Oberoni Fallacy - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 16 revisions imported

2023-06-22T13:56:15Z

16 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:56, 22 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-19T02:50:26Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:50, 19 June 2023
(No difference)

1d4chan>Biggus Berrus at 17:50, 21 September 2017

2017-09-21T17:50:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 21 September 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''Oberoni Fallacy''' (also called the ''[[Rule 0]] Fallacy'') is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.		The '''Oberoni Fallacy''' (also called the ''[[Rule 0]] Fallacy'') is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions. Not to be confused with the [[Stormwind fallacy]].

	The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't ''need'' to be fixed.		The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't ''need'' to be fixed.

1d4chan>SpectralTime: If you had a point, son, your ego at it. I'm sorry.

2015-02-02T05:40:31Z

If you had a point, son, your ego at it. I'm sorry.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:40, 2 February 2015
Line 31:		Line 31:

	</i></blockquote>		</i></blockquote>

	~~Hence, this logic is also an old acquaintance of many of the following:~~

	~~1) politicians~~

	~~2)corporate boards~~

	~~3) anarchists~~

	~~4) political extremists~~

	~~5) religious fundamentalists~~

	~~6) misogynistic philosophers~~

	~~7) military C.O.'s~~

	~~8) monolithic and absurdly expensive unions and charity organizations~~

	~~9) international aid groups specifically designed to throw money at people and be surprised when nothing is achieved~~

	10) a person on trial receiving a sentence for committing felony instead of murder when there was no felony at all or something similarly absurd such as going from being sentenced for crashing someone's car on the highway to being sentenced for crossing a red light because the defense lawyer is either amazing and/or because it's the only way to reduce the fee/sentence, and the legal system works that way on a normal basis.

	~~11) Terracentric astronomy. If anything else, the math used is absurd. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler made your physics and astronomy classes way easier than they otherwise would be.~~

	~~12) people who don't like to admit they made a mistake~~

	~~13) rpg misinterpreters/rpg idealists~~

	Rule 0 is relatively newly acquainted with rpg misinterpreters/idealists. Contrary to popular belief, the twelfth category, people who don't like to admit they made a mistake, does not necessarily include any of the first eleven categories which can be exclusive or inclusive of each other as well. Find that more or less scary as you will.

	[[Category:Roleplaying]][[Category:Gamer Slang]]		[[Category:Roleplaying]][[Category:Gamer Slang]]

24.22.220.160: /* The original post */

2015-02-02T02:35:20Z

The original post

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 2 February 2015
Line 54:		Line 54:
	10) a person on trial receiving a sentence for committing felony instead of murder when there was no felony at all or something similarly absurd such as going from being sentenced for crashing someone's car on the highway to being sentenced for crossing a red light because the defense lawyer is either amazing and/or because it's the only way to reduce the fee/sentence, and the legal system works that way on a normal basis.		10) a person on trial receiving a sentence for committing felony instead of murder when there was no felony at all or something similarly absurd such as going from being sentenced for crashing someone's car on the highway to being sentenced for crossing a red light because the defense lawyer is either amazing and/or because it's the only way to reduce the fee/sentence, and the legal system works that way on a normal basis.

	11) Terracentric astronomy ~~and astronomers~~. If anything else, the math used is absurd. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler made your physics and astronomy classes way easier than they otherwise would be.		11) Terracentric astronomy. If anything else, the math used is absurd. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler made your physics and astronomy classes way easier than they otherwise would be.

	12) people who don't like to admit they made a mistake		12) people who don't like to admit they made a mistake

24.22.220.160: /* The original post */

2015-02-02T02:34:54Z

The original post

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 2 February 2015
Line 35:		Line 35:

	1) politicians		1) politicians

	2)corporate boards		2)corporate boards

	3) anarchists		3) anarchists

	4) political extremists		4) political extremists

	5) religious fundamentalists		5) religious fundamentalists

	6) misogynistic philosophers		6) misogynistic philosophers

	7) military C.O.'s		7) military C.O.'s

	8) monolithic and absurdly expensive unions and charity organizations		8) monolithic and absurdly expensive unions and charity organizations

	9) international aid groups specifically designed to throw money at people and be surprised when nothing is achieved		9) international aid groups specifically designed to throw money at people and be surprised when nothing is achieved

	10) a person on trial receiving a sentence for committing felony instead of murder when there was no felony at all or something similarly absurd such as going from being sentenced for crashing someone's car on the highway to being sentenced for crossing a red light because the defense lawyer is either amazing and/or because it's the only way to reduce the fee/sentence, and the legal system works that way on a normal basis.		10) a person on trial receiving a sentence for committing felony instead of murder when there was no felony at all or something similarly absurd such as going from being sentenced for crashing someone's car on the highway to being sentenced for crossing a red light because the defense lawyer is either amazing and/or because it's the only way to reduce the fee/sentence, and the legal system works that way on a normal basis.
	11) Terracentric astronomy. If anything else, the math used is absurd. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler made your physics and astronomy classes way easier than they otherwise would be.
			11) Terracentric astronomy and astronomers. If anything else, the math used is absurd. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler made your physics and astronomy classes way easier than they otherwise would be.

	12) people who don't like to admit they made a mistake		12) people who don't like to admit they made a mistake

	13) rpg misinterpreters/rpg idealists		13) rpg misinterpreters/rpg idealists

24.22.220.160: /* The original post */

2015-02-02T02:33:49Z

The original post

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 </i></blockquote>
-Hence, this logic is also an old acquaintance of many politicians, corporate boards, anarchist, political extremists, religious fundamentalists, misogynistic philosophers, and people who don't like to admit they made a mistake, and is relatively newly acquainted with rpg misinterpreters/idealists. Contrary to popular belief, the seventh category, people who don't like to admit they made a mistake, does not necessarily include any of the first six categories. Find that more or less scary as you will.
+Hence, this logic is also an old acquaintance of many of the following:
 [[Category:Roleplaying]][[Category:Gamer Slang]]

24.22.220.160: /* The original post */

2015-02-02T02:11:25Z

The original post

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 2 February 2015
Line 31:		Line 31:

	</i></blockquote>		</i></blockquote>

			Hence, this logic is also an old acquaintance of many politicians, corporate boards, anarchist, political extremists, religious fundamentalists, misogynistic philosophers, and people who don't like to admit they made a mistake, and is relatively newly acquainted with rpg misinterpreters/idealists. Contrary to popular belief, the seventh category, people who don't like to admit they made a mistake, does not necessarily include any of the first six categories. Find that more or less scary as you will.

	[[Category:Roleplaying]][[Category:Gamer Slang]]		[[Category:Roleplaying]][[Category:Gamer Slang]]

1d4chan>Derpysaurus: How about we, a family of happy jackasses, instead of arguing over a fucking wiki page which in turn, turns this page into a convoluted unreadable mess of a clusterfuck. Shift it over to the Discussion page like it was intended?

2015-01-03T05:17:39Z

How about we, a family of happy jackasses, instead of arguing over a fucking wiki page which in turn, turns this page into a convoluted unreadable mess of a clusterfuck. Shift it over to the Discussion page like it was intended?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 3 January 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't ''need'' to be fixed.		The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't ''need'' to be fixed.


	: '''A rebuttal''':This only really matters if you are either horribly semantically pedantic, view the rules as written as a religious tome or are just a jerk. It is true that busted rules shouldn't need to be fixed by players, but you are going to tweak the game to your tastes no matter what (by making your own setting or stopping players killing npcs and role playing instead of rolling dice) this is basically just a way for people to bitch and moan about whatever they feel is shitty without being considered pricks.
	:: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal''':There is a difference between "tweaking" the rules and ''completely ignoring entire rules or sections of the book''. The former means you're making minor adjustments and adding new options and abilities (like feats or skills, for example) to account for a custom setting. The latter means making up entire new systems and mechanics (like a social combat system, or an altered spell-casting system) that do not exist in the original work because it doesn't do what you want it to. '''This is literally explained in the original post quoted lower on the page.'''
	::: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal''':The fallacy is also flawed because what is and is not "broken" is subjective, thus the idea of the rules needing to be fixed is not exact. There exists no metrics to measure perceived "broken" rules. For example plenty of people do not view casters as broken in 3.5/pathfinder and play those games straight with no house rules of any kind, while other players may view casters as being to strong or to weak and make adjustments accordingly. Unless there exists metrics to measure how broken something is in a completely objective manner (something not possible when the GM can make whatever they want in the game as long as it follows the rules) the Oberoni Fallacy fails. Its existence is just evidence that people will try to find a psudo-logical means to justify their dislike of a thing.
	:::: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal''':That is just an argument against the original assertion made by the figurative "Bob", claiming that there is ultimately no such thing as a perfectly broken rule. This is a seperate argument that could be made against the assertion "there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X", a possible fourth option other than the three laid out by Oberoni. It does not, however make the argument that "there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always [[Rule 0]] the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue" any less fallacious.

	== The original post ==		== The original post ==

98.213.42.80: provided a counter-counter-counter-rebuttal

2015-01-03T04:57:52Z

provided a counter-counter-counter-rebuttal

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:57, 3 January 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal''':There is a difference between "tweaking" the rules and ''completely ignoring entire rules or sections of the book''. The former means you're making minor adjustments and adding new options and abilities (like feats or skills, for example) to account for a custom setting. The latter means making up entire new systems and mechanics (like a social combat system, or an altered spell-casting system) that do not exist in the original work because it doesn't do what you want it to. '''This is literally explained in the original post quoted lower on the page.'''		:: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal''':There is a difference between "tweaking" the rules and ''completely ignoring entire rules or sections of the book''. The former means you're making minor adjustments and adding new options and abilities (like feats or skills, for example) to account for a custom setting. The latter means making up entire new systems and mechanics (like a social combat system, or an altered spell-casting system) that do not exist in the original work because it doesn't do what you want it to. '''This is literally explained in the original post quoted lower on the page.'''
	::: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal''':The fallacy is also flawed because what is and is not "broken" is subjective, thus the idea of the rules needing to be fixed is not exact. There exists no metrics to measure perceived "broken" rules. For example plenty of people do not view casters as broken in 3.5/pathfinder and play those games straight with no house rules of any kind, while other players may view casters as being to strong or to weak and make adjustments accordingly. Unless there exists metrics to measure how broken something is in a completely objective manner (something not possible when the GM can make whatever they want in the game as long as it follows the rules) the Oberoni Fallacy fails. Its existence is just evidence that people will try to find a psudo-logical means to justify their dislike of a thing.		::: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal''':The fallacy is also flawed because what is and is not "broken" is subjective, thus the idea of the rules needing to be fixed is not exact. There exists no metrics to measure perceived "broken" rules. For example plenty of people do not view casters as broken in 3.5/pathfinder and play those games straight with no house rules of any kind, while other players may view casters as being to strong or to weak and make adjustments accordingly. Unless there exists metrics to measure how broken something is in a completely objective manner (something not possible when the GM can make whatever they want in the game as long as it follows the rules) the Oberoni Fallacy fails. Its existence is just evidence that people will try to find a psudo-logical means to justify their dislike of a thing.
			:::: '''A rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal''':That is just an argument against the original assertion made by the figurative "Bob", claiming that there is ultimately no such thing as a perfectly broken rule. This is a seperate argument that could be made against the assertion "there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X", a possible fourth option other than the three laid out by Oberoni. It does not, however make the argument that "there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always [[Rule 0]] the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue" any less fallacious.

	== The original post ==		== The original post ==