The Merchant Exchange

[Maniac]

Archaic, some three years ago I believed myself what you are telling now about rationalism. But face it: most people aren't "reasonable". Even though it would be nice if it were otherwise, reality is humans are driven by their emotions and beliefs.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic
It shouldn't matter in the end. If a person has to Appeal to Emotion to win, they've already lost the debate, and any rational, analytical person should be able to see that.

I appreciate the attempt at common terms indicated by introducing the logic 101/debate team jargon in the first place, but failure to stick to (or even indicate comprehension of) the original idea under consideration when reacting undermines your position Archaic. You really never wind up saying much for yourself at all, though I very much appreciate the explanation of "turn advantage".
Your position on base-spacing isn't supported by starting condtions external to the faction during typical game-play, by the way.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22


I appreciate the attempt at common terms indicated by introducing the logic 101/debate team jargon in the first place, but failure to stick to (or even indicate comprehension of) the original idea under consideration when reacting undermines your position Archaic. You really never wind up saying much for yourself at all, though I very much appreciate the explanation of "turn advantage".
Your position on base-spacing isn't supported by starting condtions external to the faction during typical game-play, by the way.

Failure to stick to the original idea when reacting? I mearly replied to what you said. If anyone's undermined their position, it's you by stating a series of points, then refusing to back them up with justifications. I'm still waiting on the justifications I challenged you for BTW. Like I said, the burden of proof here is on you, not on me.

As for my position on base spacing, justify your statement. If it isn't supported by starting conditions external to the faction during typical game play, what do you define as a typical game? What are the factors, and how do they not support my position? Taking into consideration of course that I, and a great deal of others (Want a short list?) use this positon on base spacing myself, playing on large/huge random maps with all settings on average, and have never had any problems implimenting it, where's your evidence to the contary?

[Pandemoniak]

*Foreman Pandemoniak smashed his commlink and decides to totally ignore one person*

[Archaic]

*Shrugs* So much for you believing in the will of the people then, hmmm? Is it just that you can't take me being critical of your ideas and your "comrades"?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Archaic
*Shrugs* So much for you believing in the will of the people then, hmmm? Is it just that you can't take me being critical of your ideas and your "comrades"?

Maybe it's your arrogence that can, well, let's just say make a good day be not so good.

[Archaic]

I think you're mistaking self-assurance for arrogance.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Archaic
I think you're mistaking self-assurance for arrogance.

Ok, it's a very honest mistake (I'm pretty sure many people have made it.) But, if I am wrong then allow me to rephrase:

Your self assurance can get very annoying when given in either one large dose or several small doses. I tends to strike a nerve with people. Sometimes....They just dont want to hear it anymore.

So please, tone it (your self-assurance, that is) down. It's becoming very annoying.

[DeathByTheSword]

COULD WE JUST KEEP IT TO THE GAME AND PLEASE FORGET THAT STUPID CCCP/P4 THING. jeeezs

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic



Ooohhh...a fiesty one. Bring it on chump.

a) If your ideology is also supported by game mechanics, then why don't you explain it instead of just claiming it without citing evidence?

The game supports the Planned and Green SE choices and allows for cooperative victories.

For my free market based approach, I cite Vel's guide and the Civgaming Acadamy. That's the closest to "Academic Research" we have on the game IMO. Where's your "Academic Research" to back up the claims your people have put forward? If you've done it yourself, then please, show it to us.

Still awaiting my copy of Vel's guide. I clearly indicated that earlier. I doubt he indicates there is but one way up the mountainside.

b) Explain how I use the term ideologically? I've used it to justify my ideology in respect to SMAC, yes, but I've never made it my ideology.

You use the term "turn advantage" ideologically by indicating it is lost by the mere presence of CDC members in office. There is no legitimate causal connection in that statement- it is of a "moral" character.

Nice Ad Hominem at the end there. What you've tried to do is discredit me without providing an explanation why I should be discredited. Can't say I'm suprised after the rest of your post.

My statement is an insult to your idolotrous clutching at conceptual straws. To your discredit is your general approach and a fair proportion of your comment. What does your prof in Logic 101 say about attempting to shout someone down or intimidate them by direct invective? Must be the "a**hole fallacy".

If my use of "game mechanics" is a strawman, explain how.

You held it up like a totem.

Again, I make the standard appeal to authority. Given the success story of the methods I promote with many, many MP players (Would you like me to list a sample of players?), the burden of proof isn't on me here. You're trying to promote a strategy which has not yet proven itself as a better alternative to this method. Can you provide proof that it's better?

