And we have to see what happens after this new wave just got released because I feel the Imperials may have gotten the advantage in this latest wave. But again I will wait to see what the evidence shows. As for BCC it is a very useful tool that everyone wanted to try and play. And since it is available to both Imperials and Rebels I don't see it as a disadvantage for anyone. Everyone has it available for use.

But it also is still not the only factor to look at when looking at the evidence, it is of course there as part of the reason, but it also shows that players that are willing to play more balanced lists with both squadrons and ships do have the current advantage. Now you can fly a Squadron-free list but you can not fly a Ship-free list. So for me the evidence points to players bringing a healthy balanced list that includes a decent portion of Squadrons or a screen to stop your opponent's squadrons. (I have been bringing a defensive screening of squadrons instead of an aggressive style of squadrons. And so far it has been effective at keeping my opponent's Bombers at bay and that leaves the game to my ships to get me the points. The days of flying squadron free are over. Otherwise I like the data and your assessment isn't that far off.)

I think your logic is dangerous.

You could have gunships and a large set of squadrons for AA support. You are rarely going to have lots of squadrons AND BCC where you aren't a primary bomber list intending to do its damage from bombers that will also do well in a large, competitive field.

Rhymer + 3 Bombers + 1 Gozanti with BCC is just a really odd addition to a list with no other squadrons.

The numbers are also saying that average winners have 8-9 squadrons ash, THATS a bomber list.

The lists that have a token squadron force or none by and large get wiped out upon each successive level: 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 1st.

It seems strongly that large amounts of squadrons bombers list are winning, and lists with only token support of squadrons are losing.

No one is really talking about no squadrons when we say we want ships to do more of a role in damage. Even token 4 squads are now being wiped out by bomber and 8-10 sq lists.

And we have to see what happens after this new wave just got released because I feel the Imperials may have gotten the advantage in this latest wave. But again I will wait to see what the evidence shows. As for BCC it is a very useful tool that everyone wanted to try and play. And since it is available to both Imperials and Rebels I don't see it as a disadvantage for anyone. Everyone has it available for use.

But it also is still not the only factor to look at when looking at the evidence, it is of course there as part of the reason, but it also shows that players that are willing to play more balanced lists with both squadrons and ships do have the current advantage. Now you can fly a Squadron-free list but you can not fly a Ship-free list. So for me the evidence points to players bringing a healthy balanced list that includes a decent portion of Squadrons or a screen to stop your opponent's squadrons. (I have been bringing a defensive screening of squadrons instead of an aggressive style of squadrons. And so far it has been effective at keeping my opponent's Bombers at bay and that leaves the game to my ships to get me the points. The days of flying squadron free are over. Otherwise I like the data and your assessment isn't that far off.)

I think your logic is dangerous.

You could have gunships and a large set of squadrons for AA support. You are rarely going to have lots of squadrons AND BCC where you aren't a primary bomber list intending to do its damage from bombers that will also do well in a large, competitive field.

Rhymer + 3 Bombers + 1 Gozanti with BCC is just a really odd addition to a list with no other squadrons.

The numbers are also saying that average winners have 8-9 squadrons ash, THATS a bomber list.

The lists that have a token squadron force or none by and large get wiped out upon each successive level: 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 1st.

It seems strongly that large amounts of squadrons bombers list are winning, and lists with only token support of squadrons are losing.

No one is really talking about no squadrons when we say we want ships to do more of a role in damage. Even token 4 squads are now being wiped out by bomber and 8-10 sq lists.

So it's not a Bomber list at all and is designed to stop Bombers which it does a fantastic job at. Held off 6 Firesprays last game for the win, he was counting on them to get through to my ships for a bombing run but I just managed to hold them off. It was a tough game and he flew them well but he ran out of time even though I only took down 2 of the Firesprays.

I guess what I was saying is BCC is fantastic but if you are up against a list that knows how to deal with your Squadrons that BCC is a waste of points. (Of course his Squadrons did their job of distracting me.)

