Australia
.
This is completely wrong.
Nobody should be using some juvenile highschool "my purpose is to persuade others" format in balance discussion. Someone operating from that basis will deliberately leave out elements that are detrimental to his set point, and dishonestly destroy objective discussion. I see it very often here thoughhere from idiots who think that is the proper form to argue. People think that its better to present things onesidedly, cos that is more "persuasive" and that somehow its the "opposing sides" responsibility to present those deliberate omissions. No, you need to include those yourself. Pathetic really, and completely contrary to having as objective, reasonable, constructive balance discussion.
Presenting cons to your own arguments, does not weaken your arfuments, or the bakance change you are proposing, it strenthens it bymshowing you are aware of them and are working towards the shared goal of better balance.
This isnt some fking "us" vs "them" situation or a goddam schoolyard popularity contest.
There is no "balance" in the format you propose, because you only present one side of the argument specifically because you want to "persuade", rather than unilaterally debate. The purpose is to come to concensus conclusions about good balance, not to bullshit people with a one sided position as forecfully as possible.
The reason the biased "persuasion" format is taught in school, is so that you can RECOGNISE when someone else is doing that bullshit, so that you arent a goddam sheeple and just blindly follow the more biased perspective, and learn to recognise how dishonest and untruthful it is.
Nor does it matter how popular your arguments are. History is filled with unpopular opinions being RIGHT, time and time again, no matter how many shitheads laugh at it and troll its expressor.
Anyways, sorry rant. I know younwhere just trying to help, but its a pet peeve of mine.
None of us should be trying to persuade anyone. Present your arguments, back them up with explanations and evidence, and show that you have considered the other "side". Then its everyone elses turn to see which arguments they disagree with, present their counter-arguments, support them with explanations and evidence and show that they have considered the original position. And so on.
He was reasonable, until some people started being unreasonable in response. Tbh If I was mod Id remove about half of the replies and tell those posters that if they want to participate in balance discussion, they have to actually present their arguments as related to topic, with explanations and evidence, and not with lol and trolling responses and ad hominem.
"Lol u retard L2P" iornother ad hominem trolling is not a fucking valid response, especially not in balance discussions.
If you disagree with someones points, then indicate which ones you disagree with, and present a coherent rebuttal.
If someone is not prepared to take the time and courtesy to do so, they can kindly fuck off to 4chan or reddit, and they wont be missed by any of the people who want actual balance discussion, most of which whom are lurkers and come here to see good and unilateral balance discussion about key issues, not some shitheads posting "L2P tard lol".
You only read 1st sentence WiFIDi wrote didn't you?
He also wrote this 'A theme that seems to be forming is that you don't haven't brought any evidence to the table. you are proposing changing the game for thousands of coh2 players just saying because i said so isn't enough.'
Which is largely what your entire point is, and WiFiDi's as well.
Tho it needs a bit deciphering to get the point of it
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
