Cross-tier trades

[ajqtrz]

So, all of that just to say you agree with Ashrem?

Nope. As I said:

"In the end, then, when you say, "People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument." [Quoting Ashrem] you may be right, but you may also be wrong. Sometimes conclusions drawn are not logical, sometimes they are logical but start with untrue premises, and sometimes they are logical and drawn from true premises. It's up to the speaker to deal with proving the premises to be true, and the logic clear. I don't think that has been done [in the] discussions of cross tier trading. At least on the side of those against the practice." {Emphasis added]

Ashrem's implied point was that logical reasons had been given. I concluded that I haven't seen the logic of those reasons discussed so much as the claims made as if they were inherently or obviously logical. My post shows at least two ways a person, upon reading the claims, could come to the conclusion that they weren't logical. Either the logic isn't spelled out sufficiently that the reader can see it, or the premises with which the logic is applied are wrong/inappropriate. And since (paraphrase) as I said, "I don't think that those against cross-tier trading have demonstrated their premises to be correct and/or the logic they use in moving to their conclusion from those premises clear," I can't agree or disagree with Ashrem's conclusion that people who don't see the logic of being against cross-tier trades are so because they, as Ashrem said of them that they, "imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong." [Original emphasis) In other words, my argument dealt only with the error of assuming that because I disagree with a conclusion you think you have logicaly presented, it means that I'm motivated by my "feelings or preferences." Sometimes the presentation of the logic and sometimes the premises upon which the logic is based are in error. I give those who disagree with me the credit of believing that if they disagree it must be because I'm wrong or I didn't present the argument well enough to convince them. I then go back and try again, all the time honing my arguments and finding better examples, ways of putting them, analysis etc. Eventually I either find I was right or that I was wrong. And sometimes I find something in the middle -- like both sides are right but start with different premises. If that's the case I then try to discuss the premises since everything flows from those starting points.

Another point, this time something I just noticed in Ashrem's post. When he says that those who aren't convinced of the logic against cross tier trading ""imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong," this is a logical fallacy. It is ad hominem because it addresses the motivations of the speaker and not his argument about the subject at hand. The key is to see the phrase "you believe" since what I believe or don't about any objective subject is irrelevant. Just because I believe water freezes at 72 degrees Fahrenheit doesn't mean the lake will freeze over when it's 50 degrees outside.

See:
Again, divorcing an argument from context. Since I was talking about the "lots of logical arguments" in the thread, not the arguments which aren't logical, your conclusion that I might be right or wrong is a failure of logic. Had I said that every argument in the thread is logical, you'd have a case. As it is, you are incorrect.

Since I divorced an argument from context and discussed general principles of argumentation, making no claim about a specific argument or arguments being made, it would appear my post was a meta-discussion of argument in general. Specifically when you can draw a conclusion that others, claim arguments aren't logical because they "believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces [them]) they [the arguments] are wrong." I discussed the forms of logic and the two places where a seemingly logical statement can fail to be logical. One is that the antecedent is wrong, the other that the conclusion isn't warranted. These are general terms of argumentation and are applicable to any argument being put forward regardless of content. Thus, "divorcing an argument from context" is necessary if you want to talk about the ways an argument might logically fail to be persuasive.

Your assumption that any of the arguments in the tread are logical is the problem. To assume that at least one argument in the discussion of cross-tier trades is logical is to present a straw man argument. You assume a premise: "at least one argument is logical" and the conclude from it that "therefore you can't have been talking about every argument," See the problem? You assume that at least one argument presented is perfectly logical and based upon agreed upon premises. But what if none of them are? I mean if in every argument presented either the premises with which it begins are questionable, or the warrant of the conclusion is unclear to the reader, then, indeed, one cannot say if you and the anti-cross tier folk are right or wrong since the premises with which you began (the "questionable" ones) may be true or false and/or the conclusion, upon further explanation and examination, may be warranted...or may not be so.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

