Debate on Fire Emblem debating

[Masu]

[*]What went wrong?

People began to get their opinions shot down by ppl who think they know everything and are always right who always repeat "PEMN!!!! (personal experience means nothing)"

[*]Why did it go wrong?

I dont really wanna point fingers but *sighs* Tino Swordsalmon and Gulcassa seem to be the main debate starters

[*]What do you think about the concept of FE debating?

It sucks and is useless because everyone experiences different things since stat gains are random. I have shitty ike's all the time in PoR and Godly Boyd's so im often seen saying "Boyd>ike" PEME.(guess what this means)

[*]What do you think when you see FE debating?

"For the love of god not again." or "Well once again another topic has been raped"

[*]What is Serenes Forest?

A fire emblem resource site. Also a great forum to have fun with others. And it is obviously seen debating IS NOT enjoyed by anyone here let alone 4 or 5 ppl. Now just saying "NO MORE DEBATING" is indeed unfair but it would be nice if a debate forum was made so the frequent debaters can take it there and stop turning topics ppl make bassed off of opinions into a train wreck with ppl wanting to tear ppl's testicles off.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

What I wanna know is how many of you master debators is from Gfaqs.

If being from Gfaqs is a problem, you can just ban me right now.

I can't understand why debates result in flaming, why go that far when you're trying to establish a point? It only makes debates look like they're a terrible thing, kind of like how the meaning of the word "critique" got fucked over.

[Masu]

If being from Gfaqs is a problem, you can just ban me right now.

I can't understand why debates result in flaming, why go that far when you're trying to establish a point? It only makes debates look like they're a terrible thing, kind of like how the meaning of the word "critique" got fucked over.

I frequent Gfaqs myself. Well im actually a active contributor for some games.

Ugh im too use to typing it. I didnt even mean to put GfaGs this time. Sorry.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Masuda

[Allan's Aokage]

What went wrong?

Swordsalmon *stabbed* As has been stated, the tree of debating began to grow within the Forest and rapidly grew, hiding certain trees from the sunlight and hence causing the trees that were now under the debate tree to strike at the debate tree with natural defences, causing this little mess.

Why did it go wrong?

Some smaller trees did not like being under the debate tree and the icing on the cake was the colossal leaf known as the General Debate Structure, which annoyed a good deal of the Forest trees.

What do you think about the concept of FE debate?

I'm indifferent - I do not participate in debates and neither do I want to. While I enjoy debating, debating over Fire Emblem sometimes bores me. I do not wish to hurl the same s**t that has been thrown at the debaters and neither do I want to throw said s**t at the anti-debaters. I'll stay firmly on my fence, thank you very much. PEMN is irritating after the fortieth or so time, though.

What do you think when you see FE debating?

"Beep. *clicks on topic*"

What is Serenes Forest?

A collection of trees, with the occasional oak.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Allan's Aokage

[DeSu]

• What went wrong?
  
• Why did it go wrong?
  
• What do you think about the concept of FE debating?
  
• What do you think when you see FE debating?
  
• What is Serenes Forest?
  

It seems that many of the debaters seem to think we are being overly aggressive. I'd like to point some things out from a SF frequenter's perspective of what you guys did.

1. It wasn't just that you guys appeared or tried to change things. It was simply a crossing of ideals.

2. As said earlier, non-debaters go about things based on opinion. Yes, we may have debates of our own, but they are all light-hearted. Debaters' brought their way, which we aren't compleeetely against, but don't really like. However, when they start forcing it on people, it's REALLY disliked. Like, seriously disliked. It doesn't help that you completely shoot down everyone's opinions. You can say "Oh, we're not serious about it.", but if you continually say "Your opinion is wrong this is why." "You can't prove me wrong, so I win." and "X character sucks because ___, don't bother using him", you're going to piss people off. Often you will state some "fact" and then when I person tries to counter you say something like "Obviously you didn't read my post so I'll make it clear again", and post THE EXACT SAME POST. Your constant dismissal of other's idea's and opinion tends to annoy me. I won't be so arrogant as to speak for the rest of the forest.

3. I'm fine with debating, but only for fun. I don't look to change people other than to get them to give X character a chance, or explain why I think X character is good/ not good.

