is Valid, because it's based on facts, and not Sound, because it's not merely attempting to make sense.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you want to talk about facts now? Anytime you start talking about how people feel, how they react, and what they choose to do, you are no longer talking about fact. A fact is something that is provable 100% of the time. It is not even a fact that all people dislike pain, something that would immediately seem to be elementary. You seem to claim it's a fact that it will be the "death knell" to the community, but there is no definition you could make which would label this as a fact (unless you were to take it in the literal, non-metaphorical sense by saying every competitor is going to become legally dead by Hilde being allowed). No, you're talking about opinions and theory, not fact.

Thus, that is all I am going to say to you. You do not know how to debate, you know how to preach. Maybe you watched Thank You for Smoking too much, I don't know, but you only "debate" by claiming your statements are absolute fact and anything to the contrary is absolutely wrong. All you know is how to preach to others, thus your involvement in any kind of debate over Hilde and bans is officially over. Good day, sir.

I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!
 
Organous said:
Ok, so you want to talk about facts now? Anytime you start talking about how people feel, how they react, and what they choose to do, you are no longer talking about fact. A fact is something that is provable 100% of the time. It is not even a fact that all people dislike pain, something that would immediately seem to be elementary. You seem to claim it's a fact that it will be the "death knell" to the community, but there is no definition you could make which would label this as a fact (unless you were to take it in the literal, non-metaphorical sense by saying every competitor is going to become legally dead by Hilde being allowed). No, you're talking about opinions and theory, not fact.

Thus, that is all I am going to say to you. You do not know how to debate, you know how to preach. Maybe you watched Thank You for Smoking too much, I don't know, but you only "debate" by claiming your statements are absolute fact and anything to the contrary is absolutely wrong. All you know is how to preach to others, thus your involvement in any kind of debate over Hilde and bans is officially over. Good day, sir.

I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!
Click to expand...

You should try reading a post completely instead of picking and choosing.
 
C2aa no longer rings out, bam done. I'm not a namco rep so it doesn't matter what I say, I just plan to play the game in an unbanned state. I like fighting Algol :)
 
BanHilde said:
I see that the problem is that you are unable to distinguish the difference between the slippery slope argument and the slippery slope fallacy.

Organous fell into the fallacy by assuming that the same logical reasoning used to ban Hilde would be applied to other characters as well, for superfluous reasons like hitbox issues. Certainly, hitbox issues carries less weight than what Hilde can do. One move leading to a chain of multiple conclusions of banned characters.

My argument is different in that there is only one premise and one conclusion; Doing nothing about Hilde will result in damaging competitive play. The youtube and viewing examples are merely supporting arguments, not a different conclusion. Are you honestly suggesting that people would not watch videos and that word of mouth doesn't spread? It certainly did for VC in SCIII.


You can criticize my post however you like, but you cannot stretch out a lie and call it an argument of fallacy. You're just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that Organous fell into the same fallacy. Just because YOU don't think the issues that people have in fact brought up as reasons to ban a character carry less weight doesn't mean that they actually do.

I am not suggesting that people will not watch videos, and word of mouth doesn't spread. I am, however, suggesting that the videos and the rumors that spread will not destroy soul calibur, like you assume it will.

His argument as well has only one premise and one conclusion; Banning characters because some people don't enjoy playing against them will result in the majority of the characters from being played. The examples of strong characteristics are merely supporting arguments, not a different conclusion.
 
BanHilde said:
Sponge, my arguments in that first post are what they are, my own analysis and predictions. They could be wrong, who knows? It's certainly not a slippery slope though.
Click to expand...

well, I didn't study different styles of arguments, but I read the wiki link you posted, and poked around a bit.

Could you elaborate on how it isn't a slippery slope? Hilde views aside, I am honestly asking because it seems to fit the descriptions.
 
Sponge said:
well, I didn't study different styles of arguments, but I read the wiki link you posted, and poked around a bit.

Could you elaborate on how it isn't a slippery slope? Hilde views aside, I am honestly asking because it seems to fit the descriptions.
Click to expand...

I'll be frank here; the general use of the "slippery slope" fallacy as a logical critique is rife with misuse, hence the POV issues that Organous mentioned earlier.

In my case, the argument starts with a sound but invalid premise that Hilde is a terrible thing for competitive play, which will lead to a dead scene. It's an unestablished statement leading to a possible conclusion...if the first statement were true. A -> B where A is false will imply B is true, by logic. But we don't know yet if A is true or false, and that is the flaw.

In Organous' case, he makes the argument that banning Hilde will lead to other characters being banned, which is the classic case of the "domino effect" in the fallacy. If you divide the logic into IF/THEN statements, this is how it'll look:
If Hilde is banned -> Then Cassandra will be banned
If Cassandra is banned -> Then Tira will be banned
And so on and so forth, a slope that uses the first premise as a reason why the next premise would occur. The problem is that each premise is its own case, because each conclusion does not necessarily lead to the next. When the chain of events is looked at altogether, the likelihood of it occuring as mapped is nil.
 
BanHilde said:
My argument is different in that there is only one premise and one conclusion; Doing nothing about Hilde will result in damaging competitive play.
Click to expand...
That presumes that banning her won't have equally negative or worse repercussions.
 
BanHilde said:
I'll be frank here; the general use of the "slippery slope" fallacy as a logical critique is rife with misuse, hence the POV issues that Organous mentioned earlier.

In my case, the argument starts with a sound but invalid premise that Hilde is a terrible thing for competitive play, which will lead to a dead scene. It's an unestablished statement leading to a possible conclusion...if the first statement were true. A -> B where A is false will imply B is true, by logic. But we don't know yet if A is true or false, and that is the flaw.

In Organous' case, he makes the argument that banning Hilde will lead to other characters being banned, which is the classic case of the "domino effect" in the fallacy. If you divide the logic into IF/THEN statements, this is how it'll look:
If Hilde is banned -> Then Cassandra will be banned
If Cassandra is banned -> Then Tira will be banned
And so on and so forth, a slope that uses the first premise as a reason why the next premise would occur. The problem is that each premise is its own case, because each conclusion does not necessarily lead to the next. When the chain of events is looked at altogether, the likelihood of it occuring as mapped is nil.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the argument he intends to make is solely "if Hilde gets banned". I read it more as "If we start banning characters". Perhaps your current campaign towards Hilde makes you believe that he is focusing more on Hilde as the center of his argument, as opposed to the general banning of any character due to a groups views on the characters alleged unbalanced strengths (I don't believe any group advocating a ban on any SC4 character could be considered a majority, but I could be wrong).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom