Mind Crush

[Jack-Wyler]

Can I check my opponent's hand when I use this card? because it's not really written on the text of the card and Netrep only answer me in the case of my opponent has not the card in hand.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I hardly think a Pre-Adolescent is referred to as a child "¦

If a 2 year-old makes a logical argument as well i will listen.

Anyway, who's to say where the text comes from? I do know it comes from someone who translated the text from Japanese to English. I dont know who that person is. For all we know, it could be contracted out, just like American Car Makers who have car parts made in India or Mexico.

It is not contracted out. It is the Game's Creator's/Konami's decision on translations. (UDE offers input)

 

[masterwoo0]

If a 2 year-old makes a logical argument as well i will listen.



It is not contracted out. It is the Game's Creator's/Konami's decision on translations. (UDE offers input)

Again, who verified this information, and why should I take your word as to it being "true"? You are, after all, not an Official Konami Spokesman....

And a 2 year old shouldnt have to make a logical argument for you to listen. It's called common courtesy. When someone talks to you, you give them the courtesy of listening. To do otherwise is to be discourteous, obnoxious, and rude.

So, I would take your literal comment to mean that if that same two year old did not make a logical statement, then they are not worthy of paying attention to.

 

[Jason_C]

Arguments have everything to do with Debating Skills. I was also on a Debating as well as Speech Team in my High School. If you cannot provide a reasonable, and convincing "argument", to your opponents viewpoint, you have lost any chance of "proving" that you have the more correct answer, even if it's a lie, or "untruth".

That has nothing to do with DaGuy's question. He asked you if were aware of the definition of "proof". A reasonable question indeed, since you had said that our proving our point would only show we were better at debating than you. This is NOT true. Convincing you we are right would show we are better at debating than you. Proving to you we are right is proof. Your debating skills, be they great or not so great, have nothing to do with whether proof is proof.

And a 2 year old shouldnt have to make a logical argument for you to listen. It's called common courtesy. When someone talks to you, you give them the courtesy of listening. To do otherwise is to be discourteous, obnoxious, and rude.

So, I would take your literal comment to mean that if that same two year old did not make a logical statement, then they are not worthy of paying attention to.

Again, this is unrelated to what DaGuy said. His statement was not about courtesy. He was simply explaining why your statement was offensive and insulting. By "your statement" I mean when you said you could understand condescending to a child but not to you.

 

[masterwoo0]

That has nothing to do with DaGuy's question. He asked you if were aware of the definition of "proof". A reasonable question indeed, since you had said that our proving our point would only show we were better at debating than you. This is NOT true. Convincing you we are right would show we are better at debating than you. Proving to you we are right is proof. Your debating skills, be they great or not so great, have nothing to do with whether proof is proof.


Again, this is unrelated to what DaGuy said. His statement was not about courtesy. He was simply explaining why your statement was offensive and insulting. By "your statement" I mean when you said you could understand condescending to a child but not to you.

How hard is it to realize that not being a child, I do not appreciate being talked to like one. You assume a child may not understand what you are trying to convey, because you may be talking over their head. I dont think anyone here can do that to me, which is why I stated that I will not be talked to like I do not understand a "concept". Part of a Debate is to present your side of a point of view. If you cannot convince your audience that your argument for or against, is more correct than your opponents, all you are doing is spinning your wheels in the dirt.

Of course you have not convinced me of anything, because we both have the same text to look at. If I can continue to debate that it is not proof, and you continue to tell me that it is, then we are at a stalemate. You have only succeeded in convincing yourself that you are right.

No one here created the answer "2+2=4". But no one argues that it isnt. You could certainly say that there is a possibility that it is not, but you would have to prove it isnt, because the answer has long been mathematically established.

Yugioh Text is not "established". Just take a look at what happened to Apprentice Magician.

 

[Jason_C]

How hard is it to realize that not being a child, I do not appreciate being talked to like one

Being a child, I do not appreciate hearing people say anything that would suggest children are less intelligent than adults.

I dont think anyone here can do that to me,

You don't think anyone here can talk over your head? Is that what you're saying? I think everyone here can talk over your head about at least one topic. Everyone has strong suits and weak suits. I can guarantee you that there are things I know and understand which you do not, just as there are things you know and understand which I do not. Your statement about debating skills being involved in proof shows me you do not understand the scientific definition of the term "proof". This is not an insult, and I do not perceive you as being unintelligent or a "child" because of it. This is simply fact. You have used the word "proof" in a false sentence, in a manner which suggests you do not understand its meaning. DaGuy and I have made an effort to clarify its meaning. Instead of listening, you have reacted as though we are treating you like a "child". We are not. There are some things you don't know that other people do. That's life. Sometimes, you have to be willing to let others ... even, occasionally, others younger than you, fill you in on something. Learning something new doesn't make you stupid and nobody has said it does.

