Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by nHammer I just thought this needed to be said again.. It would be nice if the Hero Game message boards had moderators, so that threads that have become completely pointless, like this one, would get closed. Some people may still have a point. That you find this fruitless suggests perhaps you could stop reading the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Kristopher If I recall correctly, somewhere along the line someone claimed that it had always been intended the way that Steve is now ruling on it. Personally, I can't find any reference in 4th to indicate either way, and I would be interested in knowing what the original creators of the game thought. Lemming said that there was no consensus among the original creators over whether you could sell back fractional speed or not. In other words, when Simon assumed that the rule had always been the way it presently is he was basing that on his understanding of Steve Long's view who apparently never felt you should be able to sell back fractional speed. The way he expressed his belief that the rule had always been this way and the way he came to this conclusion is one of the things that made me drop by and speak my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 I actually like HERO. It's one of two published game systems I can play where the system does not detract from my enjoyment of the game (unlike, say, d20). I've even given money to the cause by purchasing all this stuff... 4th Edition: Champions/BBB, Ninja Hero, Fantasy Hero Companion, Viper Sourcebook 5th Edition: FRED, Champions, USPD, Ultimate Martial Artist, Star Hero, Terran Empire, Hero System Bestiary, Hero Designer v1 (I'm currently using the HD v2 upgrade.) None of which means I'm going to refrain from pointing out things that are screwed up. ... Simon...you're missing the point about customer service. You can argue all you want that you're not a "customer service representative," and it won't change anything. Not because you're wrong on that point, but because it's entirely irrelevent to the real point. Anyone who interacts with the customers is providing customer service. Every time you take a call, post to a message board, respond to an email, or whatever, you're doing customer service work. Yes, you're a contractor, and technically aren't part of DOJ. So what? My job title says nothing about customer service, and I'm definately _not_ a CSR. So what? My interaction with the public, with customers, still has an impact on the company I work for. That wouldn't change if I were a temp, a contractor, or an owner of the business. If you think you're not "doing" customer service, and that you're not a representative of DOJ, because your title isn't Customer Service Representative, then, well, you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Kristopher None of which means I'm going to refrain from pointing out things that are screwed up. I have never stated that you should do otherwise. There's plenty of things that I would change about the system if I were in charge of the rules (many are quite thankful that I have no input on that)....just talk to me about Charges or RSR one day. However, this whole "debate" was not about opinions of the rules. This whole mess started because I stated that HD was following the rules of the system and you and Melessqr felt otherwise. You are welcome to disagree with the rules (I've said this several times). Several ways to work around this particular rule within HD have been pointed out. You can use any of them that you wish, or come up with others on your own. Originally posted by Kristopher Simon...you're missing the point about customer service. You can argue all you want that you're not a "customer service representative," and it won't change anything. Not because you're wrong on that point, but because it's entirely irrelevent to the real point. Anyone who interacts with the customers is providing customer service. Every time you take a call, post to a message board, respond to an email, or whatever, you're doing customer service work. Yes, you're a contractor, and technically aren't part of DOJ. So what? My job title says nothing about customer service, and I'm definately _not_ a CSR. So what? My interaction with the public, with customers, still has an impact on the company I work for. That wouldn't change if I were a temp, a contractor, or an owner of the business. If you think you're not "doing" customer service, and that you're not a representative of DOJ, because your title isn't Customer Service Representative, then, well, you're wrong. By that logic, you are in customer service for Hero Games as well (as is Melessqr and everyone else that posts to these boards) and are just as responsible for the way you come across. I fulfill a technical support rule for HD. Why? Because I continue to love the product, love the system, and want to help folks out. I also answer rules questions on these boards. Why? Because I love the system and have a very deep understanding of the character creation rules as a result of my work on HD and enjoy sharing that with others who are in need of help when I am able. Neither of these make me a customer support rep anymore than they do you. The argument that you and JmOz keep trying to make is a sophist argument of semantics, which has no bearing on the situation as (as I have stated many, many times) it will not change the way I act or the way I interact with people one iota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedifensor Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Dan, I just wanted to chime in to say that without Hero Designer, HERO would be much less attractive of a system. Like many, I have some points of difference with Steve on the rules versus opinions issue, but you've done everything that's been asked of you for Hero Designer. Now, folks, Dan is technically right. Designing a product does not mean he becomes a customer service representative. There are many companies that make a software product, but turn over support to the company that markets the product. He IS answerable to Steve and Darren (his customers), but DOJ is providing customer support for the product, not him. Dan has given direct help as a courtesy, nothing more. Keep up the abuse, and you may lose that courtesy. Would you prefer to see him stop answering posts on the Hero Designer thread, thus forcing Steve or Darren to take over that role (and have less time to produce products)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melessqr Posted November 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 I stated that HD was following the rules of the system and you and Melessqr felt otherwise. I've never said nor implied that HD wasn't working as designed nor have I said that HD was not (in this case) following the rules of the system as defined by Mr. Long. Please cite your source or retract the