How do you feel about map protecting?

[Varine]

If they were meant for learning, Blizzard probably would've added some half-decent examples (and the custom maps that Blizzard developed aren't very helpful, since they explain nothing about what everything is supposed to do)

So... because Blizzard doesn't make their maps as tutorials no one can learn from other ones?

 

[Sil3nt]

That made little sense. Other what? Rephrase please.

 

[Flare]

So... because Blizzard doesn't make their maps as tutorials no one can learn from other ones?

Ugh... did you even read the post? If Blizzard wanted maps to be a source of knowledge, they would've done that. Why should I (or anyone else) go out of our way to make our maps helpful to those who want to learn, because if the people that open the map are new to WE, they probably won't understand and could end up just copy-pasting material, which isn't helping them learn - and, the likelihood is that someone will come along, find this cool map which happens to be unproteted, add some cheats, slap their name on it and say it's their own awesome map. And that's not learning.

If people want to know how something is done, they can just ask the author (or anyone who may understand how it works). If they can't do that, then tough sh*t. It's just a question, and, going by the members here, they are likely to get a positive response.

 

[Crusher]

This has gone off topic....stick to the topic,not blizzard

 

[Magentix]

To all those opposed to map protection:

If it's truly that bad, malicious and douchebag-ish to protect your map, then why is Blizzard adding a built-in option in the SC2 editor to make your map unopenable to other people?

 

[TheDamien]

To all those opposed to map protection:

If it's truly that bad, malicious and douchebag-ish to protect your map, then why is Blizzard adding a built-in option in the SC2 editor to make your map unopenable to other people?

Is this even relevant?

 

[Magentix]

Is this even relevant?

If Blizzard implements it, I tend to believe it is.
P.S.: It is getting annoying.

 

[TheDamien]

If Blizzard implements it, I tend to believe it is.

Map protection does not become inherently more useful or less selfish simply because Blizzard are planning to implement it in Sc2. It may be a factor to consider when the time comes to debate the relative merits of map protection in Sc2, but is a completely irrelevant point here.

P.S.: It is getting annoying.

There are a number of websites dedicated to cataloging fallacies which I could use instead. Quite frankly it shouldn't be my job to educated you in such basic things, so I am not going to be picky over which websites I link to.

 

[Magentix]

*Rant mode on*

There are a number of websites dedicated to cataloging fallacies which I could use instead. Quite frankly it shouldn't be my job to educated you in such basic things, so I am not going to be picky over which websites I link to.

I was actually pointing to your modus operandi in which you generalize relevant arguments to make it easier to call them irrelevant.

• Step 1: Find a greater term for the subject and apply that one.
• Step 2: Write something not directly relevant and put a Wikipedia link to that term underneath it.
• Step 3: Use the above two to claim that the previous poster's argument was completely irrelevant.

Newsflash: when calling something by its more general name, of course you can apply more downsides to it...
What you are doing is applying deductive reasoning in an incorrect fashion with the intent of being able to then call for the negative sides of that logic.


Example:
- I wrote about Blizzard implementing it in SC2

• Step 1: You call this an "argument from authority".(While it is actually the designer admitting they left out a key feature in their previous games)
• Step 2: You write "Is this even relevant" and put a Wikipedia link to something completely different than "even relevant" underneath it. (Very irritating to have to actually mouse-over a link before you know what it's for)
• Step 3: Now that you've "proven" (yeah, right...) that this is clearly an example of an argument from authority, the other statement that you've made (it being irrelevant) must be true as well...

Since you love wikipedia so much:

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

Suppose I said something about Socrates, you would take this path of reasoning:
* Socrates is a human being
* A lot of human being can be total pricks
* There is a real chance of Socrates being a prick

And then you'd continue to break down the thing I said about Socrates, based on the probability of Socrates being a prick, even though the original argument had nothing to do with the being of a prick.

The "greater term" (humans) has more negative labels that can be applied to it than its smaller term (Socrates), which is why it's so easy to undermine someone's argument when using "greater terms" to generalize the lesser one.

Instead, you should motivate your answer as a direct response to the previous argument, not through generalization.

*Rant mode off*


Nothing personal, I just completely disagree with your way of reasoning and how you back up your arguments.

 

[BANANAMAN]

Can we please keep attacking each other to PMs?