What kind of victory are we going for here? What consensus has been reached?

Appealing to peoples emotions is a nice trick (And easy to pull when your opponent is someone as completly unashamed about being a bastard as I am), but it hardly makes your points more valid. Justify them next time and I might start to take you seriously, but until then I'll just add your name to the list of morons.

For someone who can't quite read advanced thinking or spell, you use the word "moron" rather liberally.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic


As for my position on base spacing, justify your statement. If it isn't supported by starting conditions external to the faction during typical game play, what do you define as a typical game? What are the factors, and how do they not support my position? Taking into consideration of course that I, and a great deal of others (Want a short list?) use this positon on base spacing myself, playing on large/huge random maps with all settings on average, and have never had any problems implimenting it, where's your evidence to the contary?

Early expansion of territory. Geographically advantageous placement. Neither of these values will be served by arbitrarily tidy base placement. Crawlers help us not squander recources left in the nooks and crannies.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
The game supports the Planned and Green SE choices and allows for cooperative victories.

That's not what I meant by "support" and you know it. Don't twist words. The ability to execute your strategy doesn't make it the "right" strategy. Cite evidence for why your strategies should be used.

Still awaiting my copy of Vel's guide. I clearly indicated that earlier. I doubt he indicates there is but one way up the mountainside.

Go get a V3 in the meanwhile then. As for him not indicating "but one way up the mountainside", he doesn't, but neither does he present any strategy that supports your theories. Now, I'm still waiting for you to show some "Academic Research" on your proposed strategies.

You use the term "turn advantage" ideologically by indicating it is lost by the mere presence of CDC members in office. There is no legitimate causal connection in that statement- it is of a "moral" character.

Incorrect. There *is* a legitimate causal connection in the statement. The strategies proposed by all CDC members in office are directly in opposition to the strategies that would gain us "turn advantage". Therefore, these CDC members being in office will lose us turn advantage. I've made a statement of fact, not a "moral" ir ideologic statement.

My statement is an insult to your idolotrous clutching at conceptual straws. To your discredit is your general approach and a fair proportion of your comment. What does your prof in Logic 101 say about attempting to shout someone down or intimidate them by direct invective? Must be the "a**hole fallacy".

....ah. Now I know what you're trying to say. Just FYI, it's "idolatrous". You poked at me for my spelling later, so what does this make of you?

Another Ad Hominem. Congratulations. Your again attack my methods when they have absolutely no bearing on the validity of my statements.
As for shouting you down or trying to intimidate you, I've attempted to do neither. If my slightly abusive language (I mean, please, you're going to say you were intimidated by "Moron"? ) intimidates you, that's not my problem. Perhaps I'd be a bit nicer if you showed some knowledge of how to play this game well, and were prepared to back up all your comments about your various supported strategies and so forth with actual cited evidence.

You held it up like a totem.

That's not an explanation, that's an analogy, and a poor one at that. Care to explain it? If you mean what you seem to mean there, I can say exactly the same thing about you and your strategies. In any case, you still haven't given me any evidence for why your strategies might be better than the ones I follow, and yes, I am going to nag you about that until you do. Until you do, perhaps I'm more than entitled to, hmmmm? After all, it's the only strategy that's actually been proven that's being discussed here.

What kind of victory are we going for here? What consensus has been reached?

What's this irrelevant red herring here for? Even if there's no formal consensus, it should be obvious to everyone that we're builder/hybrid, which suggests a Transcendence victory is the ultimate goal. Now get back to the original point instead of going off on a tangent. Start backing up the ways you propose to get to our ultimate goal.

For someone who can't quite read advanced thinking or spell, you use the word "moron" rather liberally.

You try to spell well late at night when you have other things to concentrate on that a "moron" who isn't backing up his thinking with evidence.

Originally posted by lucky22
Early expansion of territory. Geographically advantageous placement. Neither of these values will be served by arbitrarily tidy base placement. Crawlers help us not squander recources left in the nooks and crannies.

Resources is spelt resources, not recources. If you’re going to have a go at my spelling, hold yourself up to the same standards as you’d hold me.

*Sigh* Again, you make a statement and don't back it up!!! Learn how to justify statements, and perhaps then I won't be justified in continuing to call you a moron. "Neither of these values will be served by arbitrarily tidy base placement." Back the statement up.

