Oberoni Fallacy

The Oberoni Fallacy is arguing that the rules of a game aren't broken because you can ignore a nonsensical rule, or fiat a houserule as an exception.

The logical inconsistency is expending effort to contradict a rule that is supposedly just fine as it is.

The original post

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.