No wait ignore that. I find it entertaining to see people bash each other

 

[Magentix]

I'm hardly attacking him, I'm just pointing out that the way he backs his arguments up seems illogical to me.

 

[TheDamien]

I was actually pointing to your modus operandi in which you generalize relevant arguments to make it easier to call them irrelevant.

• Step 1: Find a greater term for the subject and apply that one.
• Step 2: Write something not directly relevant and put a Wikipedia link to that term underneath it.
• Step 3: Use the above two to claim that the previous poster's argument was completely irrelevant.

I was spot on about the argument from authority. What Blizzard thinks/says/does about map protection in Sc2 has no effect on the facts as they are. Does DotA become a better map because Blizzard "support" it?

Newsflash: when calling something by its more general name, of course you can apply more downsides to it...

I'm not calling anything by its "more general name", I am pointing out fundamental mistakes in your reasoning.

What you are doing is applying deductive reasoning in an incorrect fashion with the intent of being able to then call for the negative sides of that logic.

What I'm "doing" is noting that a lot of your reasoning and rhetoric is fallacious. Take this as a sign that you should come up with something more solid, not that you should begin spewing nonsense about generalization and deductive reasoning.

Example:
- I wrote about Blizzard implementing it in SC2

You left out the important step of "and used it as an argument for map protection."

• Step 1: You call this an "argument from authority".(While it is actually the designer admitting they left out a key feature in their previous games)
• Step 2: You write "Is this even relevant" and put a Wikipedia link to something completely different than "even relevant" underneath it. (Very irritating to have to actually mouse-over a link before you know what it's for)
• Step 3: Now that you've "proven" (yeah, right...) that this is clearly an example of an argument from authority, the other statement that you've made (it being irrelevant) must be true as well...

There is a difference between "Blizzard are adding map protection to Sc2." And "If it's truly that bad, malicious and douchebag-ish to protect your map, then why is Blizzard adding a built-in option in the SC2 editor to make your map unopenable to other people?" In the latter, it is clearly being used as an argument.

Suppose I said something about Socrates, you would take this path of reasoning:
* Socrates is a human being
* A lot of human being can be total pricks
* There is a real chance of Socrates being a prick

This is not deductive reasoning, by the way. It more closely resembles some form of inference.

And then you'd continue to break down the thing I said about Socrates, based on the probability of Socrates being a prick, even though the original argument had nothing to do with the being of a prick.

Your entire analogy is badly conceived. Many of your arguments fall neatly into the category of fallacy - this is no more suspect than the assertion that Socrates was a human.

The "greater term" (humans) has more negative labels that can be applied to it than its smaller term (Socrates), which is why it's so easy to undermine someone's argument when using "greater terms" to generalize the lesser one.

Instead, you should motivate your answer as a direct response to the previous argument, not through generalization.

Pointing out the poverty of many of your arguments isn't a faulty generalization.

 

[Magentix]

This is not deductive reasoning, by the way. It more closely resembles some form of inference.

From your beloved Wiki:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning


I can see the tremendous difference...
By the way: You're trying to steer away from the essence of the matter by trying to bring down a part of the previous argument, based on the terminology it uses.

Pointing out the poverty of many of your arguments isn't a faulty generalization.

Trying to point it out through generalization is?



I still believe that if the designer of a game series implements a well-desired feature into their next game, they must believe at some point that there's nothing wrong with implementing it.

Thus, must they also believe that wanting to protect your map is perfectly normal and care for it more than they do for the arguments against people protecting their maps.

Instead of disproving this argument with generalization or other nifty tricks of debating, try to explain to us why Blizzard would implement something that you seem to deem so malicious.


P.S.:
The very fact that there were tools and tutorials designed to protect your map, shows that there was a great demand from the mapping community to have such a thing.

Quotes like "If there wasn't a way to protect your maps, I wouldn't even bother developing them. Just so some noob could put his name on my work? No thanks." can be found all over the place.


P.P.S.:
The fact that 95% (perhaps even more?) of the people that try to open maps do it with the sole intent of rigging a map or putting their name all over it is what caused people to want to protect their maps in the first place.

You can't start a website for every single map that you create.
Yet, if you release an unprotected copy of your map without having a website for it, it would only take a week before Battle.net is swamped with rigged or credit-stealing versions of your intellectual efforts.

