Thread:ゆーたん/@comment-9693174-20161120063433/@comment-25114063-20161120121114

Original text is as follows:

@rules should apply to everyone or none: Rules are fucking subjective. No matter how much you try to make them pbhective, they never are. Even the government takes a case-to-case approach in modt crimes, if not all. If a human made it, it will never be objective. Rules have opinions in them, and the moment they do they stop being objective.

You're talking about human laws. Rules, particularly mathematical ones, are perfectly objective.

If that person X misinterprets what I say, that's not my problem. That person isn't involved in the arguement and has no right to say anything about the way I act. He can still tell me his opinion and how he thinks I should act, but he shouldn't be able to tell me that I'm wrong and this is how I should do it.

Self-contradictory statements. Consider revising. Consider:


 * The person has no right to say anything about the way you act.
 * The person can tell you about his opinions about the way you act.

Only one of these can be your position, not both.

Again, you're a Discussion Moderator. Your job is to make sure discussions don't get cancerous, not individuals.

"You're a security analyst responsible for gun control. Your job is to make sure guns don't kill people, not people."

If I were you, I would really drop the "I'm objective" attitude. No one is objective in their opinions because that's a contradiction.

Wasn't that self-explanatory?

Everyone will have biases. You saying that Card X is bad is an opinion, and you saying Swearing is bad is also an opinion. Everything you and me are saying are opinions.

I never recall saying that swearing was bad. Would you kindly link me to a source?

Now let me clearly define what facts, opinions, and beliefs are, because you appear to be unaware.

"Card X is bad," is a belief. "The meta doesn't use Card X so Card X is bad," is an opinion. "Card X is bad in terms of monetary cost, as it costs more, but good in terms of effect, as it can perform the same effect as card Y for the same cost, as well as additional effects for an additional cost," is a fact.

Regarding cards, a Monte Carlo experiment will prove the veracity of my statement, and if not, will accurately prove the 'good/bad' aspects of the card. Card design can also be quantified according to game theory. In fact, cards can be 'bad' in terms of base power but 'good' in terms of effect, or vice versa. The definitions are relative to already existing cards as well, eliminating human bias towards them for subjective reasons. What I'm giving you are facts, not opinions or beliefs.

To me, it looks like you're taking the standpoint of "I'm right in this case", which leads to you saying that what you're saying here is objective. While I also think that I'm the one in right here, I'm open to your ideas and biases. That's how a discussion should go, especially with an admin about problems in the wiki. People will never be objective. They need to include biases in their statements in order to adress them.

I'm open to your opinions, facts, and biases. But your opinions and biases are not what I'm arguing for. It's the facts, or lack of them. The processes involved with considering facts are objective. The processes involved when considering opinions is subjective. Facts can be 'true' or 'false' while opinions cannot be decided upon. I'm not pushing for complete objectivity, and I never was. What I'm pushing for is factual citations, data, etc. that will support your case.

If you reply to this point saying people can be objective, you're wrong, because you just stated an opinion. Just stop being an egotistic jerk who thinks that she's objectively right in everything, and I'll be cool with this entire convo.

And I just did reply, with objective proof to boot. Argumentum ad hominem does not make a valid point in this discussion.