Yugioh Text is not "established". Just take a look at what happened to Apprentice Magician.

DaGuy has said multiple times that Konami has the right to change the text if they want to. But they HAVE NOT. So we have to make the most logical decision we can based on the text we have. Arguing that it COULD be something else is like arguing that my name might not be "Jason". My parents might decide to change my name tomorrow, but today, I'm going to tell people that's my name because it is.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Again, who verified this information, and why should I take your word as to it being "true"? You are, after all, not an Official Konami Spokesman....

Even if I were wrong it is Copyright of mr Takahashi, and no matter who does the translation when that stamp is put on the paper it is assumed to come from him.

But then there's these statements:

I sit down with Konami, and they explain the "feel" they want for the card, and we go from there.
1 small point: all cards are manufactured by Konami. Check the wrapper on an American pack. "Manufactured by Konami Corporation".

The English name is "Sillva, Warlord of Dark World" because the designer of the game at Konami says it is.

It is a cooperative effort. Generally, Konami translates them into engrish and I polish them up. Well, as much as possible. Konami has a tendency to have the card effect and the card text not be the same. (When does "face-up" not mean "face-up"? When it's on Giant Kozaky....) So I try and fix those, too.

However, the game designer (who works for Konami) has final say on everything. Which is how it should be (just out of professional courtesy for a colleague).

 

[masterwoo0]

Even if I were wrong it is Copyright of mr Takahashi, and no matter who does the translation when that stamp is put on the paper it is assumed to come from him.

But then there's these statements:
[/color]

Okay, when I read the label on a shirt I wear, it might say, "Made in U.S.A.", but they did a expose on 20/20 some time ago that showed that "USA" was where the material was made, but assembled in another country other than America, so it is entirely possible that not all clothing that has that label is in truth a "purely" American Product.

Just because Konami says they sign off on a Translation, doesnt mean that it was actually done by them. It just means it was "blessed" by them. A Company doesnt always keep everything in house if they can farm out work elsewhere.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

It just means it was "blessed" by them.

= Marked With Their Approval = Established by Konami/Mr Takahashi.

 

[masterwoo0]

Being a child, I do not appreciate hearing people say anything that would suggest children are less intelligent than adults.

You don't think anyone here can talk over your head? Is that what you're saying? I think everyone here can talk over your head about at least one topic. Everyone has strong suits and weak suits. I can guarantee you that there are things I know and understand which you do not, just as there are things you know and understand which I do not. Your statement about debating skills being involved in proof shows me you do not understand the scientific definition of the term "proof". This is not an insult, and I do not perceive you as being unintelligent or a "child" because of it. This is simply fact. You have used the word "proof" in a false sentence, in a manner which suggests you do not understand its meaning. DaGuy and I have made an effort to clarify its meaning. Instead of listening, you have reacted as though we are treating you like a "child". We are not. There are some things you don't know that other people do. That's life. Sometimes, you have to be willing to let others ... even, occasionally, others younger than you, fill you in on something. Learning something new doesn't make you stupid and nobody has said it does.

DaGuy has said multiple times that Konami has the right to change the text if they want to. But they HAVE NOT. So we have to make the most logical decision we can based on the text we have. Arguing that it COULD be something else is like arguing that my name might not be "Jason". My parents might decide to change my name tomorrow, but today, I'm going to tell people that's my name because it is.

Generally speaking, most adults are more intelligent than children, and if we aren't, at least we are smart enough to maintain the image that we are. To say that there are more children that are more intelligent than adults is simply not true. While there are many exceptions, there are not enough to make you say that my statement is incorrect. As long as Adults continue to teach Children this will always be true.

On this, you can just be upset.

As far as you knowing more than me on certain subjects, that can only be defined by my level of concern as related to that subject. I hate math. Maybe you are much better at Math than I. I actually dont care if you are. Good for you if you are though.

Not everyone has the same level of knowledge as the person standing next to them. That's what makes us uniquely different, aside from our obvious outside appearance.

Again Jason. Proof means you have shown me something other than the cards text that validates your statement. I CAN READ THE CARD MYSELF. If I dont think it is enough, that means its not enough.