"In the end, then, when you say, "People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument." [Quoting Ashrem] you may be right, but you may also be wrong. Sometimes conclusions drawn are not logical, sometimes they are logical but start with untrue premises, and sometimes they are logical and drawn from true premises. It's up to the speaker to deal with proving the premises to be true, and the logic clear. I don't think that has been done [in the] discussions of cross tier trading. At least on the side of those against the practice." {Emphasis added]

People will do what I said. Not all people. Not all disagreements use the wrong reason, some of the disagreements are logical. some of them are not. People who don't like the conclusion are more likely than not to allow confirmation bias to interfere in their interpretation of the logical chain. That is a fact established through research multiple times. Attempting to illustrate that is why I referred to "What Is Logical Isn’t Always True" and is why I have said numerous times that some of the logical arguments are not necessarily [correct/true/accurate/reliable] which doesn't make them illogical. The examples I gave are logical, but we don't have any reliable data on whether the premise is valid so they should not be considered compelling or actionable.

It is wrong for people to say there are no logical arguments for blocking cross tier trades in this thread. There are several. That doesn't mean they are right. The user I was responding to implied there were no logical arguments in the thread, when what they actually wanted is compelling arguments. Logical arguments are simply inadequate for changing most people's minds, and sometimes that is a good thing, because logical does not equal accurate, it only equals supported by the stated premise.

 

[Ashrem]

Another point, this time something I just noticed in Ashrem's post. When he says that those who aren't convinced of the logic against cross tier trading ""imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong," this is a logical fallacy. It is ad hominem because it addresses the motivations of the speaker and not his argument about the subject at hand.

It is not a logical fallacy, and is not ad hominem. It consciously doesn't address any specific individual or reason. It addresses the well-documented phenomenon of confirmation bias which has been fully established as more common than not in human beings

Why would you quote an entire sentence, except leave out the first word?
Is it, again, because by leaving the single word "Don't" off the start of my sentence, you stripped the admonishment not to do something of its context and turned it into a different statement that implies I said they do it? That would be sneaky, but still a cheap attack.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Umm... plenty of AMs (and co-AM's like myself) have listed several other reasons.

As for small players feeding big players as a motive for disallowing cross-trades, I don't see how that makes any sense.
The only way that forcing small players to feed big ones would be possible is to allow/force cross-trades.

Also, as a card-carrying member of the "I hate cross-trades" team who routinely gives away goods to smaller players at 8:1, I find attaching such a motive to my actions a little insulting.

I've been quite clear that my opinions are based on previous experiences. I've never claimed to have polled all AMs or that the responses I've gained are representative of the majority. All I have done is offered my own opinion based on a small number (10 or so) of AMs I've asked.

Are there valid reasons for disliking cross trades? Absolutely and I've been clear about that too.

Nowhere have I suggested that any act of kindness by any player, AM or otherwise, has some ulterior motive.

My comment regarding a different reason for supporting a ban on cross trades was not meant to suggest greed or selfishness. This game relies on cooperative trading and no player can survive if they can't get the goods they need. It is appropriate for players big or small to make recommendations as to how best to get what they need. Cross trades can and do hurt big players - they can make it almost impossible to get goods in the quantities they need and in a timely manner. That is an entirely valid concern.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

I'm sad that you feel the exchange is personal. I encourage everyone to avoid saying they've seen no "logical arguments" in a disagreement, becuase it is almost inevitable that they mean "compelling" or "convincing." There are, of course, exceptions, which is why I use "almost."

I'm not remotely upset. I think you're assuming I want cross-tier trades forbidden (which is not true per my arguments in this thread, though I'm in favour of being able to filter them out, which leaves everyone with maximum choice), when I'm merely showing that there are several logical arguments (which, again, I've repeated, does not make them true or correct). I placed those arguments as though I were making them to illustrate how they represent logic (which is why each argument was preceded with "if I say").

When a person responds with ad hominem comments like this:
"So, for the benefit of your petty attempt to make the discourse about something other than it was, I will restate in full, rather than relying on context to define it, as normal human beings do in a conversation"
it's reasonable to think they're upset and that the exchange has become personal. I apologised because I'm aware that my disability makes navigating the complexities of social interaction and conversation problematic. Without realising it your insinuation that a normal human should have been able to accurately infer meaning is probably more accurate than you would have guessed.