accusation. Mr. Long, despite his position as Line Designer, is in my opinion Wrong on this issue. I've detailed my reasons for this succinctly elsewhere in this thread. Melessqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Simon The argument that you and JmOz keep trying to make is a sophist argument of semantics, which has no bearing on the situation as (as I have stated many, many times) it will not change the way I act or the way I interact with people one iota. I resent that comment. Sophist BTW for all who do not know means "One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation" Dan, what I am trying to say is that you do represent Hero Games, more than most. However for the record I consider myself and everyone on this board a representitive, that is why I do my level best to treat people with kindness and politness no matter how much of a jerk they behave like. It is also why I hold you to a higher standard, you are a contractor for Hero Games, you have Steve Long's ear on some things, and as you are a administrator on this board it is not unreasonable to hold you to such a standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by melessqr I've never said nor implied that HD wasn't working as designed nor have I said that HD was not (in this case) following the rules of the system as defined by Mr. Long. Please cite your source or retract the accusation. Mr. Long, despite his position as Line Designer, is in my opinion Wrong on this issue. I've detailed my reasons for this succinctly elsewhere in this thread. Melessqr This is where you are wrong. Steve Long literaly can not be wrong, his word on how the 5th edition works is law, you might disagree with the law, and you can protest it (Note my VarLim example), but this does not change the fact that SL cannot be wrong when it comes to the rules. As I have said I disagree with a number of his answers, but as he is the line director and Co Owner he is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by JmOz I resent that comment. Sophist BTW for all who do not know means "One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation" Dan, what I am trying to say is that you do represent Hero Games, more than most. However for the record I consider myself and everyone on this board a representitive, that is why I do my level best to treat people with kindness and politness no matter how much of a jerk they behave like. It is also why I hold you to a higher standard, you are a contractor for Hero Games, you have Steve Long's ear on some things, and as you are a administrator on this board it is not unreasonable to hold you to such a standard You are welcome to hold me to whatever standard you want....it hasn't changed the way I act, and (as you are not the judge of me) it will continue to have no bearing on my actions. You can resent the accusations of presenting a sophistic argument all you want. I state that you are attempting to use sophistry to prove your point because you persist in basing your arguments over assumptions that you have made about my role and my responsibilities. I do not share those assumptions, yet you state them as if they were fact and shared by all on the boards. As these are the basis for your argument, your argument boils down to sophistry. I am content with my own actions and will continue to respond to people the way I see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Deleted as I lost my temper at being called deceitful, I have personal issues about that I do not feel in anyway have I been deceitful about my views on the issue. I do not feel that I have tried to trick you into seeing things that are not there or using the language to make you fall in a verbal trap. I view Customer Service the responsibiilty of everyone who ghas connections with a company, including contracted labor, you don't. I want to appoligise to anyone who saw the original post, it was inapropriate and I am sincerly sorry about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melessqr Posted November 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 This is where you are wrong. Having the ability to define the rules does not make the rules right. It can at best make the rule and rulings on them correct, which is a very different thing from right. Melessqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Fedifensor Dan, I just wanted to chime in to say that without Hero Designer, HERO would be much less attractive of a system. Like many, I have some points of difference with Steve on the rules versus opinions issue, but you've done everything that's been asked of you for Hero Designer. Now, folks, Dan is technically right. Designing a product does not mean he becomes a customer service representative. There are many companies that make a software product, but turn over support to the company that markets the product. He IS answerable to Steve and Darren (his customers), but DOJ is providing customer support for the product, not him. Dan has given direct help as a courtesy, nothing more. Keep up the abuse, and you may lose that courtesy. Would you prefer to see him stop answering posts on the Hero Designer thread, thus forcing Steve or Darren to take over that role (and have less time to produce products)? Where has the abuse happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by JmOz deleted per JmOz's intentions in original post Errr...dude, I think you're reading things in that don't exist. I never said you were being deceitful, I said that you were being misleading because of the basis of your arguments. Here's the definition of sophistry from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Plausible but fallacious argumentation. In a nutshell, that is exactly what I think of your arguments. They are completely plausible, so long as I buy into your assumptions as to my role. Given that I do not buy into those assumptions, they are fallacious arguments. This is not calling you a liar, and it is not saying that you are intentionally deceiving. Sophistry is not a bad word. Some of the greatest thinkers in history were sophists (see Ancient Greek philosophy for some of the best examples of sophistry every put down). It was an intellectual exercise for them. There's nothing wrong with it and no impuning of your character is intended. I just view your arguments to be "plausible but fallacious". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by JmOz This is where you are wrong. Steve Long literaly can not be wrong, his word on how the 5th edition works is law, you might disagree with the law, and you can protest it (Note my VarLim example), but this does not change the fact that SL cannot be wrong when it comes to the rules. As I have said I disagree with a number of his answers, but as he is the line director and Co Owner he is right. This is a semantical issue. Anyone has the right to disagree with Steve Long concerning what the rule should be. It disturbs me when people bring this up. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the company line on the rules is what Steve Long says it is. That doesn't mean that customers shouldn't complain about rulings they find cumbersome to the enjoyment of the game, especially since it affects chargen design and future rules additions. I didn't follow the other thread where this debate stemmed from. I assume that the starter of the thread decided to discuss it here because the nature of his disagreement changed and it was no longer so much a chargen issue but a rules criticism. Simon chose to follow into this thread and very aggressively and circuitously argue his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Thank you for deleting the quote (I assume you quoted my original message) Like I said I have a personal issue with being accused of in anyway of being deceitful (And say what you will that is a form of deceit), I realise I can be overly sensitive, thus the reason for deleting the message Consider it just a Psy lim or an enraged, that I failed the roll for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Also, before we go down another definition fiasco: Fallacious (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): Containing or based on a fallacy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Agent X This is a semantical issue. Anyone has the right to disagree with Steve Long concerning what the rule should be. It disturbs me when people bring this up. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the company line on the rules is what Steve Long says it is. That doesn't mean that customers shouldn't complain about rulings they find cumbersome to the enjoyment of the game, especially since it affects chargen design and future rules additions. I didn't follow the other thread where this debate stemmed from. I assume that the starter of the thread decided to discuss it here because the nature of his disagreement changed and it was no longer so much a chargen issue but a rules criticism. Simon chose to follow into this thread and very aggressively and circuitously argue his point. I find this quite funny, If you do not know, I am one of the biggest complainer about some of Steve's rulings around here. I don't think me and Steve could be in the same game together do to the differences... I did not mean by my piece that you could not disagree with the rule, but rather that Steve writes the rules thus he is right, anyything else is a house rule (a useful tool for fixing rules you do not like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Agent X This is a semantical issue. Anyone has the right to disagree with Steve Long concerning what the rule should be. It disturbs me when people bring this up. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the company line on the rules is what Steve Long says it is. That doesn't mean that customers shouldn't complain about rulings they find cumbersome to the enjoyment of the game, especially since it affects chargen design and future rules additions. I didn't follow the other thread where this debate stemmed from. I assume that the starter of the thread decided to discuss it here because the nature of his disagreement changed and it was no longer so much a chargen issue but a rules criticism. Simon chose to follow into this thread and very aggressively and circuitously argue his point. I find this quite funny, If you do not know, I am one of the biggest complainer about some of Steve's rulings around here. I don't think me and Steve could be in the same game together do to the differences... I did not mean by my piece that you could not disagree with the rule, but rather that Steve writes the rules thus he is right, anyything else is a house rule (a useful tool for fixing rules you do not like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by JmOz I find this quite funny, If you do not know, I am one of the biggest complainer about some of Steve's rulings around here. I don't think me and Steve could be in the same game together do to the differences... I did not mean by my piece that you could not disagree with the rule, but rather that Steve writes the rules thus he is right, anyything else is a house rule (a useful tool for fixing rules you do not like). I know. I didn't get the feeling from melessqr's original post that he didn't understand the difference between the "rules" and house rules. That's why I responded to your post. It seemed you thought he didn't know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by Simon Also, before we go down another definition fiasco: Fallacious (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): Containing or based on a fallacy: Funny thing is that does not encite the same rage in me, I think it has to do with the difference between ignorant and idiot or Lie and Mistake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by JmOz Thank you for deleting the quote (I assume you quoted my original message) Like I said I have a personal issue with being accused of in anyway of being deceitful (And say what you will that is a form of deceit), I realise I can be overly sensitive, thus the reason for deleting the message Consider it just a Psy lim or an enraged, that I failed the roll for. I think that's where the misconception lies: I never accused you of being deceitful or of trying to deceive. By saying that your argument was sophistic, I was saying that you were basing your argument on assumptions which I find to be incorrect. The argument, therefore, breaks down into the endless cycled of "are to" ... "are not" that we have been engaged in for the past year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melessqr Posted November 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 I'd still like my retraction, please. Melessqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by melessqr I'd still like my retraction, please. Melessqr What retraction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melessqr Posted November 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Simon has, on the 9th page of this tread, and repeatedly throughout a large majority of the threads on this subject, accused me (inaccurately) of disagreeing that the rules of the game as defined by Mr. Long are not accurately enforced by HD. I've never made such a statment, nor implied such a thing, and I would like Dan's statments to that effect retracted. Melessqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Originally posted by melessqr Simon has, on the 9th page of this tread, and repeatedly throughout a large majority of the threads on this subject, accused me (inaccurately) of disagreeing that the rules of the game as defined by Mr. Long are not accurately enforced by HD. I've never made such a statment, nor implied such a thing, and I would like Dan's statments to that effect retracted. Melessqr Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts