Oberoni Fallacy: Difference between revisions

From 2d4chan
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
imported>Administrator
m 16 revisions imported
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
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.  
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]]

Latest revision as of 13:56, 22 June 2023

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 original post[edit | edit source]

The Oberoni Fallacy is named after user "Oberoni" who made the following post to the Wizards D&D forum on July 23, 2002:

This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

  • "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
  • "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
  • "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

  • "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.

Retrieved from "http://2d4chan.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Oberoni_Fallacy&oldid=363078"