I use 'logical' colloquially and will continue to do so. If the conversation requires more specificity I'll provide it but what I don't need is to be "encouraged" to use words differently because you're not comfortable with colloquialisms.

 

[Ashrem]

I use 'logical' colloquially and will continue to do so.

Then people will no doubt continue to respond as though you asked for something you didn't.

 

[Dew Spinner]

When a person responds with ad hominem comments like this:
"So, for the benefit of your petty attempt to make the discourse about something other than it was, I will restate in full, rather than relying on context to define it, as normal human beings do in a conversation"
it's reasonable to think they're upset and that the exchange has become personal. I apologised because I'm aware that my disability makes navigating the complexities of social interaction and conversation problematic. Without realising it your insinuation that a normal human should have been able to accurately infer meaning is probably more accurate than you would have guessed.

I use 'logical' colloquially and will continue to do so. If the conversation requires more specificity I'll provide it but what I don't need is to be "encouraged" to use words differently because you're not comfortable with colloquialisms.

Ever ask yourself why you only see the same handful of players posting on the General Discussion Forum? They run every new Forum Member off the Forum as fast as they can, I have been watching this happen for about 5 months now. Some new Forum member starts to post, the Old Guard gangs up on them and you never see the new person post again. And if the new person doesn't just leave quietly, they report the new person for the same things they were doing to the new person. If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up! This is the most hostile Game Forum I have ever seen. Inno should be ashamed of what goes on here, it's like watching a train wreck on top of a car crash on top of a dumpster fire! So much for an open and welcoming community! LOL

 

[ajqtrz]

People will do what I said. Not all people. Not all disagreements use the wrong reason, some of the disagreements are logical. some of them are not. People who don't like the conclusion are more likely than not to allow confirmation bias to interfere in their interpretation of the logical chain. That is a fact established through research multiple times. Attempting to illustrate that is why I referred to "What Is Logical Isn’t Always True" and is why I have said numerous times that some of the logical arguments are not necessarily [correct/true/accurate/reliable] which doesn't make them illogical. The examples I gave are logical, but we don't have any reliable data on whether the premise is valid so they should not be considered compelling or actionable.

It is wrong for people to say there are no logical arguments for blocking cross tier trades in this thread. There are several. That doesn't mean they are right. The user I was responding to implied there were no logical arguments in the thread, when what they actually wanted is compelling arguments. Logical arguments are simply inadequate for changing most people's minds, and sometimes that is a good thing, because logical does not equal accurate, it only equals supported by the stated premise.

I agree that people with a confirmation bias may ignore or distort the logic of an argument, but that only means the logic isn't so tight they can't ignore it or distort it. Again, the responsibility isn't on the receiver, but on the arguer. In any case, implying somebody, or anybody, is doing so is an ad hominem remark because it goes the receiver and his or her claimed bias. Bias has nothing to do with the argument and even if a person is biased it doesn't mean they are wrong (or right). So it's not helpful.

If I were to address the cross tier trade issue here I'd say that there is no logical argument put forth that I've seen....but here's the thing, I'm saying that one or two conditions exist for every argument I've seen against cross-tier trades. Either I disagree with the premise that "fair" can be measured by production costs (the primary argument), that we ought to attempt to protect new players them from some imaginary harm if cross-tier trades are allowed, that we ought to attempt to protect established players from imaginary harm if we allow cross tier trades, or that, somehow, we can predict what would happen if we allowed cross tier trades. I argue that the restrictions actually harm the game and it's atmosphere by substituting social coersion for sound trading principles. (Okay, "coersion" may be a bit over the top. LOL). I also find a lot of slippage when things are inferred from other things -- in other words the logic is not warranted. The way to address these two issues I have with the perceived (and maybe accurate) logic of those standing against cross-tier trades is to show how the premises with which they start are the right ones to use in measuring any trades. I hold they are not, even if, as Soggy notes, they may be easier.

