I do, otherwise known as argumentum ad numerum, using the popularity of a premise as evidence for truthfulness; not that you can use this particular fallacy in the way that you’re using it.
I have made no premise or proposition with which I would need to do this, I simply used a word, in a context, that is in line with the way that English is used by people who speak English.
What point? All you’ve done is misunderstand the use of the word defend and the context it was used in.
So you are the one trying to cover his mistakes with fallacies.
And my point was that this usage made no sense in that context, to which you answered “but people understand me” as if this was an argument about the validity of your usage.
I literally told you that, just because it makes sense in the general case, does not mean it is correct in the specific context.
The point where I explain why this usage is incorrect.
It’s not, he literally claimed that his usage was proven correct by the fact that you understood him.
Yet you all avoided my point to engage in a appeal to popularity.
It’s not a proof that his usage is correct in the context.
I did not claim that you did not understand him. I claimed that the way he used the term “defend” was incorrect in the context.
So your “evidence” that you understand him is irrelevant, unless it made his usage correct, that is that my point about the correction was wrong, therefore your “evidence” is just an appeal to popularity.
Howdy. Member of the evil P I R A T here (was in VMG prior). Let’s get some facts straight here:
I started doing Wardecs solo and in small groups 5-10 people back in 2013-2014. Back then there were plenty of smaller groups that were manageable for defenders to take on. Sure there’s always been groups that interdicted at trade hubs and pipes but there was actually hunting and stalking back then. Today that is virtually non-existent.
The changes requiring a structure to declare war obviously did NOT have the intended outcome that the CSM and CCP stated. It was said that NOW there was an objective to FIGHT over. That there was a place to hit the evil highsec Wardec guys back instead of them just tucking tail and running.
Since the war HQ changes we’ve seen a very small handful of actual fights happen. I think our war HQ was pooped on maybe once? The Nullsec dominated CSM was totally onboard with being able to have a mechanic to throw their N+1 fleets at in the event they actually wanted to bother with coming to Highsec.
The pre existing war dec groups merged not because of war costs but because we knew that we were going to be more vulnerable to the N+1 fleets that would be thrown at us in an attempt to end the war HQ. I personally was very excited at the thought of being able to actually have something to brawl and slug it out over against my fellow mercenaries, but I totally understand grouping up to help fend off the Nullsec menace.
I would wager that most of the structures we take down belong to some guy whose main lives in Nullsec or some idiot that’s trying to setup a market hub where we don’t want him to. Most new player groups have adopted to the meta of having your structure in an Alt corp and abusing the ACL settings.
We get asked to blow structures up on behalf of smaller industrial groups frequently. The small-time industrialist with a feud against his neighbor is asking us to fight on his behalf.
I am 100% positive that Highsec wars have contributed to players quitting. Hell I know I myself have made plenty quit this terrible game. The question I want to pose is how many other horrible variables were factors in that as well?
How many people have quit the game due to terrible CEOs not leading or teaching new players?
How many people have quit the game after a terrible NPE?
How many people have quit the game after naively losing a ship in Lowsec? (Last bit of data I looked at showed that more new players lost ships in Lowsec than to Highsec wars)
The CSM asked CCP to present data surrounding wardecs but we were never really privy to the information and data given to the CSM? How do we know that this data takes into consideration the points listed above and many others not listed?
The point I’m trying to make that despite CCP having a whole season focused around improving Highsec war and making the NPE better, things haven’t really improved. Wars are in a worse position than before.
Their changes and the CSMs lobbying made all the Mercs band together under one alliance.
Upwell structures are NOT a good content generator.
People continue to bitch and moan about wars despite being given the opportunity for immunity AND and method to target a war HQ to end those wars and be immune for 2 weeks.
It’s almost as if CCP has a habit of making changes to areas of the game without consulting the players that participate in that content first. Instead they’d prefer to glean on biased information from a Null controlled CSM.
So again I will ask like the many others here have… What will increasing the cost of wars (again) do you benefit this activity?
It made perfect sense in that context, defending something includes taking measures to lower the chances of something unfortunate happening to it.
to which you answered “but people understand me” as if this was an argument about the validity of your usage.
The fact the people understood what I posted and the context in which it was posted somewhat negates your claim that my post made no sense in the context it was posted, because it obviously did make sense to people that are not you.
It’s not, he literally claimed that his usage was proven correct by the fact that you understood him.
No I did not, I merely pointed out that people with far more familiarity with English than yourself understood the content and context of what I posted, which incidentally means that it made sense; and that the word defend can be used in different contexts to mean different things.
You can continue to be incorrect all day and that won’t change.
English is a mash of other languages and very bastardised. There are a lot of subtleties in it that don’t require an appeal to popularity for it’s use to be correct. It’s just the language. His use in context was correct.
Nothing you can do to change that. The only thing you could do is try to learn a little, but that doesn’t seem likely so far.
They’ll still pay the fee when they feel it’s worth it. They won’t feel it’s worth paying 2 bill to keep war deccing random new player corps or other low value targets.
Even pirat member admits the current war system is bad. Worse than before even. All mercs banding together is not a good situation.
Increase cost of wars at least reduces the number of wars against low value targets. It is madness to spend 2 bill to declare war for a week against some noob corp who will yield no good kills.
Dramatically increase the costs of war to scale with the number of players in a corp/alliance. This seems like the most simple and effective method to to cut back on mercs banding together like that. If they all band together, the cost of maintaining 100 wars will be enormous.
The base cost to declare war stays the same, 100m. Anything above 10 in a corp and the price increases by X isk per player. Calculated by the average number of players online in a corp during past 30 days. A 500 man corp should pay a lot of isk to issue a war dec.
Another option In case they try to circumvent the fee structure, by making a new corp every week to issue the wars with just one player in the corp for the cheapest war fees and then having everyone join once the wars are issued: The system will check daily the number of players in the corp. If it is higher than the amount paid for, issue news war bills to account for the increased costs of active wars, that needs to be paid within 24 hours or all wars are cancelled.
Except that, as was my point, this definition does not apply to structure, for which you can do … nothing about if people want to destroy it.
So when I tell you to apply “don’t anchor what you can’t defend” to your ships, it implies to use the same meaning for your ship that you use for the structure.
It does not, that’s an appeal to popularity. Hence why I told you.
Unrelated. It’s not about them understanding you, it’s about your usage being in contradiction with the context.
Just because they understand your usage, does not mean that it is correct in the context you use it.
like just because I understand “true is false”, does not mean that this affirmation makes sense.
