Healer role design change?

[vetch]

There's no cheat or fallacy there, some people just don't like it because when arguments are broken down into steps, it often lays bare glaring errors in logic that someone may have used to reach their conclusion.

But, in either case, I haven't had that "annoying" habit. If I lay out such an argument, it's generally to try and see what all points we actually agree on so I know where we can find further points of agreement. Some people say they hold a position they actually do not, but if you can drill down to what they actually do believe, then it allows actual compromise and progress.

I don't agree that this is what you're doing. I believe that you think it's what you're doing, that it's a worthy standard you're trying to live up to, but for the moment, I stand by my impression that you're skipping conversational steps without noticing, or that you're misidentifying the character of discussions in some other fundamental way that causes your method to misfire. If I'm wrong, just keep being yourself and I'll notice over time.

That said, I want to add an observation that this argument style wouldn't make you well-liked even if you were employing it with perfect form. People having ordinary conversations don't like being bullied into debates. Hell, sometimes they don't even like being forced to stake out a position before they're ready to. It's inherently tiresome, which is not a word you want applied to your conversational style if you're looking to have nice chats. The result of doing it anyway is precisely as you see -- either people ghost you or they embrace the junior debate club flavor you bring to the conversation and start picking apart your arguments like they're going to score points doing it.

Normal people who haven't consented to debate are better engaged, befriended, and convinced with smaller comments, repeated over time, regardless of any logical fallacies contained therein. This is a normal facet of human, non-debate interaction. If you want to pick apart someone's logical lacunae (because you just can't help yourself from doing so) while remaining well-liked enough that people don't avoid you on sight, then you have to exercise either a whole lot more tact and warmth that you currently do, or a whole lot less and just start butting heads openly.

I agree it's conceptually loathsome, but you have the causality backwards: FFXIV isn't trying to shoehorn a magical spellcaster healer into an action RPG framework with constant movement. FFXIV is trying to shoehorn an action RPG framework with constant movement onto a traditional tab targeting framework, netcode and class design.

I didn't mention any causality and I wasn't looking to have that particular conversation. But sticking to the point, note that you can draw a straight line through CBU3's recent offerings that points to them continuing down this ill-advised road of trying to turn FF14 into a clunky ARPG MMO, which means that healer kits will be chopped and shaped to fit, regardless of what predates what.

And that will make me very sad.

And I'm not going to engage with people openly engaging in such bad faith. Two of you now. "Well, you did this thing (we're going to accuse you of even though you don't have a frequent habit of doing it, actually), so we can defend attacking you because we felt like it even though you're acting in good faith and trying to have a serious discussion on a topic that everyone kind of agrees on overall." No, not today.

And there it is. The problem plaguing modern discussion of any topic, no matter how inconsequential: if someone doesn't find my argument well-formed and convincing, it must be that they're either trolling, or a bad-faith actor, or simply stupid, or some other problem inherent to them. It can't be that my arguments aren't as good and efficacious as I think they are, or that they're just plain mistaken about some stuff in an honest, understandable way. Therefore, the proper response is to publicly pathologize them, so everyone knows it's their problem and that they're a toxic element who is unwilling to engage with my good arguments.

If someone is engaging you in good faith, you should do the same, even if they HAD a history of bad faith.

I, and everyone else on every internet discussion forum that exists or ever will exist, reserve the right to stop talking and refuse engagement with someone who becomes annoying and pushy, regardless of whether they do so in good faith. As should you.