And we have to see what happens after this new wave just got released because I feel the Imperials may have gotten the advantage in this latest wave. But again I will wait to see what the evidence shows. As for BCC it is a very useful tool that everyone wanted to try and play. And since it is available to both Imperials and Rebels I don't see it as a disadvantage for anyone. Everyone has it available for use.

But it also is still not the only factor to look at when looking at the evidence, it is of course there as part of the reason, but it also shows that players that are willing to play more balanced lists with both squadrons and ships do have the current advantage. Now you can fly a Squadron-free list but you can not fly a Ship-free list. So for me the evidence points to players bringing a healthy balanced list that includes a decent portion of Squadrons or a screen to stop your opponent's squadrons. (I have been bringing a defensive screening of squadrons instead of an aggressive style of squadrons. And so far it has been effective at keeping my opponent's Bombers at bay and that leaves the game to my ships to get me the points. The days of flying squadron free are over. Otherwise I like the data and your assessment isn't that far off.)

I think your logic is dangerous.

You could have gunships and a large set of squadrons for AA support. You are rarely going to have lots of squadrons AND BCC where you aren't a primary bomber list intending to do its damage from bombers that will also do well in a large, competitive field.

Rhymer + 3 Bombers + 1 Gozanti with BCC is just a really odd addition to a list with no other squadrons.

The numbers are also saying that average winners have 8-9 squadrons ash, THATS a bomber list.

The lists that have a token squadron force or none by and large get wiped out upon each successive level: 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 1st.

It seems strongly that large amounts of squadrons bombers list are winning, and lists with only token support of squadrons are losing.

No one is really talking about no squadrons when we say we want ships to do more of a role in damage. Even token 4 squads are now being wiped out by bomber and 8-10 sq lists.

I think I might have not explained my list properly. My defensive screen lists don't have BCC, they are there for defensive screening pretty much. The one Flotilla I have for my Campaign list has Repair Crews to keep my ships healthy.

So it's not a Bomber list at all and is designed to stop Bombers which it does a fantastic job at. Held off 6 Firesprays last game for the win, he was counting on them to get through to my ships for a bombing run but I just managed to hold them off. It was a tough game and he flew them well but he ran out of time even though I only took down 2 of the Firesprays.

I guess what I was saying is BCC is fantastic but if you are up against a list that knows how to deal with your Squadrons that BCC is a waste of points. (Of course his Squadrons did their job of distracting me.)

Right but what we're talking about is lists containing BCC start at 30%, increase to 40% in top8 and top4, then inc to 67% of the winners outright.

These are bomber lists. with BCC. Not lists of 8 squadrons for AA.

I'm honestly really not sure what to think of this. Concluding from data is always subject to bias, but I'm not really seeing anyone else willing to look at the data themselves and make any statements from it beyond "the data is inconclusive, we cant make any conclusions", which makes asking for data totally obsolete. Sure, you can say I'm biased. But go look at the data, and make observations you're willing to stand by.

And heaven forbid, now that we have data, no one is willing to talk about the subject anymore.

And we have to see what happens after this new wave just got released because I feel the Imperials may have gotten the advantage in this latest wave. But again I will wait to see what the evidence shows. As for BCC it is a very useful tool that everyone wanted to try and play. And since it is available to both Imperials and Rebels I don't see it as a disadvantage for anyone. Everyone has it available for use.

But it also is still not the only factor to look at when looking at the evidence, it is of course there as part of the reason, but it also shows that players that are willing to play more balanced lists with both squadrons and ships do have the current advantage. Now you can fly a Squadron-free list but you can not fly a Ship-free list. So for me the evidence points to players bringing a healthy balanced list that includes a decent portion of Squadrons or a screen to stop your opponent's squadrons. (I have been bringing a defensive screening of squadrons instead of an aggressive style of squadrons. And so far it has been effective at keeping my opponent's Bombers at bay and that leaves the game to my ships to get me the points. The days of flying squadron free are over. Otherwise I like the data and your assessment isn't that far off.)

I think your logic is dangerous.

You could have gunships and a large set of squadrons for AA support. You are rarely going to have lots of squadrons AND BCC where you aren't a primary bomber list intending to do its damage from bombers that will also do well in a large, competitive field.

Rhymer + 3 Bombers + 1 Gozanti with BCC is just a really odd addition to a list with no other squadrons.

The numbers are also saying that average winners have 8-9 squadrons ash, THATS a bomber list.

The lists that have a token squadron force or none by and large get wiped out upon each successive level: 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 1st.

It seems strongly that large amounts of squadrons bombers list are winning, and lists with only token support of squadrons are losing.

No one is really talking about no squadrons when we say we want ships to do more of a role in damage. Even token 4 squads are now being wiped out by bomber and 8-10 sq lists.

I think I might have not explained my list properly. My defensive screen lists don't have BCC, they are there for defensive screening pretty much. The one Flotilla I have for my Campaign list has Repair Crews to keep my ships healthy.

So it's not a Bomber list at all and is designed to stop Bombers which it does a fantastic job at. Held off 6 Firesprays last game for the win, he was counting on them to get through to my ships for a bombing run but I just managed to hold them off. It was a tough game and he flew them well but he ran out of time even though I only took down 2 of the Firesprays.

I guess what I was saying is BCC is fantastic but if you are up against a list that knows how to deal with your Squadrons that BCC is a waste of points. (Of course his Squadrons did their job of distracting me.)

Right but what we're talking about is lists containing BCC start at 30%, increase to 40% in top8 and top4, then inc to 67% of the winners outright.

These are bomber lists. with BCC. Not lists of 8 squadrons for AA.

But I will agree, ignored BCC and a Handful of Bombers will wreck your day. Do not ignore them ever.

We probably will agree on many points and the differences here seem to be more of a snap-shot verses long-view, because if we take the data from any release the new toys will look better than they really are because of their untested abilities will surprise many players. (Think of reading about and learning a new chess opening to use against an opponent that knows your typical game style. You will most likely catch them off guard and win your games against them until they readjust their game to match your new tactics.)

This is rampant not only on the forums but pretty much elsewhere in society.

Oh the joys of having graded college papers...

What subject? I am a history TA at a tier one institute and grading papers is...enlightening.

I did graduate work in Classics and taught mostly Latin. I did,however, TA for a few large lecture courses where we got to read essays or papers.

From reading the forums in general, sometimes there are serious problems of opinions being aired without evidence.

Sometimes there are just problems with reading and interpreting data. One of my favorite internet authors is Nate Silver, who wrote PECOTA for the MLB and now does statistical analysis concerning the elections. Over the years, I've learned a ton about how to read data and statistics well just from watching him trace his line of reasoning. Statistics and reading data correctly is not often done well even by experts. We all suffer from perception and selectivity bias, and its hard to rid yourself of them entirely. In a strategy game, these biases usually come back to haunt you on the game board itself when an opponent beats you thoroughly. Unfortunately, given how small the local communities are, it is very easy for a local meta to get trapped into a few concepts simply because there are only a handful of players at the top tiers to go around. That can give us perceptions about the game that are limited simply to what we've experienced out of the top players in our own community. That can lead to the disagreement on the forums between highly skilled players, who may have not simply seen a particular Admiral, list, upgrade, or fleet archetype put on the table by an equally skilled player. Unfortunately, what that means is that we are all going to come to the game with a lot of anecdotes, which is alright provided that we understand the difference between an anecdote and genuine supporting evidence for a proposition.

And we have to see what happens after this new wave just got released because I feel the Imperials may have gotten the advantage in this latest wave. But again I will wait to see what the evidence shows. As for BCC it is a very useful tool that everyone wanted to try and play. And since it is available to both Imperials and Rebels I don't see it as a disadvantage for anyone. Everyone has it available for use.

