My first web comic!

Thanks to the magic of the Wacom tablet I purchased from Dave, and some excellent Paint.NET skills, I present to you my very first web comic! It illustrates the ad hoc logical fallacy. (Click on it so you can actually read the text; I'll fix that stupid problem in future comics.)



The ad hoc fallacy is committed when you attribute special reasoning in certain situations that you neglected to use in a similar situation in order to preserve your previously held hypothesis. While this example isn't explicit, the implicit hypothesis is that generosity is a trait only attributable to Democrats. When a Republican shows signs of generosity, it is assumed that he must be doing it for selfish reasons.


I don't know about you, but I think that it's nice to be able to formalize other people's bullshit.

Regarding Internet Debates

It is an often-quoted saying that arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

To that I respond, YOUR MOM'S RETARDED!

Q.E.D.

Nevertheless, I've been meaning to discuss some of the advantages of debating/discussing/arguing on the Internet versus in person, and the both exciting and petty debate that ensued from my previous post helped to fuel my motivation.

As Dave alluded to, Internet forums are a place where people like me can engage in debate without having to worry about actually having to face the person they're arguing with.

How true this is.

You see, when you have a debate on the internet, you have time to collect your thoughts. The speed at which you provide a retort is irrelevant, as it should be. You can formulate a rational argument (if you so choose) or in the case of some people, a nuclear-powered insult. I prefer the former, but I don't mind if the latter gets mixed in provided the content remains sound.

You don't have to worry about your audience interrupting you, or dodging the point by poking fun at superficial things like mispronounced words, etc. It's almost guaranteed that they will read what you have to say in its entirety; this opportunity is a luxury in my daily life. For this reason, I love debating with certain people online versus in person. They don't know how to act when they can't interrupt.

The written record is nice as well. It's helpful to be able to call people on their B.S.; perhaps they claim that you said something that you didn't, or that they never said something that they in fact did. Written formats also make it much easier to formulate logical arguments and refutations. Spoken logical arguments/refutations, on the other hand, 1) are easily dismissed with a "whatever"-type response, and 2) are fodder for interruption/sidetracking.

Of course, written debates aren't all peaches and cream Quaker oatmeal. For one, the lack of personal presence leads people, believe it or not, to be more caustic and vicious than they might otherwise be, especially when dealing with strangers. Does this viciousness materialize out of thin air though? Or is it repressed, and brought out in the relatively safe environment that the Internet provides? I'm not sure.

Online debates also tend to become very long-winded, with lots of fighting over points and sub-points. In person, we can't remember this much detail so we tend to move on out of necessity. This is either a good or bad thing, depending upon your perspective.

All in all, I wish more debates (e.g. political ones) were conducted in written form. It makes for a much better forum for presenting rational arguments that can be objectively evaluated, and eliminates a lot of the evasiveness and posturing that is so distracting in face-to-face exchanges.

As a long-winded aside, it perhaps goes without saying, but I wish that people ensured that they had sound arguments before entering into a debate of any kind. Ego shouldn't be the basis of arguments, regardless of how much we love to have it influence our snarky comments during these debates. On a related note, it's important to concede as soon as you realize that you're incorrect about something. If someone points out an inaccuracy or flaw in your logic, own up to it. People are so stuck in their ego-driven mindsets that they actually worry about "looking bad" and will defend poor arguments in order to save face. If I'm debating Creationism versus Darwinian Evolution, who cares who looks good or bad? If the person I'm debating with has a solid gold argument, I should be thankful to have the opportunity to learn from it. Why would I be so stubborn to cling to my stance despite having better evidence to the contrary? That's just silly.

3Dave and Logical Bankruptcy

3Dave says I'm a robot because I play Guitar Hero II and happen to have progressed further in the medium career mode than he has. He's dumb in the face. The fact that I've played more than him makes me a robot? That's the only reason I have more 5-star songs. He has more 5-star songs overall, has progressed further in the career mode overall, and is meticulously collecting achievements, which I mostly ignore. I think poor 3Dave is just jealous of my DorkAwesomeness. His arguments do not compute.

Update: I was hoping that he would respond in his usually logically bankrupt fashion, and did he ever! In case he erases his comment, here is the text:

"It's pretty obvious I haven't touched a nerve or anything."

This is a typical tactic of the logically bankrupt. Rather than addressing the arguments (which granted aren't very eloquently stated in my original post), he resorts to logical fallacies. In this case his fits snugly in the "Red Herring" category. A quick Google search yields the definition:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

This isn't surprising, since this is 3Dave's fallacy of choice. Virtually all of his arguments are "won" by detracting from the topic of conversation and instead poking fun in a desperate attempt to salvage credibility in an elementary-school fashion.