As for crawlers, crawlers are better used inside a base radius, not outside it, where they may have to take turns to get there. That base radius wouldn't be filled up until at the very least the late game, so why do you need it to not overlap to begin with? Now you'd like to suggest our crawlers stay out too? Even more waste.

Oh and BTW, I see a lot of statements of mine you seem to have passed over, or simply ignored. Besides the fact you've yet to prove your strategy with any evidence, you haven't either tried to disprove portions of what I've said about my views on your strategy. If you're going to reply to your opponent in a debate, unless you're really bad at debating or you just want to divert attention from points you can't rebut (Or perhaps even both in your case), it's customary to respond to everything your opponent has said instead of just portions of it here and there. Please do so in the future.

[Nubclear]

Quoting a certain someone.....

""

Oh btw lucky, I sent you a link....Check yoru PMs

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic


That's not what I meant by "support" and you know it. Don't twist words. The ability to execute your strategy doesn't make it the "right" strategy. Cite evidence for why your strategies should be used.

Did you perhaps mean "validated", then? Or does Australian English use the word "support" differently than the rest of the post-colonial world? You're off to a weak start, boy.

Go get a V3 in the meanwhile then.

Several posts ago I indicated just that. You started this round off obviously not having read all of the material you were reacting to. More weakness.

As for him not indicating "but one way up the mountainside", he doesn't, but neither does he present any strategy that supports your theories. Now, I'm still waiting for you to show some "Academic Research" on your proposed strategies.

I enjoy playing AC very much, and according to my own value system. It is quite possible to cultivate a long-term peace and cooperative global system with the proper patience. What are my "theories" pray tell?

Incorrect. There *is* a legitimate causal connection in the statement. The strategies proposed by all CDC members in office are directly in opposition to the strategies that would gain us "turn advantage". Therefore, these CDC members being in office will lose us turn advantage. I've made a statement of fact, not a "moral" ir ideologic statement.

You are just plain wrong here. Your blanket statement assumes a causal continuum that is not at all in place. "all CDC members" is weak. "(T)he stategies that would gain us "turn advantage"" is general and wishful in character. Your 'therefore' implies a syllogism but your statement is all form, no substance. Ideology mistaken for reason at its worst.

....ah. Now I know what you're trying to say. Just FYI, it's "idolatrous". You poked at me for my spelling later, so what does this make of you?

D'oh! Am I calling anybody a "moron", though?

Another Ad Hominem. Congratulations. Your again attack my methods when they have absolutely no bearing on the validity of my statements.
As for shouting you down or trying to intimidate you, I've attempted to do neither. If my slightly abusive language (I mean, please, you're going to say you were intimidated by "Moron"? ) intimidates you, that's not my problem.

Ad hominem? No, once again I'm just letting myself stoop to clever insults.

Perhaps I'd be a bit nicer if you showed some knowledge of how to play this game well, and were prepared to back up all your comments about your various supported strategies and so forth with actual cited evidence.

Considering how little of anything I've said is related to "strategy" on the field, "all (my) comments about my various supported stategies and so forth" is a weak blanket statement yet again. This little rant may justify your behavior in your own mind, but no where else. Your use of the word "supported" is a recurrence of your distorted understanding of the word. Did you mean "possible" or once again "valid and sure-fire"?

That's not an explanation, that's an analogy, and a poor one at that. Care to explain it? If you mean what you seem to mean there, I can say exactly the same thing about you and your strategies.

You are correct here. I was reacting initially to your habit of picking up terms used by others and brandishing them about with little empathy. Considering what you thought you meant by "supported", I forgive myself.

In any case, you still haven't given me any evidence for why your strategies might be better than the ones I follow, and yes, I am going to nag you about that until you do. Until you do, perhaps I'm more than entitled to, hmmmm? After all, it's the only strategy that's actually been proven that's being discussed here.

See "victory conditions" below.

What's this irrelevant red herring here for? Even if there's no formal consensus, it should be obvious to everyone that we're builder/hybrid, which suggests a Transcendence victory is the ultimate goal.

"Irrelevant red herring"? The great attraction of AC is its flexibility and the power to make a world in our own image. You should save the attitude displayed here for SP.

Now get back to the original point instead of going off on a tangent. Start backing up the ways you propose to get to our ultimate goal.

I never didn't.

You try to spell well late at night when you have other things to concentrate on that a "moron" who isn't backing up his thinking with evidence.

And you go ahead and try to write a complete sentence in English.

Resources is spelt resources, not recources. If you’re going to have a go at my spelling, hold yourself up to the same standards as you’d hold me.

