Someone is taking this too seriously.
Well, I mean, this is the Internet, after all, isn't it?
If you want to boggle, it turns out that Pathfinder RAW doesn't allow you to apply sneak attack to a target that's unaware of you, unless some other condition denies the target its Dex bonus or makes it flat-footed. 'Unaware' is not one of those conditions.
3.5 Rules Compendium updated stealth to allow sneak attack to work this way. PF did not include the update.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use creative interpretation.
Everyone else cheats.
Holds for most values of "I"
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary.Roughly 0% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of a word like "polyzygotic" or "funambulism" and roughly 100% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of words like "is" or "that".
:-)
Within the past few days I saw a thread that went on for multiple pages because some people, including the original poster, didn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect". I first tried to subtly use the words in a context that would clarify their meaning, but when it was obvious that the point wasn't made, defining them was what was needed to completely answer the question and as far as I know end the thread. Luckily I haven't seen the "is" and "that" arguments.
It is important to know the difference between the two, and when to use each one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually language is defined by usage. There is no intinsic meaning in a group of letters or sounds.
Since 99% of the people don't know the difference and use them interchangeably. The accepted definintions are becoming identical.
I don't know about Webster's which is the default 'official' source, but many online dictionaries and programs have identical listings for both affect and effect.
The one that bugs me is 'idea' and 'ideal.' Especially here in the mid-west I have to listen to a lot of the younger people (15-25) use ideal when the mean idea.
I know of at least 2 times at our company that someone did not get the technician job because (at least partially) they kept saying 'ideal' incorrectly. The manager decided that if they sound that ignorant during a formal interview they will be unbearable in less formal emails and notes.
Not sure it is 99%, 99% may be an over-used claim. It has always seemed pretty clear to me, and other people I have known to use the two and differentiate between them. If they know their usage and a bit of literature, they will grasp the difference. Writer f#! here though. Maybe this is a 1% issue (those that know the difference in describing an effect and an emotional affect), but I would hope it isn't quite a 1% matter.
Yes, you are correct. It may very well be that more than 1% of the people use the words correctly. I have not taken any sort of survey on the matter.
However, other than just a couple of very well read people that like old literature, the only people that I have met that understand and use the words to their historical definitions are teachers.
With my work and family, I mostly know white college educated people. Still less than 1% of the people I know use the words correctly.
Well the teachers aren't teaching what they know very effectively are they?
It is funny what we don't learn as we go through years and years of education.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but these aren't English teachers. History, Mathematics, and the very young.
But the bigger problem is the students are no longer required to learn, just attend. They still get passed on to the next grade even if they get failing scores.
Just last week we had a operator job interview. The guy had a B average from his high school and a year and a half of college with a C average. I would have rated him functionally illiterate. He couldn't even read the application form well enough to put the correct basic information in the correct squares.
|
True, but these aren't English teachers. History, Mathematics, and the very young.
But the bigger problem is the students are no longer required to learn, just attend. They still get passed on to the next grade even if they get failing scores.
Just last week we had a operator job interview. The guy had a B average from his high school and a year and a half of college with a C average. I would have rated him functionally illiterate. He couldn't even read the application form well enough to put the correct basic information in the correct squares.
Actually, while we are off topic, let me address this.
The fact is students were never required to learn. But now schools have incentives for them to attend.
When I started my job over a decade ago, one of the first kids I worked with had not been to school in two years.
And he was socially promoted both years.
Literally did not attend middle school, but was socially promoted to High School.
I made him go to class the first day (oh my naive days...) and he proceeded to get into a fight in his first class to get kicked out.
Because he couldn't read. And it was easier to get kicked out than let everyone realize that.
Juvenile crime is way, way down nationwide. Look it up. The reason, I think, is that the kid I describe doesn't happen as often, because schools are penalized for kids not attending. So they have to deal with the issues.
I think the problem you are seeing is kids who would have gotten no education at all in the past, are now moving through.
That, and there have always been dumb people who somehow make it through.
I will now sound even older than I am (which is plenty old enough as it is...)
Said in a crotchety old man's voice:
"Well when I was a kid..."
I always hated it when people would say it when I was younger, but sometimes it really applies.
We had to get at least decent grades or we failed and were held back. Happened to me twice until I realized I really did have to do my homework and study for tests.
My wife has had classes where 1 out of 4 students literally did nothing but write their name on the test sheet. There was not another mark on it. Very few of those could you even read the name. The teachers just got to know that scrible is that student. The administration forced her to give every student at least a 'C' or the parents might complain.
