"Forums filled with Group Think", to my dismay and wonder, "where have all the original posts gone?"

Undeniably, much of the forum has fallen into a state of dissent. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I can't begin to identify with it, as none of the issues are in my experience of the game.

Everyone is saying the same thing. The synic in me says there's a list of talking points. But why? It's a free game? Be thankful for crying out loud.

"leef;579500" wrote:

This is just a horrible argument. We are debating something neither of us can proof, and you're dismissing it because its an assumption without anything backing it up. Your assumption that it is in fact not what is happening on the forum currently, isnt backed up either. We both made assumptions that neither of us can proof, so simply calling it an assumption is just a hollow argument that looks good on paper.

You and OP made an assumption, which is the basis, the premise, of both of your arguments. I don't have to backup my assumption, merely point out that your original premise is flawed. If you do expect me to provide evidence to disprove your assumption in order to disprove it, this becomes is a logical fallacy, actually called 'Argument from Ignorance',
You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right.
The burden of proof of the underlying premise is with those bringing the argument forward, not those calling it wrong. If you do bring any sort of proof, the burden shifts.

And by the way, I am NOT arguing that your (and OPs) premise is right or wrong, just pointing out that lack of facts about the underlying assumption invalidates the argument.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Lianara;579589" wrote:

"leef;579500" wrote:

This is just a horrible argument. We are debating something neither of us can proof, and you're dismissing it because its an assumption without anything backing it up. Your assumption that it is in fact not what is happening on the forum currently, isnt backed up either. We both made assumptions that neither of us can proof, so simply calling it an assumption is just a hollow argument that looks good on paper.

You and OP made an assumption, which is the basis, the premise, of both of your arguments. I don't have to backup my assumption, merely point out that your original premise is flawed. If you do expect me to provide evidence to disprove your assumption in order to disprove it, this becomes is a logical fallacy, actually called 'Argument from Ignorance',
You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right.
The burden of proof of the underlying premise is with those bringing the argument forward, not those calling it wrong. If you do bring any sort of proof, the burden shifts.

And by the way, I am NOT arguing that your (and OPs) premise is right or wrong, just pointing out that lack of facts about the underlying assumption invalidates the argument.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Anywhere on the forum, there's criticism of the game, the employees, the company . And they are the same and are repeated often. I don't need to prove this as it's common knowledge, anyone with eyes and a phone can see it.

"ImYourHuckleberry;579617" wrote:

"Lianara;579589" wrote:

"leef;579500" wrote:

This is just a horrible argument. We are debating something neither of us can proof, and you're dismissing it because its an assumption without anything backing it up. Your assumption that it is in fact not what is happening on the forum currently, isnt backed up either. We both made assumptions that neither of us can proof, so simply calling it an assumption is just a hollow argument that looks good on paper.

You and OP made an assumption, which is the basis, the premise, of both of your arguments. I don't have to backup my assumption, merely point out that your original premise is flawed. If you do expect me to provide evidence to disprove your assumption in order to disprove it, this becomes is a logical fallacy, actually called 'Argument from Ignorance',
You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right.
The burden of proof of the underlying premise is with those bringing the argument forward, not those calling it wrong. If you do bring any sort of proof, the burden shifts.

And by the way, I am NOT arguing that your (and OPs) premise is right or wrong, just pointing out that lack of facts about the underlying assumption invalidates the argument.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Anywhere on the forum, there's criticism of the game, the employees, the company . And they are the same and are repeated often. I don't need to prove this as it's common knowledge, anyone with eyes and a phone can see it.

That wasn't your argument. You claimed was that this criticism is caused by groupthink, and is not genuine. Leef claimed that because I can't prove the contrary, his (and your) argument is valid, which I pointed out is a logical fallacy.

@lianara
So you actually think i'm right, but because its an unproveable assumption with a flawed premise I'm technically wrong ?
"You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right."
This is actually what you did, dismissing the argument because there is no proof. I only called it an hollow argument wich doesnt help us get closer to a consensus about what is best for the forum. I never claimed that was the reason i'm right. You on the other hand did claim i'm wrong because i can't proof it.

I made a solid case for what i believe is going on on this forum. Dismiss it if you want. I just hope if the negativity is influencing individuals negativily, that they become self-aware and re-evaluate their forum-posting behaviour. I think that would make the forum a much healthier place.