Once again, I'm not raging at the voices in my head with the repeated use of the word "moron", Skippy.
But I did misspell the word.

*Sigh* Again, you make a statement and don't back it up!!! Learn how to justify statements, and perhaps then I won't be justified in continuing to call you a moron. "Neither of these values will be served by arbitrarily tidy base placement." Back the statement up.

My statement stands up fine, if the reader has played AC. I hope you aren't pretending this is homework.

Oh and BTW, I see a lot of statements of mine you seem to have passed over, or simply ignored. Besides the fact you've yet to prove your strategy with any evidence, you haven't either tried to disprove portions of what I've said about my views on your strategy. If you're going to reply to your opponent in a debate, unless you're really bad at debating or you just want to divert attention from points you can't rebut (Or perhaps even both in your case), it's customary to respond to everything your opponent has said instead of just portions of it here and there. Please do so in the future.

You have a lot of temerity here. You have casually dismissed and ignored many things I've written over the last couple of weeks. Unless you are planning on going back and correcting your oversights, I'm sure I speak for more than myself when I tell you to lick my balls.

[Archaic]

:yawn: I may be a bastard, but I'm not going to be baited. Nice try.

Did you perhaps mean "validated", then? Or does Australian English use the word "support" differently than the rest of the post-colonial world? You're off to a weak start, boy.

This is a debate, and as would be appropriate in a debate, I used the academic sense of the word, as you well knew I was. Stop splitting hairs and start coming up with proper support for your theories.

Several posts ago I indicated just that. You started this round off obviously not having read all of the material you were reacting to. More weakness.

Oh? Did I? *Ahem* Perhaps you should read your own posts again.

The only previous reference you had to Vel's guide was
"I can't just read the SMAC-only version on-line without getting in trouble with my wife"
The version you're waiting for in the mail in a V4. I suggested getting a V3 in the meanwhile (Which actually *does* cover SMAX BTW.). I fail to see how you're going to get "in trouble with your wife" for reading it. Download it to your computer, read it offline, and stop making excuses.

I enjoy playing AC very much, and according to my own value system. It is quite possible to cultivate a long-term peace and cooperative global system with the proper patience. What are my "theories" pray tell?

The strategies you and your party have promoted for us in this game, based on the ideologies you hold (If you hold the IRL or just here I neither know nor care.). What else?

You are just plain wrong here. Your blanket statement assumes a causal continuum that is not at all in place. "all CDC members" is weak. "(T)he stategies that would gain us "turn advantage"" is general and wishful in character. Your 'therefore' implies a syllogism but your statement is all form, no substance. Ideology mistaken for reason at its worst.

If you're going to make a direct quote in your rebuttal, get your quote right. It's not "all CDC members", it's "all CDC members in office".

In fact, while I'm at it, I'll repost the whole sentance you've tried to break up, which changes its meaning.

The strategies proposed by all CDC members in office are directly in opposition to the strategies that would gain us "turn advantage".

It is a blanket statement, but it is also a true one. All the CDC members who have achieved office have proposed strategies which, if implimented, would not gain us any turn advantage. Indeed, they would gain us a turn disadvantage. They waste time.

You're right, by therefore implies a syllogism. That's because there is one. My statement of their policies losing us turn advantage has already been justified, therefore there's no need to repeat it.

In truth, the only ideology mistaken for reason here is yours.

D'oh! Am I calling anybody a "moron", though?

"For someone who can't quite read advanced thinking or spell, you use the word "moron" rather liberally."

You seem to imply it well enough. At least I'm calling you a moron for your lack of logic, consistant debating fallacies and consistant avoidance of posting evidence for claims made. You're just nitpicking.

Ad hominem? No, once again I'm just letting myself stoop to clever insults.

Perhaps I was wrong about you doing decently in Latin afterall then. Let me give you an example of an Ad Hominem.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Let's compare, shall we?

Archaic makes claim Y, citing sources for evidence.
lucky22 makes an attack on Archaic.
Therefore Archaic's claim is false.

In my case, it's like this.

lucky22 makes claim Z.
Archaic makes an attack on claim Z's validity, citing that no evidence has been provided to support claim Z.
Therefore lucky22's claim is false.

See the difference? I certainly hope so.

Considering how little of anything I've said is related to "strategy" on the field, "all (my) comments about my various supported stategies and so forth" is a weak blanket statement yet again. This little rant may justify your behavior in your own mind, but no where else. Your use of the word "supported" is a recurrence of your distorted understanding of the word. Did you mean "possible" or once again "valid and sure-fire"?

