Dave,
I would argue that if someone's argument can't be accepted on the merits or logic of it and they must inject credentials into it, then other people are justified in subjecting those credentials to critique.
Imagine the following:
Code:
A implies B
A is true
Therefore B
Opposition: Why is A true?
Answer: Because I am a Phd and have an IQ close to God.
Opposition: Argument by authority. Where do your Phd come from?
Answer: Can't tell you.
Opposition: Can we see some of your published papers on your thesis?
Answer: Topsecret/codeword
I mean, I don't think it is a personal attack on Derek to ask these questions, after all, he brought his credentials into it. I have no wish to bash Derek. Other people have wasted way more time on it. Derek has done some respectible things and put in some hard work on his games, so I'll focus only on what he *has achieved* (as opposed to claims of brilliance or talking the talk) But none of that absolves a person from having to present a well reasoned argument and refrain from ad hominen, argument via authority, etc
Yes, part of the problem is other people in these forums feeding the fire, but Derek in many cases, starts the fire by responding to any disagreement with condescension and reference to his credentials. It's possible to respond to disagreement by writing a short, concise, logical reply containing mostly facts. Responding with "Your wrong, because I am a God" is not conducive to a discussion, which is the whole point of having a
discussion forum.
The most egregious problem is the assumption that no one in this forum has credentials of similar caliber. We know that there are dozens of devs and hardware engineers in these forums who have shipped games and products, but who prefer anonymity and don't bring their supposed "expertise" as a hammer into discussions. ERP and Fafalada for example are well known console developers for example, but I have rarely to never seen them speak about their games or use their job as a way to win an argument.
Civil discussion is possible. My point is, if you try to inject your own hyper-intelligence or super-education into the argument as an authorative fact that backs up the foundation of an argument, then opposition has the right and logical imperative to fact-check those assertions.
) and there were some on-topic points there. Your previous post was purely there to attack Derek and served no useful purpose in this thread.