4. I like to read and participate, so long as I don't get something like "LUL, you're in the wrong for liking Nino because she isn't Erk." If somebody was like "Oh, I think Erk is better because X and X." Then it's an opinion, which is exactly what this game is about. It is NOT a fact that Erk is better. It's just what you define as better. That was just an example.

5. Serenes is a place that I go often. It is a fun place, with fun people and I get many of my advice from players of FE here. Even if I show disdain for the debaters, I do respect their OPINION on things, and it has helped me to improve my FE playing skills.

[Meteor]

What went wrong?

Why did it go wrong?

What do you think about the concept of FE debating?

What do you think when you see FE debating?

What is Serenes Forest?

-People started getting their toes stepped on by people challenging the standards.

-The "authority" figures started being told they were wrong.

-It is 100% appropriate.

-FE discussions trying to eliminate opinion from the equation.

-A website for all things Fire Emblem. Opinions or otherwise.

[Leonri]

PEMN is the most annoying thing used by debators, to detract from characters they don't like. Though it's valid in some cases, like the RNG, when it comes to actual performance, PE is good way to tell a good character without going into too much detail. Here's why......

Why personal experience means something (though not everything):

PE is a very good indicator of a character's worth, (barring RNG screwage, which is rare) especially over several playthrough's.

Why? Because you're not going to have a good experience with bad characters. The debators rules allow us to come up with a hypothesis of sorts. They could say, for example, (as they often do) looking at X,Y and Z Rolf is worse than Lucia. This must then be tested, by using both Rolf and Lucia and comparing performance. This is what debators often fail to do, while non-debators do this and come to different conclusions. The non-debators can clearly see the Rolf beats Lucia everywhere, from using them both several times, while the debators say this arguement is useless, leading to big fights.

The debators are blinded by their own incomplete rules.

So, in conclusion, PEMS!

[_____]

-People started getting their toes stepped on by people challenging the standards.

-The "authority" figures started being told they were wrong.

-It is 100% appropriate.

-FE discussions trying to eliminate opinion from the equation.

-A website for all things Fire Emblem. Opinions or otherwise.

._. What standards were being challenged just by debating?

[Tino]

PEMN is the most annoying thing used by debators, to detract from characters they don't like. Though it's valid in some cases, like the RNG, when it comes to actual performance, PE is good way to tell a good character without going into too much detail. Here's why......

Why personal experience means something (though not everything):

PE is a very good indicator of a character's worth, (barring RNG screwage, which is rare) especially over several playthrough's.

Why? Because you're not going to have a good experience with bad characters. The debators rules allow us to come up with a hypothesis of sorts. They could say, for example, (as they often do) looking at X,Y and Z Rolf is worse than Lucia. This must then be tested, by using both Rolf and Lucia and comparing performance. This is what debators often fail to do, while non-debators do this and come to different conclusions. The non-debators can clearly see the Rolf beats Lucia everywhere, from using them both several times, while the debators say this arguement is useless, leading to big fights.

The debators are blinded by their own incomplete rules.

So, in conclusion, PEMS!

Yes, and one time you indeed see that Rolf < Lucia, and another time you see that Rolf > Lucia. Personal experience means nothing, and never will.

[Leonri]

Yes, and one time you indeed see that Rolf < Lucia, and another time you see that Rolf > Lucia. Personal experience means nothing, and never will.

Yes, but only with serious RNG screwage, which almost never happens. If you get a character awful, over and over again, that generally means there good. Same with them being good. Doesn't matter how good it sounds on paper it must be borne out in real life too.

[Tino]

Yes, but only with serious RNG screwage, which almost never happens. If you get a character awful, over and over again, that generally means there good. Same with them being good. Doesn't matter how good it sounds on paper it must be borne out in real life too.

A character can be screwed just as easily as blessed. It's perfectly possible to see a Boyd with everything below 15, but it's also perfectly possible to see a Boyd with everything above 20.

And here's a funny thing. You can't do it in real life because of the Random Number Generator. Sure, in FE9 there's Fixed Mode, but that also has things that can alter stats completely. This is one of the things that can't be done in real life, and that's why we use averages, to determine which character has the highest odds of being good and which character the lowest.

[VincentASM]

Since some people have brought it up here...

I don't see why it's so hard to accept average stats when debating/analysing/etc characters. It's not as if people just conjured them out of thin air o__o

Everyone here should understand the concept of probability- It's a fact that, more often than not, characters will tend towards their average stats. If that's not a fact, everyone should be winning the lottery. Okay, that was a bad argument...

The point is, there has to be standards for deciding character stats. If you don't use average stats, what do you use? My hacked RNG blessed characters?

Okay, the RNG may prevent average stats from being completely true. However, if we accept the RNG as being the only true thing, what's the point in debating characters? When someone asks, is Nino good? Shall we just continue going, "yeah,no, because my Nino owns/capped all her stats at Level 1 Sage/sucks!". But we're not getting anywhere there...

Edited October 6, 2008 by VincentASM

[DeSu]

Since some people have brought it up here...

I don't see why it's so hard to accept average stats when debating/analysing/etc characters. It's not as if people just conjured them out of thin air o__o

Everyone here should understand the concept of probability- It's a fact that, more often than not, characters will tend towards their average stats. If that's not a fact, everyone should be winning the lottery. Okay, that was a bad argument...

The point is, there has to be standards for deciding character stats. If you don't use average stats, what do you use? My hacked RNG blessed characters?

Okay, the RNG may prevent average stats from being completely true. However, if we accept the RNG as being the only true thing, what's the point in debating characters? When someone asks, is Nino good? Shall we just continue going, "yeah,no, because my Nino owns/capped all her stats at Level 1 Sage/sucks!". But we're not getting anywhere there...

I have no clue. Non debators don't debate, we say "OMG So-and-so is awesome, you should give them a try!" or "This person is lame, I don't like them!" Debators SEEM to see anything like this as "SHOW ME YA MOVES", and retort with "you are wrong for liking this person, here's why." type things... Then they get upset when people are like GTFO. They have been told multiple times that this makes them look like arrogant jerks, but they blow it off with "lern2debait". Sorry if I'm ranting :x

[Tino]

I have no clue. Non debators don't debate, we say "OMG So-and-so is awesome, you should give them a try!" or "This person is lame, I don't like them!" Debators SEEM to see anything like this as "SHOW ME YA MOVES", and retort with "you are wrong for liking this person, here's why." type things... Then they get upset when people are like GTFO. They have been told multiple times that this makes them look like arrogant jerks, but they blow it off with "lern2debait". Sorry if I'm ranting :x

We have never said one's opinion was wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but give me an example then.

All we did was correct statements made or argue against statements made.

And I don't know, but people who say "get the fuck out" seem more like jerks than people who are trying to teach people how debating works.

Trying to teach something to people doesn't make you seem like a jerk, unless the students are complete jerks.

[Florete]

I don't see why it's so hard to accept average stats when debating/analysing/etc characters. It's not as if people just conjured them out of thin air o__o

Everyone here should understand the concept of probability- It's a fact that, more often than not, characters will tend towards their average stats. If that's not a fact, everyone should be winning the lottery. Okay, that was a bad argument...

The point is, there has to be standards for deciding character stats. If you don't use average stats, what do you use? My hacked RNG blessed characters?

Okay, the RNG may prevent average stats from being completely true. However, if we accept the RNG as being the only true thing, what's the point in debating characters? When someone asks, is Nino good? Shall we just continue going, "yeah,no, because my Nino owns/capped all her stats at Level 1 Sage/sucks!". But we're not getting anywhere there...

I don't completely ignore average stats, but RNG is the only true thing. Think about it; One point away from the average in almost any stat can have a decently big impact on playing. Here's how:

HP - Living or dying. Everyone's had a character get down to one HP/get killed exactly. What if said character hadn't/had gotten one HP on that last level?

Str - Death or mercy to the enemy.

Spd - A big one. Dodging or taking the hit, doubling or not. Living/dying, death/mercy.

Skill - Hitting or missing. Criticaling or not.

Luck - Not too important...

def - Living or dying. See HP

Res - Living or dying. See HP

One stat point can make a difference. That's why I don't judge characters based on them. This is why I see debates with their standards as pointless.

We have never said one's opinion was wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but give me an example then.

All we did was correct statements made or argue against statements made.

And I don't know, but people who say "get the fuck out" seem more like jerks than people who are trying to teach people how debating works.

Trying to teach something to people doesn't make you seem like a jerk, unless the students are complete jerks.

