[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by busyrobot

Even inductive logic requires limited observations to back it up, what observations do you feel back up your assertions in this case?

Experiences of human nature. I do, of course, assume that other people have similar experiences.

You cited the demon fellow thread, though there was clear disproval of that and I doubt he will be up playing backstory anytime soon in any rping

I think your "doubts" are worth precisely diddley-squat. Anyway, we're discussing this above.

Then there is Shawn, though his backstory has only led to enchancing the roleplaying of GK

I've already said that I don't particularly object to Shawn's character. Strawmanning again.

then there is Gryf, whom you assert supports egocentric 'bad' backstories. He however, arrived at his backstory when an entire new race was added to 2k1

Again you are misrepresenting my argument. I do not oppose Gryffon's story solely because of his species - that is just one factor.

Anyway, why should the invention of a race be excused just because it happened a long time ago? How many birdmen were there on 2K1? And lastly, moving a character from 2K1 to GK is not something that should be done casually. They are different worlds with different styles. Migrating without considering the suitability of your character is an example of poor roleplaying.

I would say that the observations to date support that they are, as these problems have not arisen

Assertion.

You are talking to people who have a lot more experience with him to deduce his motives from than just reading one backstory

Well, I am talking to hundreds of people, potentially. Some of them will have more experience with him than I. Hopefully they have the sense to recognise his faults, too.

You may as well be claiming that gryffon is a cruel person based on a hand writting analysis

Begging the question. Your comparison assumes the very claim it's supposed to support; that the event on which I'm judging him is not representative of his character.

Um.....are there even any more examples of people with 'whacky backstories' to use as examples?

Exactly. Your claim is predicated on the inaccuracy of your earlier assertions. If you want to argue that there are never any unsuitable characters then you cannot make claims about how the community deals with them. One or the other, dude. Choose.

I knew that would be your argument and I would ask you to point out the subtle differences of nuance you implied when you used these two words which, are generally interchangeable when it comes to a debate of this nature

The only people that use them interchangeable are those who don't know the difference between them. They are completely different terms. By your logic, no human can ever make an impartial judgement, correct?

Your preferred method for regulation fails when implemented by unreasonable people, as would any

I have already covered this point below. Layers of redundancy, dude.

it has seemed to work so far

Assertion.

His use was limited to thinking it over and hadn't shared it with enough people to find people don't like those sorts of backstories

According to him, he's been carrying that heart around for a while now. Do you have any grounds on which to say that he hasn't been outwardly playing the character?

You seem to think that these players don't know each other or act more competitively than cooperatively

You seem to think that these players act more cooperatively than competitively.

I simply favor and am among the 'other kingdoms' as opposed to CP. I personally of the opinion that bugging boats results in no naval abilities whatsoever

You clearly implied that to do so was not an example of roleplaying. Do you think you have the authority to make such a claim?

You asked for an example of a problem and I gave you one

It is only a problem to those who get "bugged", right? I'm pretty sure the pirates aren't shedding any tears over it. If they were interested in being reasonable, cooperative roleplayers, they wouldn't be doing it.

I just gave you the definintion of what I would consider the attributes that make a kingdom decent

Which are the "decent kingdoms"?

I wanted the context you were using the word in or a clarification of your statement where you used it

What exactly needs to be clarified? It all seems quite simple to me.

See you proved my point on this one. Your example is flawed because you are comparing what actually does behave the same - water - (well drainage can be enormously different but that is not where you were going) between the two communities to something that is different

See, you are begging the question again.

I agree that water behaves the same between towns. In the example, you are the one arguing that it does not.