Advice on defeating Aegina's valk squad in Framm?, How best to do things the hard way Options

[Dr Strum]

Also, Suzu was right about Rosary and Durant.

Prove it.

[Raijinili]

Finally stopped deleting my posts?

Assumptions: You want both things. Priority is Dragon Killer. You picked Rosary.
Rosary is the only one who can get Dragon Killer. She needs Warp Shoes to do it. Therefore, Warp is reserved for a neighborhood around that battlefield.
Rosary can't warp for both items. So you must have a second choice. The next best choice is Durant. Because Rosary is out of the running (because your priority is Dragon Killer), and Roswell isn't in the party, Durant becomes THE best choice for Wheat, under the assumptions.

[Dr Strum]

We're not talking about long term. Who is immediately best, is what we're discussing. If the person we were originally giving advice to (was there someone?) wants the Dragon Killer, that doesn't change that warping is best for the Wheat; it just changes what they'll use.

[Raijinili]

No, YOU'RE not talking about long term. SUZU was. You're trying to use your own assumptions to prove her proof (which were under different assumptions) wrong. Though she's wrong under YOUR assumptions, that doesn't make her wrong under HER assumptions (assumptions which she stated).

[Dr Strum]

You're trying to use your own assumptions to prove her proof (which were under different assumptions) wrong.

No I wasn't. Would I consent that most people would not use the Warp Shoes that early, instead putting them off to BF25 if I was trying to prove him wrong on that?

[Raijinili]

Under the following conditions, disprove that Durant is the best choice:
1) You picked Rosary.
2) You want the Dragon Killer more than the Wheat.

I already gave a proof why Durant IS the best choice, so you'll have to disprove my proof to say that Suzu wasn't right.

[Dr Strum]

Now you're just ignoring everything.

[Raijinili]

You asked me to prove that Suzu was right. I did it using her assumptions. Then you said that we weren't talking about long term. I said that those were the assumptions, so the statement was correct. You then countered my point that she would only be wrong if we used your assumptions by using the technicality that you never claimed that she was wrong. So I ignored it and tried to get back to the point, which is that Suzu was right and you didn't admit it.

And "I admitted she was right about that one little thing" doesn't count.

This post has been edited by Raijinili: Mar 21 2007, 05:19 PM

[Dr Strum]

I said that those were the assumptions, so the statement was correct.

No, you said those were HIS assumptions, making his point correct UNDER said assumptions.

You then countered my point that she would only be wrong if we used your assumptions by using the technicality that you never claimed that she was wrong.

No, YOU said that he would only be wrong under my assumptions, to which I retorted that I even said in the long term most, if not all, would hold off on using the Warp Shoes, but that we were not talking about the long term so it was irrelevant.

So I ignored it and tried to get back to the point, which is that Suzu was right and you didn't admit it.

No, you ignored that we were already at the point that you had ignored the entire thread, and drew back to an assumption of a long term goal. This is just bad form.

[Raijinili]

No, you said those were HIS assumptions, making his point correct UNDER said assumptions.

They were THE assumptions because Suzu said that "if (assumptions) are true, then Durant is the best for the job." The statement in question (the one that can be right or wrong) is the conditional, NOT that Durant is the best for the job. I proved that the conditional is true.

No, YOU said that he would only be wrong under my assumptions, to which I retorted that I even said in the long term most, if not all, would hold off on using the Warp Shoes, but that we were not talking about the long term so it was irrelevant.

You: "Roswell and Rosary are far better at getting the Wheat."
Suzu: "Not if you got Rosary and want to get the Dragon Killer, which is way better then the Wheat (My personal opinion)"
You: "How does a better purpose on a different battlefield cause her to be worse at getting the Wheat?"

Suzu's response was a conditional: "If you assume that you got Rosary and want the DK, then Rosary and Roswell are not better at getting the wheat." The conditional is true if, whenever Rosary or Roswell is better at getting the wheat, you don't want DK or you didn't pick Rosary.

You then responded that this doesn't make her worse at getting the wheat (ignoring the fact that Suzu didn't claim that Durant was better at getting the wheat without the conditions, thereby making your argument a Straw Man fallacy). Whenever Suzu said that Durant was better at getting the wheat, it was under the conditions that would only apply for the long term.