You don't think you've done it because you don't realize it's an opinion. If I say Rolf is a good character, I mean that as an opinion. Most people would see an understand "in my opinion" at the end of that sentence, but it seems like debators see an understood "and that's the truth of the matter, you can't prove me wrong." And so you challenge something that wasn't asking to be challenged. You can't correct an opinion.

I have no clue. Non debators don't debate, we say "OMG So-and-so is awesome, you should give them a try!" or "This person is lame, I don't like them!" Debators SEEM to see anything like this as "SHOW ME YA MOVES", and retort with "you are wrong for liking this person, here's why." type things... Then they get upset when people are like GTFO. They have been told multiple times that this makes them look like arrogant jerks, but they blow it off with "lern2debait". Sorry if I'm ranting :x

PEMN is the most annoying thing used by debators, to detract from characters they don't like. Though it's valid in some cases, like the RNG, when it comes to actual performance, PE is good way to tell a good character without going into too much detail. Here's why......

Why personal experience means something (though not everything):

PE is a very good indicator of a character's worth, (barring RNG screwage, which is rare) especially over several playthrough's.

Why? Because you're not going to have a good experience with bad characters. The debators rules allow us to come up with a hypothesis of sorts. They could say, for example, (as they often do) looking at X,Y and Z Rolf is worse than Lucia. This must then be tested, by using both Rolf and Lucia and comparing performance. This is what debators often fail to do, while non-debators do this and come to different conclusions. The non-debators can clearly see the Rolf beats Lucia everywhere, from using them both several times, while the debators say this arguement is useless, leading to big fights.

The debators are blinded by their own incomplete rules.

So, in conclusion, PEMS!

I love these posts.

[Swordsalmon]

I have no clue. Non debators don't debate, we say "OMG So-and-so is awesome, you should give them a try!" or "This person is lame, I don't like them!" Debators SEEM to see anything like this as "SHOW ME YA MOVES", and retort with "you are wrong for liking this person, here's why." type things... Then they get upset when people are like GTFO. They have been told multiple times that this makes them look like arrogant jerks, but they blow it off with "lern2debait". Sorry if I'm ranting :x

Except we actually give concrete reasons why Character X is good. Also, the fact that people are resorting to flaming shows that they're on the wrong. ^_^

And I don't know, but people who say "get the fuck out" seem more like jerks than people who are trying to teach people how debating works.

Heck, the former is against the rules. >__>

I don't completely ignore average stats, but RNG is the only true thing. Think about it; One point away from the average in almost any stat can have a decently big impact on playing. Here's how:

HP - Living or dying. Everyone's had a character get down to one HP/get killed exactly. What if said character hadn't/had gotten one HP on that last level?

Str - Death or mercy to the enemy.

Spd - A big one. Dodging or taking the hit, doubling or not. Living/dying, death/mercy.

Skill - Hitting or missing. Criticaling or not.

Luck - Not too important...

def - Living or dying. See HP

Res - Living or dying. See HP

One stat point can make a difference. That's why I don't judge characters based on them. This is why I see debates with their standards as pointless.

You don't think you've done it because you don't realize it's an opinion. If I say Rolf is a good character, I mean that as an opinion. Most people would see an understand "in my opinion" at the end of that sentence, but it seems like debators see an understood "and that's the truth of the matter, you can't prove me wrong." And so you challenge something that wasn't asking to be challenged. You can't correct an opinion.

I love these posts.

And all of those stats have been calculated with near-perfect accuracy in averages. They're the only way to properly show stats per level.

Again, the standards have been fine-tuned and logical. The aim in Fire Emblem is to beat the game, and the standards reflect that.

Except your opinion on Rofl has been disproven many times, making him not a good character.

[Florete]

And all of those stats have been calculated with near-perfect accuracy in averages. They're the only way to properly show stats per level.

Again, the standards have been fine-tuned and logical. The aim in Fire Emblem is to beat the game, and the standards reflect that.

Except your opinion on Rofl has been disproven many times, making him not a good character.

For the love of god, stop calling him Rofl, it's so annoying.

Near-perfect isn't perfect, nothing is. One stat can too easily happen, and can too easily make a difference.

Beating the game can be done in many, many different ways, no one method being any more efficient than another.

You can't disprove an opinion, it's impossible. You can persuade and alter one, but it can't proven wrong no matter how many numbers and scenarios you shove in our faces.