Finally, as I use "logical" I don't mean "sounds reasonable" or "I agree with the conclusion so it must be logical." I mean it IS logical and can be demonstrated to be such. And in that scenario IF the premises with which you start are true, and the logic is perfect, the conclusion you will be true. True is true. Valid, on the other hand, is that the premises with which you start may be true and your logic is perfect. Then your conclusions are valid. But they are only, and also true, when the premises with which you start are true.

It is not a logical fallacy, and is not ad hominem. It consciously doesn't address any specific individual or reason. It addresses the well-documented phenomenon of confirmation bias which has been fully established as more common than not in human beings

Why would you quote an entire sentence, except leave out the first word?
Is it, again, because by leaving the single word "Don't" off the start of my sentence, you stripped the admonishment not to do something of its context and turned it into a different statement that implies I said they do it? That would be sneaky, but still a cheap attack.

Actually, it is. "You" is a generic substitute for "anyone" who fits the category of person. so " you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you" is addressed to anyone who has "a feeling or preference which convinces [them]" that the arguments against cross tier trades are wrong. It's still an ad hominem remark exactly because it directs it's observation at the motivations of those who fit the category. If you doubt this ask yourself if those who fit the category of having "a feeling or preference which convinces [them]" that the arguments against cross tier trades are therefor wrong? They could still, in spite of any bias, be right, couldn't they? In other words, by implying their motives for disagreement are merely their "feelings or preferences" you don't advance the actual question one iota in any direction. That's one of the results you get when you use an ad Hominem remark. Note: that doesn't mean people aren't biased and that they can be blinded by bias. It only means pointing that out in a discussion about the logic, or lack thereof, of cross-tier trades, is inappropriate and, in my opinion, not helpful.

Grammatical and readability caused me to recast the first part of you thought so I could easily insert, in a readable fashion, the words you wrote. The "aren't" early on in my recast, probably substitutes for the "Don't" left off. In any case, if that caused you grief, I apologize. I don't think it hurt my point at all.

Ever ask yourself why you only see the same handful of players posting on the General Discussion Forum? They run every new Forum Member off the Forum as fast as they can, I have been watching this happen for about 5 months now. Some new Forum member starts to post, the Old Guard gangs up on them and you never see the new person post again. And if the new person doesn't just leave quietly, they report the new person for the same things they were doing to the new person. If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up! This is the most hostile Game Forum I have ever seen. Inno should be ashamed of what goes on here, it's like watching a train wreck on top of a car crash on top of a dumpster fire! So much for an open and welcoming community! LOL

I personally find this forum one of the least hostile I've been on. So, perhaps in private you could give me an example? I say "in private" because I don't want to derail this discussion.

Thanks.

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

Oh good, a back and forth between AJ and Ashrem with a sprinkle of Soggy!

 

[Kekune]

Most people avoid sprinkles from soggy shorts. Just sayin'.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Then people will no doubt continue to respond as though you asked for something you didn't.

I'm not sure what you mean. People have been responding appropriately to my colloquial use of logical. When I said I hadn't seen any logical reasons I meant just that - that I hadn't seen any, not that none had been offered. That was why I asked for links. I assumed there were logical reasons but that I'd been too lazy to read all the comments properly.

People use the word 'logical' colloquially all the time yet you don't see people responding with phrases commonly used in formal logic statements. Normal humans have highly intuitive linguistic networks that are capable of appropriately determining the difference between colloquial and formal use of the same word. Normally, the conscious processing of words results in spreading activation within the linguistic network of semantically, morphologically and syntagmatically related words. Simply put, words don't surface from the mental lexicon alone but bring their friends along with them. Those friends both offer context in the immediate situation and also learn more nuanced context for future reference. This means that the accepted meaning of words shifts according to popular usage. I've seen many people use 'logical' colloquially in this thread and you're the only person to express a problem with it. In time spreading contextualisation within your linguistic network will make it easier for you to accept this common and relaxed usage.

