[Jung] had been interested in myth ever since Riklin wrote about fairy tails and now others were too. (151)
Fairy tails? 
Are you willing to trust your words that much considering the amount of material I've written in the past?
[Jung] had been interested in myth ever since Riklin wrote about fairy tails and now others were too. (151)
Fairy tails?
You laugh, but if you saw the entire paper you would understand. What do you think the themes of Planescape are based off of?
Oh, this is research for a paper on Jung. So, it's like, across all cultures, one can observe a universal pattern of complete opposition to every stance Xan takes.
Xan, nobody has played into anything. Unless your mysterious, omnipresent deadline book is regarding halfings in brawls with epic mages.
Sun Tzu: "One's enemy must be approached with caution, if he should be a mage of greater than twentieth level. Therefore, let the cunning strategist lure him into a dark room, and beat him with eight Swarm Fighter halflings. This is the essence of victory, and also the essence of Mage Slayer's brokenness."
I hope mentioning The Art of War wasn't supposed to make you sound more intellectual and learned and intimidate someone, because it didn't. Meanwhile, we don't believe that rattling off random arguments for random topics has been your evil scheme to conquer the world this entire time.
[Jung] had been interested in myth ever since Riklin wrote about fairy tails and now others were too. (151)
Fairy tails?
You laugh, but if you saw the entire paper you would understand. What do you think the themes of Planescape are based off of?
'Tails', Xan. Your article referred to 'tails'. You know, posterior appendages? Just goes to prove you couldn't spot a typo if it slapped you in the face. Please tell me you submitted that for grading. That would make my day. English major, please! And they say engineers can't spell.
[Jung] had been interested in myth ever since Riklin wrote about fairy tails and now others were too. (151)
Fairy tails?
You laugh, but if you saw the entire paper you would understand. What do you think the themes of Planescape are based off of?
The portrayal of class and urban Victorian London by Charles Dickhens and other writers. JRR Tolkien's works? Beowulf? The Arthurian Legends? And many other works of liturature?
May we demand an apology for your misdirection in argument, rather than standing on solid logical ground?
You are writing a book Xan? What will it be called? I'm curios and would like to read something written by a fellow planewalker.
'Tails', Xan. Your article referred to 'tails'. You know, posterior appendages? Just goes to prove you couldn't spot a typo if it slapped you in the face. Please tell me you submitted that for grading. That would make my day. English major, please! And they say engineers can't spell.
Not only did I submit it as is, I was told to publish it by my professor. BTW, even English majors make spelling errors.
May we demand an apology for your misdirection in argument, rather than standing on solid logical ground?
You can demand whatever you want, but since there was no respect for my work coming first and waiting for me to present my argument in a formal write-up, I gave you what you wanted and everything that I posted you snagged hook, line, & sinker. Maybe you should respect other's wishes and be careful of what you wish for.
Xan, you can drop this self-righteous thing. We won't believe that bad reasoning was intentional because you've run out of it.
You started this back up. Nobody had posted on this thing after April 14th, and most of us were only too happy to see the Arcadian pony finally get on to True Death, but you started it up, claiming to "lay the argument to rest".
I would like to propose that if you won't listen to our demands, you should not make any of your own. Also, why is it that when I make a post attacking your arguments in a logical fashion, you ignore me, but when I make a post mocking you, you're happy to respond?
You started this back up. Nobody had posted on this thing after April 14th, and most of us were only too happy to see the Arcadian pony finally get on to True Death, but you started it up, claiming to "lay the argument to rest".
Because it was never laid to rest properly. I intend to bury it once and for all along with your position, whether you wish to stick around is your own business, but I will prove you wrong with WotC materials in all areas of what started this argument in the first place: Planewalker's implementation of feats as the sole component of the faction/sect system to the 3.5 system. Mage Slayer was never part of the argument beyond the fact that it had a drawback, but it is nowhere near as flawed as those produced for the PS3e book.
Because I don't feel that anything you have to say is persuasive and is, frankly, ill-thought out. Besides, it's easier to string you along because you fall for it. The only person who every presented anything as a counter to anything I presented that was worthy of attempting to refute was Enzo, and even that was flawed. You probably won't believe this, but ask me if I care, I've gotten what I wanted out of this by finding out every counterpoint you could have made regarding my true argument so that when I present my case, you will be extremely hard-pressed to refute it.
Then again, I don't expect you to believe anything I'm saying because you can't tell what's a ploy from me or not now, chances are that you'll still bite though because you've consistantly done it. I've had people tell me that they won't fall for the same trick twice, but how long has this been going since I said I would present my argument in full after I finished my book because of other committments that also prevented me from spending the time I wanted to prove the lot of you wrong in your support for a flawed system?