But it also is still not the only factor to look at when looking at the evidence, it is of course there as part of the reason, but it also shows that players that are willing to play more balanced lists with both squadrons and ships do have the current advantage. Now you can fly a Squadron-free list but you can not fly a Ship-free list. So for me the evidence points to players bringing a healthy balanced list that includes a decent portion of Squadrons or a screen to stop your opponent's squadrons. (I have been bringing a defensive screening of squadrons instead of an aggressive style of squadrons. And so far it has been effective at keeping my opponent's Bombers at bay and that leaves the game to my ships to get me the points. The days of flying squadron free are over. Otherwise I like the data and your assessment isn't that far off.)

I think your logic is dangerous.

You could have gunships and a large set of squadrons for AA support. You are rarely going to have lots of squadrons AND BCC where you aren't a primary bomber list intending to do its damage from bombers that will also do well in a large, competitive field.

Rhymer + 3 Bombers + 1 Gozanti with BCC is just a really odd addition to a list with no other squadrons.

The numbers are also saying that average winners have 8-9 squadrons ash, THATS a bomber list.

The lists that have a token squadron force or none by and large get wiped out upon each successive level: 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 1st.

It seems strongly that large amounts of squadrons bombers list are winning, and lists with only token support of squadrons are losing.

No one is really talking about no squadrons when we say we want ships to do more of a role in damage. Even token 4 squads are now being wiped out by bomber and 8-10 sq lists.

I think I might have not explained my list properly. My defensive screen lists don't have BCC, they are there for defensive screening pretty much. The one Flotilla I have for my Campaign list has Repair Crews to keep my ships healthy.

So it's not a Bomber list at all and is designed to stop Bombers which it does a fantastic job at. Held off 6 Firesprays last game for the win, he was counting on them to get through to my ships for a bombing run but I just managed to hold them off. It was a tough game and he flew them well but he ran out of time even though I only took down 2 of the Firesprays.

I guess what I was saying is BCC is fantastic but if you are up against a list that knows how to deal with your Squadrons that BCC is a waste of points. (Of course his Squadrons did their job of distracting me.)

Right but what we're talking about is lists containing BCC start at 30%, increase to 40% in top8 and top4, then inc to 67% of the winners outright.

These are bomber lists. with BCC. Not lists of 8 squadrons for AA.

I think I get your point now. Now my point to that is that BCC were new to the game as of the collection of this data and they appear in many lists. Are they good? Hell yes. But I also know from experience (yes I know it's anecdotal) that Bombers can be screened against when one builds their list. Now with snipe even Intel is going to be less potent as before and as players get more experienced with the new toys that power swing will be less prominent. So we still need a little more time and data when the Meta has equalized at a baseline. I don't think we hit that point yet.

But I will agree, ignored BCC and a Handful of Bombers will wreck your day. Do not ignore them ever.

We probably will agree on many points and the differences here seem to be more of a snap-shot verses long-view, because if we take the data from any release the new toys will look better than they really are because of their untested abilities will surprise many players. (Think of reading about and learning a new chess opening to use against an opponent that knows your typical game style. You will most likely catch them off guard and win your games against them until they readjust their game to match your new tactics.)

We can agree to that.

Btw, in the other thread, I posted that there are 15 winners supposedly in season2, newest data.

I also posted the squadron count and the BCC usage, much higher than BCC usage of all lists.

And we have to see what happens after this new wave just got released because I feel the Imperials may have gotten the advantage in this latest wave. But again I will wait to see what the evidence shows. As for BCC it is a very useful tool that everyone wanted to try and play. And since it is available to both Imperials and Rebels I don't see it as a disadvantage for anyone. Everyone has it available for use.

But it also is still not the only factor to look at when looking at the evidence, it is of course there as part of the reason, but it also shows that players that are willing to play more balanced lists with both squadrons and ships do have the current advantage. Now you can fly a Squadron-free list but you can not fly a Ship-free list. So for me the evidence points to players bringing a healthy balanced list that includes a decent portion of Squadrons or a screen to stop your opponent's squadrons. (I have been bringing a defensive screening of squadrons instead of an aggressive style of squadrons. And so far it has been effective at keeping my opponent's Bombers at bay and that leaves the game to my ships to get me the points. The days of flying squadron free are over. Otherwise I like the data and your assessment isn't that far off.)