Incidentally, the nature of my disability means that my silly brain doesn't bring enough friends during spreading activation. This means I sometimes read things more literally than intended and can miss context. I don't expect others to change how they communicate with me to accommodate my shortcomings though. I've learned to ask for more context or clarity if I'm unsure.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Ever ask yourself why you only see the same handful of players posting on the General Discussion Forum? They run every new Forum Member off the Forum as fast as they can, I have been watching this happen for about 5 months now. Some new Forum member starts to post, the Old Guard gangs up on them and you never see the new person post again. And if the new person doesn't just leave quietly, they report the new person for the same things they were doing to the new person. If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up! This is the most hostile Game Forum I have ever seen. Inno should be ashamed of what goes on here, it's like watching a train wreck on top of a car crash on top of a dumpster fire! So much for an open and welcoming community! LOL

I can see the dynamic but I'm not overly bothered by it. I'm more concerned about upsetting others by being socially clumsy. I'm not very good at anticipating how others will feel about the opinions I share.

I've found many people on this forum have been warm and friendly, well, that is until I stepped on their toes but that's my problem and not theirs. One of the reasons I like AJ's comments so much is that I don't have to guess what he means. I really appreciate direct and open communication where people can debate a subject without resorting to personal attacks or getting upset over a perceived slight.

For the most part I've enjoyed the lively conversation and, historically, tend to become great friends with people I have had heated debates with. Our friendship is a great example of this.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

I argue that the restrictions actually harm the game and it's atmosphere by substituting social coersion for sound trading principles. (Okay, "coersion" may be a bit over the top. LOL).

I don't think your use of coercion here is OTT to be honest. I was recently kicked out of a multi-world fellowship for questioning opposition to cross trades even though the majority voted to allow them and I had agreed to comply with a ban. My eviction served as a warning to others. Shunning is still a commonly used form of social coercion and a highly effective one given most people have a strong desire to 'belong'. The effectiveness of shunning is further amplified in Elvenar because of the importance fellowship has on the game.

However, I don't think most AMs are using the rule to be deliberately coercive but rather truly believe they're doing what's best for the fellowship.

 

[Aritra]

Ever ask yourself why you only see the same handful of players posting on the General Discussion Forum? They run every new Forum Member off the Forum as fast as they can, I have been watching this happen for about 5 months now. Some new Forum member starts to post, the Old Guard gangs up on them and you never see the new person post again. And if the new person doesn't just leave quietly, they report the new person for the same things they were doing to the new person. If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up! This is the most hostile Game Forum I have ever seen. Inno should be ashamed of what goes on here, it's like watching a train wreck on top of a car crash on top of a dumpster fire! So much for an open and welcoming community! LOL

I joined the forum about four months ago and I'm still here. I will say, though, there have been more than a few times that I spent forty minutes to an hour (occasionally more) proofing and analyzing my response, and then just deleted the draft because I knew/expected a handful would rip it apart anyway. I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to minimize likelihood but in the end, decided it was likely futile because there were a couple of spots wherein all it took was having used an adjective or term or phrase they didn't like to release the dogs (and the ensuing argument disguised as intellectual discourse would distract from my message). I post less often than I used to post and hold my breath when I check the alerts, especially if I had felt compelled to give my two cents on a controversial (actual or probable) topic. The observation "If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up!" is disturbingly familiar since the behavior has inhibited open communication (whether they know and accept it or not). Much of the time, I am entertained by or find interesting the lively back-and-forth, but it doesn't mean I feel free to share. I do not believe I'm oversensitive or alone in being affected by this. Even though the Forum is (or can be) a great player resource, I'm probably only still around because I like some of you guys since you make me laugh and are supportive (even if you disagree).

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

Certainly if you are going to strip the argument of the context of it being an argument for blocking cross-tier trades, then it stops looking like an argument. But that would be both a shallow, and a petty, way to try to score a point. So, for the benefit of your petty attempt to make the discourse about something other than it was, I will restate in full, rather than relying on context to define it, as normal human beings do in a conversation: If I say "Having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, therefore I think we should block cross tier trades." that is a logical argument. Did that assist with comprehension, or do you simply prefer to strip arguments of their context in order to criticize arguments for not being arguments when they are out of context?