Since people like Enzo and Rhys decided that wasn't good enough because they didn't want to wait, I took this route to give them what they wanted, at least on the surface they got what they wanted. Truth is, I got tired of the inanities of the "drop it, it's dead because we say it is" and "no, either concede now or spill it, we're not waiting for you to take care of whatever it is you're doing IRL because satisfying our need to be right is more important" attitudes, so instead of being so frustrated to the point that I couldn't present my argument as it deserves to be presented, I decided to turn it around and give them what they thought was going their way.
I wouldn't think so, either. Few actually are ill-thought out and persuasive.
No, I'm just baiting you, like how you say you're baiting everyone else. Nice to see that you respond, just like everyone else though.
This conversation is rapidly moving away from the actual point of the discussion into tit-for-tat nastiness.
It is becoming a thread of baiting and trolling.
If it continues in this direction I will be locking this thread.
You may continue the debate on PM, AIM, or Email - but I have no interest in seeing PW forums be used as a medium with which to hurt or decieve others. It is not healthy for this community.
Get it back on track people or it will be shut down.
That's easy to say, but what you're doing is dismissing me out-of-hand, rather than actually countering my points. On the surface, it may appear to some that you have claimed the upper hand with such a dismissal, but that is not the case. My most recent point was made here, and I'll quote the relevant part for you, so that you don't actually have to follow that link except for verification that I'm not falsifying my point:
Now, this isn't even my point. I'm bringing up a point somebody else made, that you ignored earlier. I propose that your style of argument is not to engage in any kind of reasonable debate, but instead to mislead, possibly blatantly make stuff up, and completely ignore anyone actually trying to make intelligent debate with you. I should point out that this does not, actually, make you correct. I've had to deal with this argumentive style before, from my brother. It's true that he usually wins arguments, not because he's right, but because everyone else gives up trying to deal with him. If that's what works for you, then I feel it's out of my place to tell you you're wrong. I, however, would prefer to actually be right, and sometimes that means accepting that sometimes I'll be wrong about stuff. I really hope that this paper you're writing about how wrong we all are (really, that seems like too much effort, but whatever you feel like spending time on, I guess) follows actual logical and well thought-out arguments, rather than the game you've been playing with us here. While I currently take the side of, well, everyone who's not you, I (unlike some apparently irrational people who may be participating in the debate) will accept that a real argument could sway my thinking.
One question, though: I've noticed that Eco seems to understand what you're trying to tell us. This seems to imply that you explained it sufficiently to him. Is there a reason you can't put forth the same explanation he got on the boards here? Seems like if that's a good argument in your favour it'd be a useful thing to say.
Oh, and I note that you've tended to be extremely arrogant throughout the entire discussion. I just thought you might like to know that you'd be better received if you didn't project such a feeling of superiority. It's okay to feel like you're better than everyone else, but when you start acting like it, people stop liking you.
That's easy to say, but what you're doing is dismissing me out-of-hand, rather than actually countering my points. On the surface, it may appear to some that you have claimed the upper hand with such a dismissal, but that is not the case. My most recent point was made here, and I'll quote the relevant part for you, so that you don't actually have to follow that link except for verification that I'm not falsifying my point:
Now, this isn't even my point. I'm bringing up a point somebody else made, that you ignored earlier. I propose that your style of argument is not to engage in any kind of reasonable debate, but instead to mislead, possibly blatantly make stuff up, and completely ignore anyone actually trying to make intelligent debate with you. I should point out that this does not, actually, make you correct. I've had to deal with this argumentive style before, from my brother. It's true that he usually wins arguments, not because he's right, but because everyone else gives up trying to deal with him. If that's what works for you, then I feel it's out of my place to tell you you're wrong. I, however, would prefer to actually be right, and sometimes that means accepting that sometimes I'll be wrong about stuff. I really hope that this paper you're writing about how wrong we all are (really, that seems like too much effort, but whatever you feel like spending time on, I guess) follows actual logical and well thought-out arguments, rather than the game you've been playing with us here. While I currently take the side of, well, everyone who's not you, I (unlike some apparently irrational people who may be participating in the debate) will accept that a real argument could sway my thinking.
One question, though: I've noticed that Eco seems to understand what you're trying to tell us. This seems to imply that you explained it sufficiently to him. Is there a reason you can't put forth the same explanation he got on the boards here? Seems like if that's a good argument in your favour it'd be a useful thing to say.