I think your logic is dangerous.

You could have gunships and a large set of squadrons for AA support. You are rarely going to have lots of squadrons AND BCC where you aren't a primary bomber list intending to do its damage from bombers that will also do well in a large, competitive field.

Rhymer + 3 Bombers + 1 Gozanti with BCC is just a really odd addition to a list with no other squadrons.

The numbers are also saying that average winners have 8-9 squadrons ash, THATS a bomber list.

The lists that have a token squadron force or none by and large get wiped out upon each successive level: 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 1st.

It seems strongly that large amounts of squadrons bombers list are winning, and lists with only token support of squadrons are losing.

No one is really talking about no squadrons when we say we want ships to do more of a role in damage. Even token 4 squads are now being wiped out by bomber and 8-10 sq lists.

I think I might have not explained my list properly. My defensive screen lists don't have BCC, they are there for defensive screening pretty much. The one Flotilla I have for my Campaign list has Repair Crews to keep my ships healthy.

So it's not a Bomber list at all and is designed to stop Bombers which it does a fantastic job at. Held off 6 Firesprays last game for the win, he was counting on them to get through to my ships for a bombing run but I just managed to hold them off. It was a tough game and he flew them well but he ran out of time even though I only took down 2 of the Firesprays.

I guess what I was saying is BCC is fantastic but if you are up against a list that knows how to deal with your Squadrons that BCC is a waste of points. (Of course his Squadrons did their job of distracting me.)

Right but what we're talking about is lists containing BCC start at 30%, increase to 40% in top8 and top4, then inc to 67% of the winners outright.

These are bomber lists. with BCC. Not lists of 8 squadrons for AA.

I think I get your point now. Now my point to that is that BCC were new to the game as of the collection of this data and they appear in many lists. Are they good? Hell yes. But I also know from experience (yes I know it's anecdotal) that Bombers can be screened against when one builds their list. Now with snipe even Intel is going to be less potent as before and as players get more experienced with the new toys that power swing will be less prominent. So we still need a little more time and data when the Meta has equalized at a baseline. I don't think we hit that point yet.

But I will agree, ignored BCC and a Handful of Bombers will wreck your day. Do not ignore them ever.

We probably will agree on many points and the differences here seem to be more of a snap-shot verses long-view, because if we take the data from any release the new toys will look better than they really are because of their untested abilities will surprise many players. (Think of reading about and learning a new chess opening to use against an opponent that knows your typical game style. You will most likely catch them off guard and win your games against them until they readjust their game to match your new tactics.)

We can agree to that.

Btw, in the other thread, I posted that there are 15 winners supposedly in season2, newest data.

I also posted the squadron count and the BCC usage, much higher than BCC usage of all lists.

Opinions are fine. Assertions are however is when there are problems

Opinions are innocuous. Attempted change is the goal of strong opinions. Hence assertions.

I find ignoring most people not useful. Especially non-cussing, vitriolic people. I'd rather hope I change their mind or they change mine. Or that we at least try.

In the end, things keep going the way they do, or the ways people exploit them, but sometimes, you'd rather it not. And this goes for everything in life, comical or dramatic.

I really hope this forum doesn't turn in one of those places where you have to cite every sentence, and dicussions fall into "source please".

There is value in opinions.

Just teach yourself some critical thinking and don't take everything as given.

There is only value in opinions that were build in a logical, rational process.

I really hope this forum doesn't turn in one of those places where you have to cite every sentence, and dicussions fall into "source please".

There is value in opinions.

Just teach yourself some critical thinking and don't take everything as given.

There is only value in opinions that were build in a logical, rational process.

If this was true, art would have no place in the world.

There is a difference between..