YOU might not have been talking about the long term, but you were the only one. Suzu kept trying to bring in the long term, but you brushed it off and continued attacking a weaker target that you made up.

No, you ignored that we were already at the point that you had ignored the entire thread, and drew back to an assumption of a long term goal. This is just bad form.

Show me where Suzu ever said that Durant was the best, without a long-term conditional goal.

Edit: He said "best way to defeat Aegina's troops", not "best way to get the wheat."

This post has been edited by Raijinili: Mar 25 2007, 06:59 PM

[Dr Strum]

Why do you bother quoting if you're not even responding to the quoted text?

They were THE assumptions because Suzu said that "if (assumptions) are true, then Durant is the best for the job."

That was following my claim that Rosary and Roswell are best for getting the Wheat - nothing else said because Warp is always better than Horse movement for getting the Wheat.

ignoring the fact that Suzu didn't claim that Durant was better at getting the wheat without the conditions, thereby making your argument a Straw Man fallacy

I included the condition in my retort.

Whenever Suzu said that Durant was better at getting the wheat, it was under the conditions that would only apply for the long term.

And whenever I said anything it was under the assumption that the long term did not matter. In my very first post proclaiming Rosary and Roswell to be better, I made no mention of a long term because it was irrelevant.

but you brushed it off and continued attacking a weaker target that you made up.

What "weaker target that I made up?" I continually stated that future battles were irrelevant to my statement.

Show me where Suzu ever said that Durant was the best, without a long-term conditional goal.

Show me where I ever claimed Suzu said that.

[Feral Phoenix]

I don't think there's much point to this discussion now, except to prove that Sturm is allergic to admitting that he's wrong.

[Dr Strum]

There might be a point to that if I WERE wrong in this situation.

[Raijinili]

That was following my claim that Rosary and Roswell are best for getting the Wheat - nothing else said because Warp is always better than Horse movement for getting the Wheat.

That's only assuming no restrictions on resources. Which you assumed and Suzu didn't.

I included the condition in my retort.

What condition was that, exactly?

And whenever I said anything it was under the assumption that the long term did not matter. In my very first post proclaiming Rosary and Roswell to be better, I made no mention of a long term because it was irrelevant.

And yet, she was first to post about the best person to get the wheat. You challenged it, she justified her response. You then dismissed the justification with such gems as, "The long term doesn't matter," which is false. The long-term matters sometimes, and she stated that her choice for "best" was affected by long-term decision-making. She was using a long-term condition before you were not.

Justify how the long-term is irrelevant, then. Because you certainly haven't shown why ignoring the long-term makes for better advice.

What "weaker target that I made up?" I continually stated that future battles were irrelevant to my statement.

The weaker target being "Durant is the best for getting the wheat, unconditionally". She never claimed otherwise. Why, then, were you two arguing about whether Durant was the best rather than whether the long-term was irrelevant?

Show me where I ever claimed Suzu said that.

The whole argument was about whether or not Durant was better at getting the wheat. The point should've been settled right away: Rosary and Roswell were better under the short-term, and Durant was better for the long-term. You thus acted as if she was arguing for Durant without conditions. So I assumed you thought there was somewhere where she argued that.

[Dr Strum]

You challenged it,

I made no challenge, I interjected.

She was using a long-term condition before you were not.

So he's just as at fault as me for not explaining the conditions from the start.

Justify how the long-term is irrelevant, then. Because you certainly haven't shown why ignoring the long-term makes for better advice.

Fanelia Beam is far better than Disaresta against the Dark Aghart.
Is that statement wrong? No.
Does that mean you should waste your 1x Fanelia on the Dark Aghart? No.
If someone asks what is the best weapon against the Dark Aghart, one - without taking long term consequences into account - should respond "Fanelia." Would one? No. Because the final battle is a far better place to throw away your Fanelia.
Now in application: Did I ever claim that the Warp Shoes should be used for the Golden Wheat? No. Did I claim they were better than another method of obtaining it - disregarding future consequences? Yes. Do you understand now?

Why, then, were you two arguing about whether Durant was the best rather than whether the long-term was irrelevant?

Because Suzu doesn't know how to argue.

So I assumed you thought there was somewhere where she argued that.

Assumptions are bad for you.