You aren't asking for logic, you are asking for arguments that you find compelling. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no point asking for logical reasons when you are only going to deny they are logical because you don't find them compelling. If you want to convinced, ask to b e convinced, and you are free to refuse to be convinced. Don't imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong.

It is a fact that some people are bothered by the clutter of cross tier trades. Whether other people like that or not, it is a fact that they believe it. Following from that, asking for them to be banned is a logical option. It doesn't mean they are correct, nor does it mean the developers should do so.
It is a fact, that some people believe cross tier trades lead to bad habits which in turn cause new players to leave. It is a fact that they believe that, whether other people like it or not. Following from that, asking for them to be banned is a logical option. It doesn't mean they are correct, nor does it mean the developers should do so.

For more information you may or may not choose to read "What Is Logical Isn’t Always True"

I've taken some time to think on the points you've made and read the linked article.

You said "You aren't asking for logic, you are asking for arguments that you find compelling.". Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Just because some statements can be logically true and still present an invalid argument doesn't mean that I'll accept them as readily as those that are logically true AND present a valid argument so long as they fit my beliefs.

It seems to me that you're assuming I have already settled on a belief about cross trades and am seeking a 'good enough' reason that doesn't conflict with those beliefs. Whilst it's true that I believe cross trades aren't as harmful as many make them out to be do think there is a potential for harm that may warrant banning but as yet I have not seen an argument against them where the premises and the conclusion are true AND they present a logically valid argument that justifies the action of banning (and not simply justifies the action of asking for a ban.

IMO a ban is justified when a behaviour prevents others from playing the game as it was intended. For example: if the trader was full of t3 for t1 trades to the extent that players had great difficulty getting the goods they needed. Trading is essential to the game therefore any behaviour that imposes an unreasonable and unavoidable barrier to trading should be considered ban worthy. And to be clear, this barrier should be experienced by the majority before considering imposing a ban on all players. If only some players are affected then discussions and voting should be used to determine the right remedy. Trading practices should be approached from a two-fold perspective: 1) that players should, first and foremost, produce according to their needs AND 2) produce to supply their community. This is a community game where you cannot survive without your neighbours therefore players have an obligation to produce all 3 boosted goods in sufficient quantities to feed themselves and contribute to the collective needs of the community.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

I joined the forum about four months ago and I'm still here. I will say, though, there have been more than a few times that I spent forty minutes to an hour (occasionally more) proofing and analyzing my response, and then just deleted the draft because I knew/expected a handful would rip it apart anyway. I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to minimize likelihood but in the end, decided it was likely futile because there were a couple of spots wherein all it took was having used an adjective or term or phrase they didn't like to release the dogs (and the ensuing argument disguised as intellectual discourse would distract from my message). I post less often than I used to post and hold my breath when I check the alerts, especially if I had felt compelled to give my two cents on a controversial (actual or probable) topic. The observation "If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up!" is disturbingly familiar since the behavior has inhibited open communication (whether they know and accept it or not). Much of the time, I am entertained by or find interesting the lively back-and-forth, but it doesn't mean I feel free to share. I do not believe I'm oversensitive or alone in being affected by this. Even though the Forum is (or can be) a great player resource, I'm probably only still around because I like some of you guys since you make me laugh and are supportive (even if you disagree).

I'm so relieved to read your response. I tend to assume I'm the clumsy one, the 'problem child' and like you I've become overly anxious about how I phrase my responses. It is sad because I really enjoy lively conversation and debate.

 

[Ashrem]

I'm not sure what you mean. People have been responding appropriately to my colloquial use of logical.

I will resist my initial response. In English, the phrase "people will do X" does not mean "All people will do X"

If I were to say "People will lie" or "people will drink too much" or "people will fight over politics" it is not standard to presume that it means all people will do those things.