“My opinion is that it’s better than people expect and if you spent some cycles you should be able to find this ship works well with the right players”

And

“No its great, and your dumb, and I know its great cause it has some fill in the blank ability, and if you suck with it, it’s because you suck”

We are getting more of the later, and less of the former. And that bad.

I will admit I can be confrontational. If someone is polite or even just normally asking questions or stating an opinion I am just fine. But when someone gets high and mighty and starts attacking others I get more aggressive. I will try first to make a post that is a "Check yourself" first but if they come at me it's open game. I don't do well with Trolls.

I am older than most here and I remember a time when facts and experience tended to command respect, but today the Internet is like a curtain celebrity who hates building an argument on facts and logic and instead relies on being a bully and pushing people around until he gets his way. Now he is only getting away with it because that is what our society has become, self righteous and arrogant. In person I am far less likely to get on Trollish people and I love politeness, but in Internet discussions I have found once a Bully Troll steps in the whole discussion is just dead. They don't listen to logic or what the opposition actually has to say, they just reiterate their position, claim they have the high ground and are the victim and personally attack everyone in hopes to scare other people away. I never run so yes, that is a toxic combination. I was the kid who stood up to the school bullies for my friends and in a way I still do that for my friends today.

I should really take a step back and walk away when someone tries to pick a fight with me but man, it's so hard when you see a self righteous moron who has no idea what they are saying attacking everyone who disagrees with them. When they're posting 8-10 times on a single page using quotes to personally insult people while they still are not responding to questions and are instead pivoting on their talking points just gets me going. Admiral, Bladewing and now the new discussion are all perfect examples of when this got to me.

Now I may sound like I talk like a dad and that I am coming off preachy but I am old enough to be the dad of many in here. As I said I am older than most here and not as use to the Internet culture as many of you are. When I was in High School back in the 80's we use to have high thoughts on what it will be like to electronically talk to others via Internet (though that wasn't really a name that had took common root, only my computer nerd friends would call it that. I was a nerd in other sciences.) and we imagined that it would help us understand other people more. In some ways it has in other ways it has made us more distrusting and openly hostile to others because there is no consequences for being hostile. You can't walk into a bar or restaurant and start calling everyone names as you assert your political beliefs and state your righteousness for holding those beliefs because you would end up on the ground with a bloody nose for doing that. Here? Only the moderators can stop someone and they rarely ever do that on the FFG sites and that leads to people thinking they can say whatever they want. I never thought that this is how the Internet would work, but I also thought pocket computers that could work anywhere you go would still be another 20 years off too.

I was part of yesterday's problem I will admit. I will try to be more restrained in the future, but I will not let Trolls just bully other forum members either especially since the FFG moderates don't bother to give people warnings when they step out of line. I'm not perfect, I'm an old man with his hose trying to keep kids off his lawn.

You must be joking. Unless your base statements are grounded in evidence, you can use logic to prove bloody near anything.

Given: One cannot kill a Jedi.

Given: Kit Fisto is a Jedi.

Conclusion: Kit Fisto was not killed in Revenge of the Sith, and instead had a bit of a laydown, as he was tired.

I will admit I can be confrontational. If someone is polite or even just normally asking questions or stating an opinion I am just fine. But when someone gets high and mighty and starts attacking others I get more aggressive. I will try first to make a post that is a "Check yourself" first but if they come at me it's open game. I don't do well with Trolls.

I am older than most here and I remember a time when facts and experience tended to command respect, but today the Internet is like a curtain celebrity who hates building an argument on facts and logic and instead relies on being a bully and pushing people around until he gets his way. Now he is only getting away with it because that is what our society has become, self righteous and arrogant. In person I am far less likely to get on Trollish people and I love politeness, but in Internet discussions I have found once a Bully Troll steps in the whole discussion is just dead. They don't listen to logic or what the opposition actually has to say, they just reiterate their position, claim they have the high ground and are the victim and personally attack everyone in hopes to scare other people away. I never run so yes, that is a toxic combination. I was the kid who stood up to the school bullies for my friends and in a way I still do that for my friends today.