Oh, and I note that you've tended to be extremely arrogant throughout the entire discussion. I just thought you might like to know that you'd be better received if you didn't project such a feeling of superiority. It's okay to feel like you're better than everyone else, but when you start acting like it, people stop liking you.
I stopped caring about what people in the community thought of me about two years ago.
As to why I haven't addressed the majority of the things you've tried to add to the debate, you obviously haven't read what I've been saying too closely. I've noted the discrepencies between CA & XPH and am still researching everything I need - in addition to my book mind you. If you go through and read all my arguments from the forums and the mailing lists, as well as look at what I've submitted, you'd probably have a better sense of understanding where I'm going with this.
Although Eco lives about 5-10 miles from me, we've never met and haven't spent much time in chat outside of the forums for him to have anything more than what you have. In fact, I think I've asked him more questions as to why none of you seem to understand what I've been saying rather than not.
The other issue is that rather than taking an overarching look at the system, everyone here seems to have been caught up in one point that I brought forward as if the entire argument rests on that one item. I've used it as an example because there are at least two WotC d20 sources that clearly show that PS3e is nowhere near what the designers have implemented and goes against some of the very basic design principles of the system.
Hehehe... I've done it! My ingenious master plan has come to fruition! By presenting Mage Slayer, I've goaded you into talking about... uh, mage slayers...
Okay, I admit that it wasn't much of a master plan, but you did fall for it, and it bought me time to finish my homework! Furthermore, some time soon, in the distant future, I am going to unveil my masterpiece and you will be humbled and shamed by it. I'm calling it...
Fairy Tails: Why I Are A Better Game Designer Than Yoo
I know none of you will read it, because obviously nobody reads what I write anyway.
The debate has been largely centred around Mage Slayer lately. As I recall, that came about because of Manic-Depressive. Really, I don't like that feat, either. It just doesn't feel well-implemented to me. However, in a general sense, I don't have a problem with feats that have drawbacks. You seem to, and your main argument (at least as presented to us) is that WotC hasn't done it. Now, I'm going to summarise your point, and it's going to seem a lot less reasonable when I do so, I assure you that's a natural side effect of the process. The argument, in distilled form, is that Planewalker should not be doing new things. Why not? Isn't the point of Planewalker to take the old Planescape we love, and then make something new out of it? D&D 3.5 changed the rules. Faction War changed our beloved city. Look at the submissions the site gets. All over, people are finding new things across the planes. New races and monsters (there were no tuladhara in Planescape, and yet they're one of my favourite races), new spells, new places, new feats and prestige classes, new chant and stories. If we didn't want anything new, we'd all still be playing 2e Planescape and not writing excellent fan material.
Wow, that's a complete misrepresentation of my argument.
Xan. If you are being mis-interpreted by so many people that badly then you might want to look at your own abilities to communicate your arguments rather than calling us on our abilities to interpret. Part of good comunication is getting your point across. If the point is not coming across for many people then it is more likely that it is not being given well.
In any case. Take your time. Finish your book deadline and then post your argument paper that is apparently going to be 20 pages. Although if you have time I would like to at least see an abstract and thesis for this paper, but they are not required if you are unable to with your busy schedual.
By the way, what's the book going to be called? Who's putting it out?
Since the internet doesn't carry tone well, I can't tell if you're at all upset over my misrepresentation or just stating a fact. If it's the former, then I would suggest calming down a bit, as any misrepresentation has been due to your own admitted misleading of us.
Since I (and, you might say, everyone else) seem to not understand you, perhaps we should stop arguing over it. I, for one, will be willing to wait until you're 'ready', so long as you'll lay off until then.
That's all I asked for from the outset.
Okay, I'll bite, Xan. When will this treatise of yours be issued to us, the unwashed masses, so that we might look forward to a brief respite from our ignorance? Give us a date... a deadline, if you will.
I won't be able to start on it until August, I can't give any clearer timeline than that at the moment because I don't know what possible revisions, etc. may be thrown my way by the editor and I'm currently in a compressed class (6 wks instead of 16).
Ah Summer session. I'm in two of those right now.
Alright. Now that we have a good due date - I'm locking this thread till August 1st. That way we can all focus on the respective classes and work that we need to and allow Xan to get done what he needs to get done without distractions. (No failing classes on my watch.)
Depending on the length of the essay at that time I may ask for the inevitable debate on it to occur over private emails (extra long post replies and all), but we'll see how that goes at the time.
This thread will reopen on the 1st for a post from Xan regarding his counter-arguement essay.
I've good twenty stingers that says we never see the mysterious 20 page argument.