"Lianara;579624" wrote:

"ImYourHuckleberry;579617" wrote:

"Lianara;579589" wrote:

"leef;579500" wrote:

This is just a horrible argument. We are debating something neither of us can proof, and you're dismissing it because its an assumption without anything backing it up. Your assumption that it is in fact not what is happening on the forum currently, isnt backed up either. We both made assumptions that neither of us can proof, so simply calling it an assumption is just a hollow argument that looks good on paper.

You and OP made an assumption, which is the basis, the premise, of both of your arguments. I don't have to backup my assumption, merely point out that your original premise is flawed. If you do expect me to provide evidence to disprove your assumption in order to disprove it, this becomes is a logical fallacy, actually called 'Argument from Ignorance',
You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right.
The burden of proof of the underlying premise is with those bringing the argument forward, not those calling it wrong. If you do bring any sort of proof, the burden shifts.

And by the way, I am NOT arguing that your (and OPs) premise is right or wrong, just pointing out that lack of facts about the underlying assumption invalidates the argument.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Anywhere on the forum, there's criticism of the game, the employees, the company . And they are the same and are repeated often. I don't need to prove this as it's common knowledge, anyone with eyes and a phone can see it.

That wasn't your argument. You claimed was that this criticism is caused by groupthink, and is not genuine. Leef claimed that because I can't prove the contrary, his (and your) argument is valid, which I pointed out is a logical fallacy.

I didn't claim all critcism is caused by group think, only that group think exists now, and can be shown by the critism of the game, the employees and the company, all being similar in nature. This criticism attacks anyone who disagrees with them, so that it in essence silences dissent of their dissent. As you are trying to do to me, through the guise of logical blah, blah.

"ImYourHuckleberry;578680" wrote:
No one is infallible except God. And unless you're God, you need to come with facts and figures. But remember, figures lie, and liars figure.

Delicious irony that the OP, who is dismayed by group think, posts the best example of group think in the entire troll thread.

"leef;579636" wrote:
@lianara
So you actually think i'm right, but because its an unproveable assumption with a flawed premise I'm technically wrong ?
"You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right."
This is actually what you did, dismissing the argument because there is no proof. I only called it an hollow argument wich doesnt help us get closer to a consensus about what is best for the forum. I never claimed that was the reason i'm right. You on the other hand did claim i'm wrong because i can't proof it.

I made a solid case for what i believe is going on on this forum. Dismiss it if you want. I just hope if the negativity is influencing individuals negativily, that they become self-aware and re-evaluate their forum-posting behaviour. I think that would make the forum a much healthier place.

I didn't claim your conclusion was wrong, and I also didn't claim it was right (as I have no data to back up any of it). I did however say that your argument is completely empty as it has no basis on facts. The burden is on you to put forth a proof of your argument, not for me to disprove it. Thus, I am claiming that your argument itself is worthless, hollow as you called it.
You made no actual case (calling it solid?? Seriously?), just made a guess and are claiming that because I can't disprove it, you are somehow right. That is precisely the logical flaw.

You keep thinking I am debating your conclusion - I am not, as I have no data (and neither do you) to have this conclusion backed by fact. I am pointing out that the actual claim by OP (and your support for it) is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion isn't invalid because I have proof to contrary, your conclusion is invalid because YOU haven't provided any proof of it.

OP put out a claim that forum posters are engaged in groupthink. That they may not necessarily have an issue, but are claiming that issue because they want to belong to that group of unhappy players. You further claimed that negative post have a snowball effect.

1. Groupthink is not about multiple people posting same complaint.
2. You have no basis to claim snowball effect, have no data to back it up.
3. You claim that my dismissing your argument as baseless is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately for you, It's not how logical fallacies are defined. When you argue something, prove it. Don't accuse those claiming your argument is INVALID (not WRONG) of not being able to disprove it. It is impossible to disprove existence of pink unicorns in nature, but it doesn't mean that anyone claiming they exist have a valid argument in that case.
4. You think there are only two conclusions - either you are right that there is a groupthink/ snowball effect (which you believe you backed up with a solid case), or I'm am right and there isn't (which you claim I didn't back up). There is a third option - that there is no way to actually claim such argument due to lack of data, making it neither true nor false. Which is actually what my point is.
5. If it turns out that majority of forum posters have no issues but are complaining under influence due to negative posts, I will concede you are right. I am curious how you would provide any 'solid case' to prove it.