If you continue to use logical when you do not actually mean logical, some people will continue to respond under the misapprehension that you actually meant logical.

 

[Ashrem]

ou said "You aren't asking for logic, you are asking for arguments that you find compelling.". Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Just because some statements can be logically true and still present an invalid argument doesn't mean that I'll accept them as readily as those that are logically true AND present a valid argument so long as they fit my beliefs.

I am struggling with whether you actually can't read my posts, or are deliberately provocative, or there is some other issue, because I have written, repeatedly, (as has AJ) that just because something is logical doesn't mean it is accurate. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they are also not the same thing. If you honestly believe that things which are different must be mutually exclusive, then we have an insurmountable communications barrier. Being a runner or a weight lifter are not mutually exclusive, but asking if someone is a runner will not tell you if they are weight lifter.

Things can be logical and true, things can be logical and false depending on the initial idea on which they are based. Asking for logical arguments isn't always going to get you compelling arguments. That doesn't make them not logical. Asking for logical arguments when you want compelling arguments is going to get you some responses which are not what you want. I don't have any authority or control over your decision to keep using a word "colloquially*" but arguments don't stop being logical because you decide to use a different meaning.

* I put colloquial in quotes, because the informal meaning of logical, is still logical, not compelling. That may or may not change one day, but it is not true yet.

 

[DeletedUser20539]

Going back to the original statement ~ I don't mind people using the cross-tier trading when they are baby cities. And I will help them out as well. But, in my personal opinion, there comes a time when everyone needs to put an end to it. It's a bad habit to get in. The only thing I find aggravating is they tend to clog up my trader and confuse the heck out of me

 

[ajqtrz]

It is not a logical fallacy, and is not ad hominem. It consciously doesn't address any specific individual or reason. It addresses the well-documented phenomenon of confirmation bias which has been fully established as more common than not in human beings

Why would you quote an entire sentence, except leave out the first word?
Is it, again, because by leaving the single word "Don't" off the start of my sentence, you stripped the admonishment not to do something of its context and turned it into a different statement that implies I said they do it? That would be sneaky, but still a cheap attack.

Your mistake in understanding the Ad Hominem Fallacy is to assume it must be addressed to a "specific individual" (it's never addressed to a a specific reason -- there are other fallacies covering reasons). The "you" you used in your statement was addressed to a group of people and it implied their motivations were "feeling or preferences" rather than reasons that were connected to the question at hand.

If, I say, "don't do X" I only say it because I either believe the person may do X or has done X. Rhetorically we address what we think has happened or may happen. If we have no thought that it has happened or anticipation that it might happen we don't give a person a warning not to do it. In the context of the debate, what you said was pretty close to claiming that some people think the arguments against cross-tier trading are not logical because they have a "feeling or preference" rather than really being unable to see the logic of at least one statement against cross-tier trading. If, on the other hand, you were just warning people to NOT use their "feeling or preferences" to decide if an argument is logical or not, one has to wonder why you thought it necessary to do so if nobody, to the best of you knowledge, had ever done so. In either case, I am sorry if I miss-read your statement and it was just a general warning in case somebody might do that.

Finally, you are quite right in another of your statements. I think we agree on the specific use of "logical" and I think we can see that the colloquial use of the term to simply mean something like "reasonable, convincing or compelling" is probably not technically accurate. Like "fair" it tends to be used in place of a lot of other not-quite synonyms, but close.

To clarify further, a thing that is logical is valid. The connections between the antecedent and the conclusion are clear and warranted. It does not follow, therefore, that the conclusion is true. But if the premises used to draw the conclusion are true, and the logic valid (i.e. warranted) then the conclusion would be both valid and true. Validity is a measure of the logic of the argument, truth is a measure of the accuracy of the statements, antecedent or consequent.

My argument, again, about the various anti-cross tier trading is that some of the conclusions are false because they rest upon untrue premises, and some of them are false because the logic used is unwarranted. I agree with Eudaemonia that all the arguments I've seen are not logically compelling because of one of the two reasons just mentioned.

AJ