Anteres
02-17-2010, 06:37 PM
This is all based on common usage of the words in question, and not specific examples. Simply think of what I’m saying in terms of a recent trend. Now, having said that, I’m going to put forth my take on things.
There are several players, especially here on Pojo, who will describe certain cards as “broken”. This is not where I have the problems, as this is a perfectly acceptable term at this point. Some will refer to cards as ban-worthy. This is based on opinion, but there is nothing wrong with the phrase. Others will call it “overpowered”, or “busted”. Again, no problems there. “Bad for the game” is a controversial phrase where it is most commonly used, but it is also an acceptable phrase in most contexts. Heavy Storm is an excellent center of such controversy, which happens to also generate much of this nonsense, which I tend to think of as reverse equivocation.
Here it is. The terms “broken”, “busted”, “overpowered”, “ban-worthy”, etc. all mean the same thing: the card is too powerful. This is exactly my problem. People treat them as though they mean different things, and this is not true. You may see someone refer to a card as “broken, but not ban-worthy”, and this is fairly common here. A card cannot be one or the other, when the two terms are synonymous. It must be both or neither. Faulty semantics are coming into play at this point, and it can interfere with the primary flow of a debate when someone interjects on account of such an error. In such a case, it is better to say that it is “powerful, but not ban-worthy”, in the interest of more accurate and acceptable logic.
Now I’m not one to try and inject logic into a place like this, but it feels the need to be said.
Carry on.
There are several players, especially here on Pojo, who will describe certain cards as “broken”. This is not where I have the problems, as this is a perfectly acceptable term at this point. Some will refer to cards as ban-worthy. This is based on opinion, but there is nothing wrong with the phrase. Others will call it “overpowered”, or “busted”. Again, no problems there. “Bad for the game” is a controversial phrase where it is most commonly used, but it is also an acceptable phrase in most contexts. Heavy Storm is an excellent center of such controversy, which happens to also generate much of this nonsense, which I tend to think of as reverse equivocation.
Here it is. The terms “broken”, “busted”, “overpowered”, “ban-worthy”, etc. all mean the same thing: the card is too powerful. This is exactly my problem. People treat them as though they mean different things, and this is not true. You may see someone refer to a card as “broken, but not ban-worthy”, and this is fairly common here. A card cannot be one or the other, when the two terms are synonymous. It must be both or neither. Faulty semantics are coming into play at this point, and it can interfere with the primary flow of a debate when someone interjects on account of such an error. In such a case, it is better to say that it is “powerful, but not ban-worthy”, in the interest of more accurate and acceptable logic.
Now I’m not one to try and inject logic into a place like this, but it feels the need to be said.
Carry on.