I have been a member of many forums (some photography forums as well) where any complain against particular piece of gear was met with the same ridicule. Those forums usually die after a while or turn away anyone that believe they have genuine issues or anyone genuinely trying to help. There is nothing worse on the forums than derisively dismissing complaints.

"ImYourHuckleberry;579644" wrote:

"Lianara;579624" wrote:

"ImYourHuckleberry;579617" wrote:

"Lianara;579589" wrote:

"leef;579500" wrote:

This is just a horrible argument. We are debating something neither of us can proof, and you're dismissing it because its an assumption without anything backing it up. Your assumption that it is in fact not what is happening on the forum currently, isnt backed up either. We both made assumptions that neither of us can proof, so simply calling it an assumption is just a hollow argument that looks good on paper.

You and OP made an assumption, which is the basis, the premise, of both of your arguments. I don't have to backup my assumption, merely point out that your original premise is flawed. If you do expect me to provide evidence to disprove your assumption in order to disprove it, this becomes is a logical fallacy, actually called 'Argument from Ignorance',
You would essentially claim that just because I can't disprove something you can't prove, you are right.
The burden of proof of the underlying premise is with those bringing the argument forward, not those calling it wrong. If you do bring any sort of proof, the burden shifts.

And by the way, I am NOT arguing that your (and OPs) premise is right or wrong, just pointing out that lack of facts about the underlying assumption invalidates the argument.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Anywhere on the forum, there's criticism of the game, the employees, the company . And they are the same and are repeated often. I don't need to prove this as it's common knowledge, anyone with eyes and a phone can see it.

That wasn't your argument. You claimed was that this criticism is caused by groupthink, and is not genuine. Leef claimed that because I can't prove the contrary, his (and your) argument is valid, which I pointed out is a logical fallacy.

I didn't claim all critcism is caused by group think, only that group think exists now, and can be shown by the critism of the game, the employees and the company, all being similar in nature. This criticism attacks anyone who disagrees with them, so that it in essence silences dissent of their dissent. As you are trying to do to me, through the guise of logical blah, blah.

How exactly can it be shown? Are you really saying that that since is there is criticism of the game, groupthink exists? One is not guaranteed to be derived from the other.
If you were critical to those critical of the game by providing evidence of why they are wrong, I would not have argued with you. But you opinion is not a dissenting opinion, you didn't target specific complaint or complainant, you (wrongly) grouped all complainers into one category. You started disparaging forum users for complaints against the company.

And regardless of your low opinion of logic, it's probably something the forums need more of.

So this reminds me of a good story. One day back in 'Nam, we were patrolling near a reported munitions supply point. I was on point, and Skippy was following me navigating. He had the map and compass. We were skirting a rice paddy in the treeline, but needed to cross the paddy to continue. Skippy thought he knew a shortcut, so we backed into the trees and hunkered down for a few while we looked at it.

We brought the firing team leaders in to look at the map. Lenny, Scooter, and Jags peered down at the map with Skippy and me. The mosquitos were terrible, and I remember smearing bug juice all over the map by accident. Scooter sadly had the bowel runs for the last couple of days due to some bad water he drank, so he was already in a foul mood. And he lit into me for smearing the grease pencil on the map. Poor fella hadn't had a solid movement in days, and he was fit to be tied about it. And he took it out on me.

Needless to say, an argument broke out about where to go next. We were running out of water, Scooter needed to clean himself off, and we were quite a few clicks from the bivouac site. Lenny and Skippy wanted to take the shortcut. Jags and I wanted to continue as planned. And Scooter was just soiled, angry, and disagreeable with everything. And he made it impossible to come to a consensus, or even a majority. Nothing was good enough for him. He kept claiming that god wanted the squad to go a completely different way--across the paddy. We just figured he needed some water and some crackers. We thought he maybe was becoming delusional.

What's the point? None of us knew. We all just knew we were grumpy due to the heat, mosquitos, and the crappy water. All of these adverse conditions made all of us irritable, and we took it out on each other. For no reason. Some arguments made sense, and some made none whatsoever. But the argument just went on for what seemed like forever. We just needed to wrap up and move on so we could get to the bivouac site.

Kind of like this post....