Not very fun to see some cunt (Excuse my language, but that's what they are) take all the credit for something worked on for months.

 

[TheDamien]

From your beloved Wiki:


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

You're right, I should have said "some other form of inference." You can not conclude deductively that Socrates has X chance of being a prick because Y humans are pricks. That is simply not deductive reasoning.

By the way: You're trying to steer away from the essence of the matter by trying to bring down a part of the previous argument, based on the terminology it uses.

Well if you are using bad terminology, how can you expect effective communication?

Trying to point it out through generalization is?

Many of your arguments take a form which categorizes them as fallacious in the same way that Socrates took a form which categorized him as human. There is nothing faulty about that.

Thus, must they also believe that wanting to protect your map is perfectly normal and care for it more than they do for the arguments against people protecting their maps.

Another point goes flying right over your head. What Blizzard thinks or does has no effect on the facts (i.e. the ones in relation to map protection such as effectiveness, fairness and reliability) as they are. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you have trouble understanding the independence of a truth value from the opinion of a game developer?

Instead of disproving this argument with generalization or other nifty tricks of debating, try to explain to us why Blizzard would implement something that you seem to deem so malicious.

Demand, obviously.

Once again, it doesn't matter what Blizzard do or think in Sc2 because, I repeat, the facts remain as they are.

P.S.:
The very fact that there were tools and tutorials designed to protect your map, shows that there was a great demand from the mapping community to have such a thing.

A lot of people believing in something does not make it true nor does it constitute effective evidence for that proposition (and since you object to me linking to Wikipedia for some reason).

Quotes like "If there wasn't a way to protect your maps, I wouldn't even bother developing them. Just so some noob could put his name on my work? No thanks." can be found all over the place.

Quotes really don't count for much, see above.

P.P.S.:
The fact that 95% (perhaps even more?) of the people that try to open maps do it with the sole intent of rigging a map or putting their name all over it is what caused people to want to protect their maps in the first place.

I seriously doubt the reliability of this statistic.

You can't start a website for every single map that you create.
Yet, if you release an unprotected copy of your map without having a website for it, it would only take a week before Battle.net is swamped with rigged or credit-stealing versions of your intellectual efforts.

You don't need a website or even a free forum. Centralization is perfectly possible given websites like the Hive and this one, as long as users are directed to download the map at a certain place. And if you are actively developing your map, what are people going to do? Resteal it each time a new version is released and then somehow distribute it to such a degree that the original is played or known less than the copy? Really, if people stopped using ridiculous websites like epicwar altogether, I doubt rigged or stolen versions would even be that much of a problem..

 

[BANANAMAN]

I love it how this discussion has degraded down to proving who's the better person

GOOOO THEDAMIEN!!

 

[Flare]

I love it how this discussion has degraded down to proving who's the better person

I know, it's awesome Topic when from map protection to who's argument is better to Socrates and deductive reasoning

Anyway, this should really get back to map protection, and such. If you wanna discuss argument technique, you can go to General Discussion

 

[skullkidd]

well here is what i think.

I personally like them. They prevent people from making cheats and or taking credit for the map. If someone stole my map i know i would be pissed. So that makes a lot of sense. The only thing i do not like about them is that say you want to learn how to do a certain trigger that was used in a protected map. Well because of the protection, you can't learn. I wish their was a way you can view protected maps BUUUT, make it impossible (well to the extent of...) to edit it what so ever. I think people would agree with me on that.

 

[Flare]

Well because of the protection, you can't learn

That's a fairly strong statement to make :\

If people genuinely want to learn how to use WE, they will try it for themselves (that's how I started out in World Editor). If (insert something here) is still beyond their grasp, they can always ask the author, or (if the map author isn't reachable) search for a forum on Google. That's pretty much how I learned to use WE (I don't think I used another person's map as a base for learning when I started)

 

[skullkidd]

If people genuinely want to learn how to use WE, they will try it for themselves (that's how I started out in World Editor). If (insert something here) is still beyond their grasp, they can always ask the author, or (if the map author isn't reachable) search for a forum on Google. That's pretty much how I learned to use WE (I don't think I used another person's map as a base for learning when I started)

Thats a very good point. There are other ways to learn what you need done and figuring it out on your own helps you learn. Plus it gives you a self accomplished feeling haha. I shouldn't of said the words "you can't learn". Because you most certainly still can.