I should really take a step back and walk away when someone tries to pick a fight with me but man, it's so hard when you see a self righteous moron who has no idea what they are saying attacking everyone who disagrees with them. When they're posting 8-10 times on a single page using quotes to personally insult people will they still are not responding to questions and are instead pivoting on their talking points just gets me going. Admiral, Bladewing and now the new discussion are all perfect examples of when this got to me.

Now I may sound like I talk like a dad and that I am coming off preachy but I am old enough to be the dad of many in hear. As I said I am older than most here and not as use to the Internet culture as many of you are. When I was in High School back in the 80's we use to have high thoughts on what it will be like to electronically talk to others via Internet (though that wasn't really a name that had took common root, only my computer nerd friends would call it that. I was a nerd in other sciences.) and we imagined that it would help us understand other people more. In some ways it has in other ways it has made us more distrusting and openly hostile to others because there is no consequences for being hostile. You can't walk into a bar or restaurant and start calling everyone names as you assert your political beliefs and state your righteousness for holding those beliefs because you would end up on the ground with a bloody nose for doing that. Here? Only the moderators can stop someone and they rarely ever do that on the FFG sites and that leads to people thinking they can say whatever they want. I never thought that this is how the Internet would work, but I also though pocket computers that could work anywhere you go would still be another 20 years off too.

I was part of yesterday's problem I will admit. I will try to be more restrained in the future, but I will not let Trolls just bully other forum memebers either especially since the FFG moderates don't bother to give people warnings when they step out of line. I'm not perfect, I'm an old man with his hose trying to keep kids off his lawn.

I feel the same way. Together we can bring peace and order to the forums.

3) Logic, when applied properly, needs no evidence

You must be joking. Unless your base statements are grounded in evidence, you can use logic to prove bloody near anything.

Given: One cannot kill a Jedi.

Given: Kit Fisto is a Jedi.

Conclusion: Kit Fisto was not killed in Revenge of the Sith, and instead had a bit of a laydown, as he was tired.

Not joking at all. Logic is not evidence-based.

You can use logic and apply it to evidence. But logic in itself is a structured way of reasoning that is independent of evidence.

Example: If Jedi can not be killed and Kit Fisto is a Jedi, then Kit Fisto can not be killed.

That's logic and it requires nothing but itself to be consistent.

3) Logic, when applied properly, needs no evidence

You must be joking. Unless your base statements are grounded in evidence, you can use logic to prove bloody near anything.

Given: One cannot kill a Jedi.

Given: Kit Fisto is a Jedi.

Conclusion: Kit Fisto was not killed in Revenge of the Sith, and instead had a bit of a laydown, as he was tired.

Not joking at all. Logic is not evidence-based.

You can use logic and apply it to evidence. But logic in itself is a structured way of reasoning that is independent of evidence.

Example: If Jedi can not be killed and Kit Fisto is a Jedi, then Kit Fisto can not be killed.

That's logic and it requires nothing but itself to be consistent.

As per your Jedi example it requires an understanding of what is death and the Jedis didn't really believe anyone truly dies they just transform back into the Living Force, but that is a philosophical argument. Like a Christian claiming a soul never dies, can't prove it one way or another, you just have faith. But tell the Jedi Counsel you are ready to be a Jedi Master no logic will convince them, you still need to pass the trials which are evidence based.

So you're right but you're also wrong. Depends on the situation and discussion.

I really hope this forum doesn't turn in one of those places where you have to cite every sentence, and dicussions fall into "source please".

There is value in opinions.

Just teach yourself some critical thinking and don't take everything as given.

There is only value in opinions that were build in a logical, rational process.

If this was true, art would have no place in the world.

Would you care to explain?

I really hope this forum doesn't turn in one of those places where you have to cite every sentence, and dicussions fall into "source please".

There is value in opinions.

Just teach yourself some critical thinking and don't take everything as given.

There is only value in opinions that were build in a logical, rational process.

