RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - 3D Movement In M&M Games
View Single Post


January 29th, 2014, 11:58
Originally Posted by Morrandir View Post
Indeed I missed this one.

Exactly. I'd go so far to say that a discussion makes sense only if there are different opinions.
But when you argue about if some entity has a certain attribute, all parties should have the same idea of this attribute. If not, the argument itself is pointless.
One theory of mine is that everyone would agree if they had the same idea about all attributes.

But if you really think that's something you can achieve on a public from like this, then we simply disagree.

For people to establish whether they agree on an "attribute" - they have to enter any exchange with a very open mind - and they HAVE to believe they can be entirely wrong about everything and the other side can be entirely right. Beyond that, they need the patience and ability to read information without error - and the other side needs to deliver information without error as well.

Unfortunately, it's my experience that the VAST majority of people who enter into a debate with an aggressive stance is neither capable or interested in such an exchange - and language is extremely flawed when it comes to precision. All words refer to other words - and if you want certainty - it's an endless cycle of going from association to association.

Not for me, sorry.

Wow… ok… I would have never called Infinity games 3D. But if that's the common perception, I defineteley learned something here.
Why would my definition be the common perception? I think Avatar is a piece of shit movie - but obviously the majority disagrees.

Well, one thing I've learnt (not only in science lectures) is that if there's some "problem" (like an exercise, a discussion etc.) you have to make sure that everyone involved exactly understands the occuring concept, no matter if its in mathematical, linguistical, economical or social or whatever context.
That's why I'm asking questions that seem dull or might have very simple answers.
You can never be sure that anyone exactly understands anything - really. You can hope and pray, but that's about it.

If you agree - you could still be wrong about the basis for agreement. Agreement is not terribly interesting to me - nor do I think it's particularly valuable.

The way to establish understanding is through rational argument - as that will clearly reveal what the other side means when they talk about a concept.

If it turns out they're talking about something else entirely - then you've learned that.

I can't make Craig agree with my understanding of 3D - and an amiable compromise regarding his way and my way was lost immediately with his attitude.

Well, theoretically you would need to do this, yes. But as you said, thats practically impossible. I think you realy need to to this for the concepts/words, that are most "important" to a discussion. Yeah, of course, how to you decide for theses words. Not trivial, but I think in this actual discussion, the concept of "3D" is a term that needed to be defined.
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing how you establish this common understanding in future debates. Maybe there's an easier and more practical way that I'm missing.

To me, "3D" is an EXTREMELY simple concept - and I never expected anyone would confuse 3D with vector math. But I learned that through our debate.

It was a useful debate and it was mildly entertaining. If we'd started out amiably (impossible in this case) - we might have agreed upon the concept of 3D and there wouldn't have been a debate. Would that have been better or more useful for people participating? You seem to have gained more from the debate than two people agreeing immediately.

I'll be watching




Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)