Well Scamp, we really don't fundamentally disagree as far as I can tell. I am perfectly aware that the longer something is the less people will bother with it and care. This also applies to things as they get more abstruse. If I was forced to write some blurb to catch people's attention and generate interest on a large scale, obviously I'd tone down my language to a more sedate, everyday (for most people) level as well as be as concise as possible. However, I'm not doing that. I was going about expounding upon concepts that aren't particularly blatant and that, thus, require a certain amount of justification and examples before I could expect people to accept them. I didn't really expect to change many people's minds. Bumble Bee Tuna brought up the example of arguing religion with people, and it certainly applies here. Most people, for varying reasons, will stick to whatever they happen to believe and there is simply NOTHING that you can possibly do to persuade them, no matter how much evidence you can bring to bear. The majority simply doesn't work on a logical level. They simply chose one camp (in this case items or no-items) for personalized, often subconscious, reasons and will stick to them until death. The people who are most receptive to change, I've found, are people who are logically, scientifically minded people on some level. These types are generally more intellectual, and perfectly capable of understanding what I say, if not word for word then the concepts certainly. I lay out my reasoning as exhaustively as I can to give them something useful to think about. Change only (logically) occurs with new information or perspectives. Short, even pithy, phrases and analogies are simply futile, as they don't provide people with any real information that they can possibly use to change their mind. Everyone is perfectly aware of the dichotomy between item lovers and not, but very few ever bother to go through all the possible pros and cons, much less to experiment to confirm their musings.
And as for my flaming Mattdeezie... You failed to quote my statement of "I was being somewhat unprofessional in this manner as well, granted, but only in direct response to such from yourself.". Yeah, I was insulting him right back. But that's the thing, you will notice that my insults only occur directly after posts where he was insulting. I never claimed to possess, nor do I want the moral high ground. And obviously I'm frustrated, as anyone reasonable in my circumstance would be, and will retaliate. If this makes me lose credibility in some people's eyes tis unfortunate... But I'm confident that anyone fundamentally sane will realize the superiority of my position (even if they prefer items) in this case. That being of someone logical trying to defend his points logically, and being countered with petty meaningless insults and unjustified (though you're right, generally not vague) counter-arguments. And in turn pointing out the exactitudefs of this and the nature of his opposition... which happens to be quite insulting indeed in this case.
Well then, onto the joy that is responding to Mattdeezie. I, strangely, agree with most of what you say in your first paragraph. Long, though meaningless, posts are quite annoying and tedious. The problem with your intent though is that it simply doesn't apply to me. You seem to be the only one unable to extract meaning from my writing (well, that isn't true, but I'll ignore people of m1nds caliber). All of my paragraphs, and furthermore all of my sentences do in fact convey information in the form of points. Go back and try to find a paragraph my myself that did not clearly express some point of mine, or that wasn't making distinct counter arguments. You won't be able to. Simply put, you are insane, or have very low reading comprehension if you think that I don't make any.
You say that I ignored repeated requests by yourself to justify myself. This simply isn't the case. When you made your initial demand for such, Eoraptor shortly put up a summary of most of them. I was confident that it would satisfy such, but, grantedly partially due to his layout you were displeased with this. Okay, so then I made this paragraph in the last statement before I disappeared:
"About how Eoraptor's post explained everything to you, from what you say, I have to disagree and say that it obviously explained nothing. The way that he set up his argument/counter-argument system makes it so that several anti-item arguments are placed within the top. Furthermore, arguments 2, 3, 5, and 7 for pro items aren't relevant, but were listed there for completionfs sake. "Items add fun" for instance, doesn't pertain to whether they should be used in tournaments very much, does it? Arguments 4 and 6 are heavily disputed, and if he had listed anti-arguments first, they would have been listed there. Number 8 is valid, but there is a solution that can be brought about without items that is more effective. This leaves you with 1, 9, 10, and 11 that are valid and largely undisputed reasons that could not also be used for the opposite side of the debate. So please actually try reading the posts that you insist on commenting on, I would like to say once again.
So yes, the main anti-item arguments include the five or so distinct ways in which randomness is bad. It is utterly at odds with the tenants of tournament play, and thus takes on a very important role for purposes of this debate. They also include other important things such as "Items make character effectiveness potential more disparate." (Read: decrease balance by making the best characters comparatively better and the worst comparatively worse. This is inherently bad, as balance one of the primary goals in fighters). As well as that items decrease complexity in some meaningful ways, largely due to the skill sets associated with them being overwhelmingly important compared to all but only a couple of the others. This leaves the anti-item arguments with A1-A5 (the many ways in which randomness is bad, except for the belief of mine that items bring the winning % closer to 50 among people of near, but not quite, equal skill, which was mentioned extensively but ignored. I will call this A6. This will be tested by the results of the experiment that Eoraptor is performing.), and a modified version of 4 and 6. "
This clearly states several points, and furthermore illustrates that YOU actually have very few points to lean on. Less than I. As admitted, many of my points are related to randomness. There is a large variety of ways in which it is inimical to competitive gameplay. I was forced to explain each of these quite extensively. I also explained extensively the other points that I brought up, stated in the above paragraph. So actually, you will note, each time you demanded a synopsis, it was provided for you. The fact that you simply chose to ignore them wasn't any of my doing. I attack your intelligence largely because you seem oblivious to the fact that I am making such.
You will note three major claims (unbalancing factor, over-importance of the skill set, and drift in results toward a neutral value), in addition to the many randomness reasons. I have backed these all up thoroughly, and have evidence in the form of many, many recorded matches that supports all of them. Feel free to perform the same tests that I have. Any of you; more data never hurts (unless of course someone lies). You will come up with nearly the same results, accounting for personal variation to an extent. Apparently you don't consider evidence a valid form of argument, but other people do and you can only draw certain conclusions from particular data sets. They all fit with my beliefs.
And this assertion of yours that "Randomness said 5 different ways is still randomness." is one of the reasons why I find it difficult to refrain from insults. You act as if it was but a singular, minor reason. Can you not comprehend that the various aspects of items that are somehow related to randomness can each be important? The five reasons pointed out are all quite distinct and have a profound effect on gameplay. Sure, they all stem in some fashion from randomness. That doesn't make them all one reason though.
Did I ever say intelligence was directly correlated to a big vocabulary? No. Out of all the possible beliefs regarding the subject, mine are the farthest possible from such a biased and unjustified one. I couldn't agree more with you. It has nothing at all to do with ones knowledge base, including vocabulary. I certainly don't judge you, or anyone, unintelligent for that reason. Being perceptive of, as you say, people pulling crap over your eyes is much more indicative. Why I question yours so much has to do with the fact that you would seem to be distinctly UNperceptive, and couldn't recognize a point if it was shoved through your eye. You seem able to recognize something as a point only if it is stated in a list format that can't use any word with more than three syllables.
Well, needless to say, you obviously disgust me as well. So I throw out counter-insults. Did I ever accuse you of flaming, though? I said that they were gratuitous. Because they don't fit the criteria for a flame doesn't make them applicable.
And, as a closing note in the same vein as yours... I can only hope that the world isn't plagued with many people like you, who see one (or no) points where multitudes abound. And furthermore I hope that people have enough sense in general not to be swayed by your blather about such in the face of evidence to the contrary.