If this was true, art would have no place in the world.

Would you care to explain?

Pollock

A hearty hello to all the fellow Social Studies teachers! I teach some college and some secondary classes myself.

@OP Came on a little harsh. Wargames can be as much art and style as they are spreadsheets and DPT calculations. I don't need national polling to see something having a negative impact on games I play and see being played. And I certainly don't care if you don't want me to give unsupported opinions on a rather casual past time of mine. I recognize that for others this is the core of their hobby time, they like hard numbers, and they want empirical evidence before even entertaining an argument... so be it, my first degree is in Engineering, so I can wrap my head around that mindset. But some of us would rather discuss the hobby at the level WE play it and the notion that you get to tell us that a topic or point that couldn't make it past a review board due to lack of evidence is "incorrect" is both arrogant and ignorant while being pretty self absorbed.

Feel free to ask for and/or provide evidence in support of your comments... very nice and very compelling... but I will continue to take people seriously even if they're just talking about their kitchen table games and what happened at the FLGS. I can understand that hyperbole often follows a frustrating loss, and am willing to still read about other's concerns and muses sans hard evidence. Apparently you aren't. In my opinion you're poorer for it.

Liberal Media, the lot of you

Since when are facts and evidence a Liberal thing and why is that bad? Facts are absolutely superior to opinions, no way around that. And the sign of maturity is evolving your beliefs to new found facts. Retreating to your ideology and ignoring facts is a sign of immaturity. This shoiluld never have been a political point and nor should this thread turn into one either.

Since when are facts and evidence a Liberal thing and why is that bad? Facts are absolutely superior to opinions, no way around that. And the sign of maturity is evolving your beliefs to new found facts. Retreating to your ideology and ignoring facts is a sign of immaturity. This shoiluld never have been a political point and nor should this thread turn into one either.

There is some evidence that liberals tend to use facts more often, while conservatives use emotions more often. This is why convincing a conservative with facts can be quite difficult, because they have placed their reason in their emotions and opinions on the matter. Same goes the other way. Conservatives trying to convince a liberal with an appeal to emotion, may not be as effective. It's not cut n dry, but I tend to think of it like this.

Us liberals and our facts.

Facts can be every bit as selective and misleading as emotion. I once won a competitive debate in which one side picked an evil character from one of three works of cinematic fiction and the other then proved them to be virtuous. My opponent picked the Balrog from LotR (seriously), and I got that silly thing with facts as my main points source, arguing that he was defending his lair from brutal invaders who had killed several of his fellow tenants... and seeded against any existing claim by the deceased dwarves.

But ultimately I was still wrong, and every in the audience knew it. My facts and logic was all warped to make the opponents counter arguement sound foolish. And I knew that my seemingly factual arguement actually had more emotion to it than the audience realized.

Facts are nice, but they often are missused and can easily be selected in such a way that they lie. Fox News and CNN prove this daily.

3) Logic, when applied properly, needs no evidence

You must be joking. Unless your base statements are grounded in evidence, you can use logic to prove bloody near anything.

Given: One cannot kill a Jedi.

Given: Kit Fisto is a Jedi.

Conclusion: Kit Fisto was not killed in Revenge of the Sith, and instead had a bit of a laydown, as he was tired.

Not joking at all. Logic is not evidence-based.

You can use logic and apply it to evidence. But logic in itself is a structured way of reasoning that is independent of evidence.

Example: If Jedi can not be killed and Kit Fisto is a Jedi, then Kit Fisto can not be killed.

That's logic and it requires nothing but itself to be consistent.

You are correct as far as that goes. But while you can draw logically consistent conclusions without evidence, all you're doing is whistling in the dark.

If you want correct conclusions, you have to start from evidence. Note that my example is logically flawless, but the results are incorrect.

Note that for the purpose of this discussion, "logically sound" is distinct from "correct." "Correct" should be defined in this case as "results match conclusions."

Can I be like Kellyanne Conway and use "alternative facts?"