Other students would openly tell each other answers during the test, they didn't even try to hide it. She was not allowed to fail them, send them to the office, or punish the behavior in any manner. Again the parents might complain. She might have got more upset about that except they were cheating off of people just as ignorant as themselves. So they were all writing down the same wrong answers.
I know a person who works in the admissions department at a major university. It was entirely 'unofficial' but they were very careful about accepting students from several states or major metropolitain areas. The reason was that almost half of the applicants from those areas reading skills were so poor that they would flunk out of even the remedial college classes.
Yes, there have always been some idiots that make it through. But they are now being waved through in job lots.
|
|
It happened to you.
It didn't happen to most people.
Respectfully, what you are saying is provably false. In the past, social promotion and waiving through happened much, much more often.
Test scores are higher on more challenging tests. The basic minimum level of math skills now were considered advanced a decade ago.
Respectfully, what you are saying is provably false. In the past, social promotion and waiving through happened much, much more often.
Okay, please prove it. Cite your sources.
Test scores are higher on more challenging tests.
Test scores != education.
The basic minimum level of math skills now were considered advanced a decade ago.
Again, please cite some kind of sources here, because speaking as someone in the field of education, I'm pretty sure that's just not true.
Y'all mind moving this to another thread? Looks like the OP's subject was resolved, but it'd make things tidier. This discussion seems to belong in the OTD.
If you want to boggle, it turns out that Pathfinder RAW doesn't allow you to apply sneak attack to a target that's unaware of you, unless some other condition denies the target its Dex bonus or makes it flat-footed. 'Unaware' is not one of those conditions.
Per RAW, I don't think that "unaware" is a condition. It leads to an enemy being caught flatfooted, but isn't listed as a condition.
|
|
Respectfully, what you are saying is provably false. In the past, social promotion and waiving through happened much, much more often.Okay, please prove it. Cite your sources.
Test scores are higher on more challenging tests.Test scores != education.
The basic minimum level of math skills now were considered advanced a decade ago.Again, please cite some kind of sources here, because speaking as someone in the field of education, I'm pretty sure that's just not true.
Sure.
Are IQ scores going up good enough for you? or should I keep digging?
EDIT: Every state I can find record of changing graduation requirements for math has raised them. I can't any records of lowering them.
IQ scores entirely arbitrary. They're based largely on pattern recognition. You'll also note that they're not a standard part of high school education--some people get them from counselors, but not all, and it's not institutionalized, nor is it a graduation requirement in most places (if any).
So yes, please do keep digging.
|
|
IQ scores entirely arbitrary. They're based largely on pattern recognition. You'll also note that they're not a standard part of high school education--some people get them from counselors, but not all, and it's not institutionalized, nor is it a graduation requirement in most places (if any).
So yes, please do keep digging.
Let's take this to another thread, as if testing the people on the same criteria on a mass scale years apart with a test specifically designed to assess intelligence isn't enough proof, this will be a bludgeoning kind of discussion.
You can start that new thread with a link to any high school graduation criteria that have declined. Most schools didn't even require Algebra until I believe the 90's.
Another thread in a forum that isn't even displayed on my default screen? Dude, that just reeks of effort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, that just reeks of effort.
This is what's wrong with kids these days. Lazy brats, the lot of 'em.
I tell ya, wasn't a problem back in my day. Two years ago. ;D
Back in my day, we didn't have teh interwebs with all these message boards! We had to go over to people's houses to game! And if we needed to know a rule, we looked it up in the books. And we liked it! We liked it fine!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually language is defined by usage. There is no intinsic meaning in a group of letters or sounds.
Since 99% of the people don't know the difference and use them interchangeably. The accepted definintions are becoming identical.
I don't know about Webster's which is the default 'official' source, but many online dictionaries and programs have identical listings for both affect and effect.
Yes, language is based on usage. That doesn't mean that all changes in language based on usage are good, though.
My criterion is that if a change caused by common usage blurs meaning, and makes the language less precise, it is unhelpful, and makes language less useful. For example, if both "effect" and "affect" become interchangeable, we lose the precision that the different words/definitions gave us. .
N dats badwrong XP
Simply, if we have more words with specific, precise meanings, I think that makes the language richer, better, and more useful. Because it's all about use, remember?
Edit: Sorry to continue the massive derail, but if I had a religion, it would be the Church of Don't Excuse All Bad Language with the Usage Card. That argument can be summarised as "changes are good because changes happen, and change is good because it changes stuff".
... Yes, language is based on usage. That doesn't mean that all changes in language based on usage are good, though.
My criterion is that if a change caused by common usage blurs meaning, and makes the language less precise, it is unhelpful, and makes language less useful. For example, if both "effect" and "affect" become interchangeable, we lose the precision that the different words/definitions gave us ...