[Tino]

You don't think you've done it because you don't realize it's an opinion. If I say Rolf is a good character, I mean that as an opinion. Most people would see an understand "in my opinion" at the end of that sentence, but it seems like debators see an understood "and that's the truth of the matter, you can't prove me wrong." And so you challenge something that wasn't asking to be challenged. You can't correct an opinion.

You've got to be kidding me.

"Rolf is good" is obviously a statement that says that Rolf is good. I don't care about all the understoods you want it to have, but when you say "Rolf is good" you state that he is good, and that has nothing to do with opinions.

Near-perfect isn't perfect, nothing is. One stat can too easily happen, and can too easily make a difference.

Beating the game can be done in many, many different ways, no one method being any more efficient than another.

You can't disprove an opinion, it's impossible. You can persuade and alter one, but it can't proven wrong no matter how many numbers and scenarios you shove in our faces.

They're not near-perfect, they are perfect.

[Florete]

You've got to be kidding me.

"Rolf is good" is obviously a statement that says that Rolf is good. I don't care about all the understoods you want it to have, but when you say "Rolf is good" you state that he is good, and that has nothing to do with opinions.

You just proved my point in that you're not getting that the statement is meant as an opinion. Thing is, people here don't usually state it so bluntly. Normally it would be more like "I like Rolf, he's pretty good" or "Rolf usually turns out pretty well" that are more obviously opinionated.

They're not near-perfect, they are perfect.

SS said near-perfect himself. And they aren't perfect. Perfection is something we strive to achieve but never will.

[DeSu]

Except we actually give concrete reasons why Character X is good. Also, the fact that people are resorting to flaming shows that they're on the wrong. ^_^

Except your opinion on Rofl has been disproven many times, making him not a good character.

THIS IS THE SHIT IM TALKING ABOUT. You can't disprove someone's opinion. Whether or not a character is good depends on OPINION. Niño has shit availability, but great stats. That makes her GOOD IMO. Erk has great availability, but crap stats. That makes him good in your opinion. You CONSTANTLY state things as facts, constantly say people are wrong, you are right. GET OFF THE FUCKING HIGH HORSE_{stupid paladin}. You have to be extremely unsensetive to not see how this could annoy/anger/upset people.

The flaming is done out of extreme frustration, similar to when a parent yells at a child for constant misbehavior. I would say that you flame as well, but in a less blunt manner. I go for the blatant ""I don't like you/you're ways" approach, while you go for "I'm going to piss all over your ideas" approach.

And we don't SAY GTFO. Its what we think. GTFO stated was to emphasize how people wanted the debaters to stop.

SS, you seem to have a hard time understanding, so sorry if I seem harsh. Tino appears to have learned how to explain his ways in a debate without stepping all over people. I have no problem with Tino. He has my respect. Watch him and learn.

[Rehab]

Aside: I don't think SS or Tina ever called anybody a cunt. 8T

[Tino]

You just proved my point in that you're not getting that the statement is meant as an opinion. Thing is, people here don't usually state it so bluntly. Normally it would be more like "I like Rolf, he's pretty good" or "Rolf usually turns out pretty well" that are more obviously opinionated.

SS said near-perfect himself. And they aren't perfect. Perfection is something we strive to achieve but never will.

And guess what? Such statements are not challenged. Not by me, at least. I don't know about the others, though.

Yes, and he was wrong. They are perfect. You don't call mathematically correctly calculated numbers (also known as hard facts) perfect/correct? That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is not correct.

[Florete]

Aside: I don't think SS or Tina ever called anybody a cunt. 8T

What does that have to do with it?

[Tino]

Well, we're getting flamed quite a lot, while we haven't flamed at all, I think.

But indeed, it has nothing to do with the discussion :/

[Florete]

And guess what? Such statements are not challenged. Not by me, at least. I don't know about the others, though.

Yes, and he was wrong. They are perfect. You don't call mathematically correctly calculated numbers (also known as hard facts) perfect/correct? That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is not correct.

Yeah, they are... They're constantly challenged by you and SS and a few others.

They're not perfect. And I meant that humans aren't perfect, so what we create isn't perfect either. We didn't create math, we learned it and taught it to each other. All we created were the symbols. 2+2 always equaled 4, and still would have if the symbol for 2 had ended up being "H" and 4 had been "&".