Again you seem to be lacking in your understanding of a word being obviously used in an academic sense. Either America has changed the English language far more than I thought, or you're trying to create more red herrings to distract people from the central arguement.

Don't automatically assume a blanket statement is weak. Unless I'm mistaken, I can pull several quotes made by you in other threads about your ideas on our possible strategy. However, your membership in the CCCP, and your opposition to ideas I've raised (eg. "Your position on base-spacing isn't supported by starting condtions external to the faction during typical game-play, by the way. ") allows much to be assumed about your leanings in that direction.

You are correct here. I was reacting initially to your habit of picking up terms used by others and brandishing them about with little empathy. Considering what you thought you meant by "supported", I forgive myself.

I'm not going to repeat myself about support. As for empathy, I don't demean myself or my arguements by trying to appeal to fragile and easily swayed emotions. I stuff facts down peoples throats, and if they can't accept them, that's their problem, not mine.

"Irrelevant red herring"? The great attraction of AC is its flexibility and the power to make a world in our own image. You should save the attitude displayed here for SP.

Yes, "Irrelevant red herring". With the consensus generally being that we're playing a builder/hybrid, with a Transcendence victory as the ultimate goal, our strategies must be formed around our goal, not the other way around.
As for "our own image", you're part of the CCCP, which gives us a lot to infer about you. You're opposed to Free Market, which means you probably won't want an Economic victory. You're a pacifist, which means you probably don't want conquest. Diplomatics’s a maybe, but that's generally considered as being somewhat of a newbie's victory in SP, where it's so easy to best the AI. Then again, with the base building strategies of your leader, diplo might be harder than usual. As for Transcendence, I don't know how anyone could possibly have anything against it.

I never didn't.

Find me one quote you've made in this thread with evidence to back up your strategies then. If I've missed something, I'll be more than happy to rebut it.

And you go ahead and try to write a complete sentence in English.

When you start attacking the theory instead of only attacking the person. Feel free to attack me personally afterwards when you can back up any statements you've made about my proposed strategies. While you're at it, back up the strategies you support. If you haven't yet posted any, do so. Burden of proof is afterall on you. Even if you could disprove the reasoning for my strategies, it wouldn't automatically prove yours. You, and your "comrades", need to start making some justifications. You seem to be of the opinion that because you're "good" idealists (As opposed to "bad" idealists, like Bin Ladin.), you're automatically right about everything. Perhaps your earlier flippant remark about Fundamentalism should have been directed at yourself and your fellows.

Once again, I'm not raging at the voices in my head with the repeated use of the word "moron", Skippy.
But I did misspell the word.

No, but you were trying to use the spelling errors I'd made as a way to discredit my reasoning, a blatant Ad Hominem if I've ever seen one.

My statement stands up fine, if the reader has played AC. I hope you aren't pretending this is homework.

Stop trying to avoid justifying your statements and actually justify them. Obviously your statements don't stand up fine, otherwise the method I propose would not be in common usage, and instead your proposed strategy would be common practise in MP, which it certainly isn't. Not to mention that your proposed method violates the concept of turn advantage through its wasting of time.

You have a lot of temerity here. You have casually dismissed and ignored many things I've written over the last couple of weeks. Unless you are planning on going back and correcting your oversights, I'm sure I speak for more than myself when I tell you to lick my balls.

Temerity? How am I recklessly dismissing danger? You're the one dismissing turn advantage.

I've casually dismissed and ignored those things because you've given neither logical reasoning nor evidence for why they should be considered valid. On the other hand, the strategies I've proposed have been validated many times, by many people. I've pointed you to the obvious places, the CGN SMAC Academy and Vel's guide, but you'll also find them in many posts both here and at CGN. If anyone's making oversights, it's you, in assuming that I wouldn't bring up your failure to actually debate my points properly and instead debate my attitudes.

As for the last comment, I'll give that all the respect it deserves. None whatsoever.

Now, we can take this on for as long as you want, you throwing Ad Hominem after Ad Hominem at me while I continue to press the point that you've yet to actually debate a point with evidence to support your position. I don't however have any interest in stooping to your level and appealing only to people’s emotions and not to what matters, logic. If you want to debate me properly, by all means, continue. If you don't, leave the thread so the people here who actually seem to understand the economy issues for SMAC (Which is what this thread is supposed to be discussing afterall.) can get back to discussing it.