I didn't say it was good. I happen to agree with you that in many (maybe even most) cases it is bad. I think it is bad in this case.
But it is still happening. That is one of the things I pointed out as a correction on a presentation a few weeks ago. The person looked it up online in 2 different dictionaries. Both had nearly identical definitions. One even said "interchangeable with..."
Well, that's the Internet for ya :) The world is obviously a better place for the net and its lessening of power of the gatekeepers of knowledge, but there had to be at least a small price. Those nasty gatekeepers were good at Quality Control...
I wish I could affect the effect of teh interwebz on the English language...
When I'm benevolent dictator of the world, I swear I'm rewinding English about twenty years and declaring it a dead language.
That'll show 'em.
:(
@ Alitan: Good point, very useful addition to the conversation :)
Again, I'm all for natural evolution of the language. Which is lucky for me, because it ain't stopping. I just think that suggesting all changes to a language should be supported because "that's how language rolls, man" is crap. Many changes are good, expanding our modes of communication by breaking old "rules", but many are also bad in that they blur meaning, precision, and ease of communication.
But keep mocking people who are having a reasonable discussion by simplifying what's being said into black and white rather than the original shades of grey, if it makes you feel clever ;)
@ Alitan: Good point, very useful addition to the conversation :)
Again, I'm all for natural evolution of the language. Which is lucky for me, because it ain't stopping. I just think that suggesting all changes to a language should be supported because "that's how language rolls, man" is crap. Many changes are good, expanding our modes of communication by breaking old "rules", but many are also bad in that they blur meaning, precision, and ease of communication.
But keep mocking people who are having a reasonable discussion by simplifying what's being said into black and white rather than the original shades of grey, if it makes you feel clever ;)
Hi. Wasn't mocking anyone, your inference to the contrary. Was indulging in a little wordplay, and expressing my disgust with the devolution of language in the current era.
There is nothing natural about the changes in grammar, spelling, and denotation that began with the advent of widespread internet usage. Not to mention the travesties brought to us by texting.
I may not be able to alter the horrific alterations to my language, not having dictatorial powers. But I do not approve.
There isn't anything grey about lousy internet "dictionaries," and gods how that usage stretches the word, NOT HAVING THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF WORDS. That's just black.
If you don't want random people inserting random commentary into your sacredly subtle and nuanced conversation, DON'T HOLD IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM. My comment may not have added much to the conversation, but it was at least relevant... unlike the conversation, itself, considering the beginning of the thread and the board in which said thread is embedded.
Sure, that's just an evolution of the thread conversation. B#+~%&$s.
If you don't want random people inserting random commentary into your sacredly subtle and nuanced conversation, DON'T HOLD IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM. My comment may not have added much to the conversation, but it was at least relevant... unlike the conversation, itself, considering the beginning of the thread and the board in which said thread is embedded.
Sure, that's just an evolution of the thread conversation. B!#!%##s.
Oops, sorry, I put smiley faces in there to indicate my light-hearted intentions. Didn't mean to offend. I will stop following your jests with further jests now, as you don't seem to like my jests...
PS I think your wordplay is funny. More apologies for intruding on your turf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, smiley faces, when applied to statements that don't look very smiley, can sometimes just look very patronizing.
Congratulations on being thread-derailing dweebs. :)
See? ;D
:D
Ha nice :)
Oops, sorry, I put smiley faces in there to indicate my light-hearted intentions. Didn't mean to offend. I will stop following your jests with further jests now, as you don't seem to like my jests...
PS I think your wordplay is funny. More apologies for intruding on your turf.
Then I'm sorry I bit your head off over it. But KC is right: on THIS end of teh Interwebz, the post I responded to seemed completely sarcastic, including the smiley faces.
I'm glad you didn't mean it like I read it, and must plead a coffeeless, grumpy morning to excuse (or at least, explain) my AM Castigator response.
[/hatchet-burying?]
Alicastigator. Relative to the alligator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.I'm glad you didn't mean it like I read it, and must plead a coffeeless, grumpy morning to excuse (or at least, explain) my AM Castigator response.
[/hatchet-burying?]
Pfff at 2.30am my post seemed very inoffensive ( amusing, even!). Now, in the harsh, cold Antipodean morning light, it does make me sound like a wanker... I completely understand your response :)
You are in the antipodes? Australia?
Ya-huh :)
You ain't seen theorycrafting until you go to some of those other boards. Case in point.
And then, there's that...other place *shudder*
You ain't seen theorycrafting until you go to some of those other boards. Case in point.
That was real interesting read. Thanks for the link.