Stay tuned for more! I take far too much pleasure in poking holes in people's argumentation style, and for some it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Petty? Yes. DorkAwesome? Definitely.

Poker, and the Morality of Lt. Commander Data

As everyone knows, Lt. Commander Data of Star Trek: The Next Generation is programmed to be morally good, by and large. He's also a skilled poker player, exploiting every statistical advantage.

So what happens when he's playing poker and one of his opponents accidentally reveals part or all of their hand? Perhaps this opponent drops a card on the floor, or maybe Data merely catches a glimpse of his hand through a reflection. A shrewd poker player would exploit this to their advantage, but doing so would be immoral.

How would Data react?

Xbox 360 Achievements: My Thoughts

I couldn't decide on a first topic, so Dave recommended for some reason that I post my views about Xbox 360 Achievements, since it comes up from time to time. Specifically, he wanted me to write about why I don't care about them very much.

After some thought, I came up with three answers to this question: one on principle and the other two more pragmatically.

The first reason has to do with the fact that they are primarily a gimmick to get people hooked on the platform. That's not to say that I object to game elements that cause a player to become hooked; I just object to game elements that are designed first and foremost for this purpose. That said, it's a highly successful strategy and all of the infrastructure built around it is impressive.

But so what if they're a gimmick if they're fun, right? This leads me to my second reason I'm not a fan of them:

Xbox 360 Achievements are all too often an ordeal to achieve. They in a sense cause the game to play the player. When I play a game, I want the gameplay to be a reward in itself. If there are any goals to reach, I want them to be my own -- even if they coincide with the game's objectives (e.g. completing a specific mission or level). If I'm not enjoying a linear game, I won't continue playing. If I'm playing a sandbox-style game, I don't need the game to challenge me to complete a certain task within a certain amount of time. Don't get me wrong; these types of challenges can often be fun, but they can just as easily be an unenjoyable ordeal solely for the purpose of receiving a badge of completion. I object to the idea of placing so much value in this type of award that you're willing to sacrifice enjoyable gameplay in order to achieve it.

But plenty of games I like contain awards, right? Why is that any different from Xbox 360 Achievements? Let's look at some examples:

In a game like Battlefield 2142 or your average RPG, the gameplay rewards the player by granting them items and abilities as they progress. In Capcom's Dead Rising, you can obtain an Xbox 360 Achievement by having your character try on every single costume in the game's mall environment. What's the difference? In the first instance, the activities which lead to these rewards are enjoyable regardless of the reward. Further, the rewards are more than just badges of honor; they're actual gameplay elements which have an effect on the game experience. Even the "badges" awarded in Battlefield 2142 give point rewards which can be spent on new item upgrades. In contrast, running around a mall trying on every last costume is, in my opinion, an ordeal. What motivation do I have to achieve a goal that 1) is not fun to obtain, and 2) gives no reward that adds to the gameplay in any way? None, unless I simply want bragging rights -- and that's a large motivation for most players who collect Xbox 360 Achievements. This is also part of the brilliance of the marketing strategy: it exploits the power of gamers' egos to lure them into the competitive Xbox Live platform.

My third objection to Xbox 360 Achievements is much more practical in nature. Given that these awards offer virtually nothing more than bragging rights, you're essentially entering a rat race, and if you have as little time or inclination to play Xbox games as I do, there's little point in joining the fray. Assuming I placed value in these achievements, I would have to endure countless un-fun experiences in order to achieve a high gamerscore. Even then, it would be futile to attempt to outpace all of my friends and coworkers. It would be akin to someone who loathes chess studying the game and competing professionally (minus any financial reward). You'll never be the best and you won't enjoy the process of rising in ranks, aside from being able to brag to your friends about it.


To sum up, the Xbox 360 Achievement system is essentially a marketing gimmick that exploits players' egos in an effort to drive people to the Xbox / Xbox Live platform. They steer an ego-driven player's gaming experience in a direction that often diverges from fun gameplay, and require far too much effort for an otherwise willing gamer to remain competitive within the community.

All of this said, I stand by my statement that they're an excellent tool for driving players to the Xbox platform. I'd just rather be the guy selling the gimmick than the one buying into it.

Introduction to Dork Awesome

Welcome to Dork Awesome. This is a blog in which I post awesome and/or dorky things, depending upon your perspective. Topics may include computers, video games, Star Trek, pseudo-philosophy, or hobbits. I hope you enjoy your stay, and don't be a stranger.