In a court of law, "Proof" is not simply someone saying what they believe to be true, and you certainly believe the card text to be true, but its your interpretation of your truth. If I can read something myself, and interpret it an entirely different way than you, do you really think I am going to pay attention to how you interpret the same text if you're no different than I am as far as Official Status?

We do not, and will not agree tonight. I simply do not have the desire to continue this course of discussion unless you have something new to bring to the table. I know I don't.

Now, when you explain something to someone whom you dont think understands your point of view, you simply offer a explanation by stating that you think that there may have been a misunderstanding.

To say, "Do you understand what proof means?" Doesnt exactly present an image in my mind that you consider me a intellectual equal. The tone is one of frustration, even if that isnt what you are trying to pass on.

To say, "I think you may be using the word proof out of context. This is what I mean...." That statement is what you would normally use when the assumption is, that a simple misunderstanding has taken place.

For the record, I didnt say debating skill are involved in proof. I said being able to convince your audience that you are more correct, doesnt always mean that you are "right". It just means that you are able to speak well on the topic, and that is often enough to seem as though you are right.

How many times has someone come into these forums and made a very intelligently laid out card ruling, and been wrong? It may have sounded good, but it was still wrong, and until someone corrects it, there is bound to be more than one person who believes it. People are still saying that The End of Anubis negates Exiled Force, and I guarantee that if you present a well written explanation as to why you believe it does, someone will agree.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Generally speaking, most adults are more intelligent than children, and if we aren't, at least we are smart enough to maintain the image that we are. To say that there are more children that are more intelligent than adults is simply not true.

Children ARE more intelligent than adults. The human brain removes many connections in its 16th year (after birth), becoming more set in its biases. Again in its 30s the Human Brain becomes set in its ways and unable learn many types of skills and talents.

While there are many exceptions, there are not enough to make you say that my statement is incorrect. As long as Adults continue to teach Children this will always be true.

Teaching has nothing to do with Intelligence. It is the person that is doing the Learning that needs the intelligence.

Again Jason. Proof means you have shown me something other than the cards text that validates your statement. I CAN READ THE CARD MYSELF. If I dont think it is enough, that means its not enough.

If you think the Official text as written by konami is not enough information, then what is good enough? A ruling is jsut more text coming from the same source. You don't get any more official than that.

In a court of law, "Proof" is not simply someone saying what they believe to be true, and you certainly believe the card text to be true, but its your interpretation of your truth. If I can read something myself, and interpret it an entirely different way than you, do you really think I am going to pay attention to how you interpret the same text if you're no different than I am as far as Official Status?

There are only so many ways you can correctly interpret the text, opinion doesn't matter, only the rules of Language, which includes verb agreement.

You have not provided any proper interpretation of the text to defend your point of view.

Now, when you explain something to someone whom you dont think understands your point of view, you simply offer a explanation by stating that you think that there may have been a misunderstanding.

To say, "Do you understand what proof means?" Doesnt exactly present an image in my mind that you consider me a intellectual equal. The tone is one of frustration, even if that isnt what you are trying to pass on.

Misuse implies an accident. Not knowing what the word means i fell is completely different.

And it is a question hopefully you would have tried to answer honestly, maybe by picking up a dictionary and trying to learn something. But you jsut chose to argue, you didn't try to find your mistake.

How many times has someone come into these forums and made a very intelligently laid out card ruling, and been wrong?

If they considered all the information, than never.

Just because Konami comes out with a different ruling later, doesn't make them wrong:

For example, Novastar and I pointed out that Pyro Clock of Destiny would not work with Deck Devastation Virus using the information given to us at that time (Before the Spellcaster Structure Deck). And up at least until the time Nightmare's Steelcage was released that would have been the correct ruling: It only works with Swords of Revealing Light, Lightforce Sword, and FInal destiny.

But with Nightmare's Steelcage release then the "only works with" ruling was brought into doubt, since it was ruled officially in Japan that Pyro Clock would work with it. Proof by contradiction shows that the Only ruling was no longer correct, so it could no longer be used to formulate a logical argument against the use of Pyro CLock with Deck Devastation Virus.

The logical answer using the official information is the right answer until proven otherwise. Now the judge's list has a lesser burden of proof than we do, however it is still there, and they did not meet it with any posts about the subject. So the comments there are to be considered opinions, not facts.

So now i challenge you to make a logical argument with the official information given to support your position.

I ask you again, if the Text doesn't establish the norm, then what does?

 

[Digital Jedi]

This thread no longer serves the purpose it intended. I'm not sure how all of this is useful or helpful.