23 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Hah, we both are, apparently. I said you will make an excuse about why you were not actually wrong but I was, and that's what you do. Pretty funny!

No. I was wrong, but that doesn't mean your argumentative tactics were good. You didn't convince me you were right, (which is something that others are able to do), you turned out to be right.

25 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Exactly. Not that it matters now, but yes.

It's actually a good analogy, so I'll roll with it. What you are missing is that we don't know that the number is mixed up. That's exactly what we want to know: did he give us the right new private number? He once gave us his old phone number, that we know. But now he gives us another phone number and some other person B believes it might be the wrong one. That person B claims it is the company number. The reason is actually not irrelevant when we try to figure out whether it could be his new private number or his company number.

Reverting back to an old, known number is an easy mistake, so it's very believable and realistic. But mixing up his new private number with his company number would be a strange mistake. They have different functions, so why would he think of work when trying to give the private number?

Your point here is: Reverting back to an old version is a realistic mistake, but mixing up two different things is strange...

Now, remind me, please, what was your point earlier?

Reverting back to the old version of Jam, is exactly the thing I suggested Alex did. This turned out to be incorrect. His new number is just very similar to the old one.

Mixing up two different things, is what you suggested Alex did with Advanced Sensors and Supernatural reflexes.

So thank you, for making my point.

12 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The context was your statement. That‘s why I quoted it.

And I showed how what you said could have been trying to say 3 totally different things about my statement. If you had been writing clearly you would have identified what about my statement you had issue with. I’d also like to point out that you then go on to claim that your one statement was intended to mean 2 of the 3 different things.

What I can conclude from that is that not only are you incapable of writing intelligibly, you also lack reading comprehension.

8 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Reverting back to the old version of Jam, is exactly the thing I suggested Alex did. This turned out to be incorrect. His new number is just very similar to the old one.

Mixing up two different things, is what you suggested Alex did with Advanced Sensors and Supernatural reflexes. 

Yep. I almost said the same basic thing, then decided it wasn’t worth it.

8 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

And I showed how what you said could have been trying to say 3 totally different things about my statement. If you had been writing clearly you would have identified what about my statement you had issue with. I’d also like to point out that you then go on to claim that your one statement was intended to mean 2 of the 3 different things.

What I can conclude from that is that not only are you incapable of writing intelligibly, you also lack reading comprehension.

You have to explain to me where my statement meant two of those.

1. Are you trying to imply it’s my fault that I can’t understand what you’re writing? -> Yes, because this is not different from you getting out the wrong thing from my post(s).

2. Are you trying to say that I’m wrong about the rules interaction? —> No.

3. Are you trying to say that I have incorrectly deduced what you thought on even that one point? -> No, even though it is pretty ambiguous and could be understood as very similar to no1.

24 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Now, remind me, please, what was your point earlier?

Reverting back to the old version of Jam, is exactly the thing I suggested Alex did. This turned out to be incorrect. His new number is just very similar to the old one.

Mixing up two different things, is what you suggested Alex did with Advanced Sensors and Supernatural reflexes.



 So thank you, for making my point.

That was clever of you, well set up. The analogy uses old/new in both cases, so obviously you can then misrepresent my initial argument as analogous old/new problem. But going back to it you will maybe see why your analogy breaks down here:

„With the AdvS/SR they referred to the - for the situation - exact same mechanic, namely taking the action before activation. The difference is in card slot and name, which has no bearing on the mechanic. They used AdvS when another card name was correct, so wrong label for same content.

With Jam they referred to several different parts of the effect, namely which tokens. Tokens that are now very different, and much more so than in 1.0. They added more content to the effect, which is much less likely to happen compared to mislabelling something already present.“

But I‘m actually impressed, you almost got me!

Edit: I just realized I left a blank to fill on your own. To make sure you understand: it‘s not an old/new question for both, but a form/content question. Form for AdvS (=name, label) and content for Jam (= mechanic)

12 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That was clever of you, well set up. The analogy uses old/new in both cases, so obviously you can then misrepresent my initial argument as analogous old/new problem. But going back to it you will maybe see why your analogy breaks down here:

„With the AdvS/SR they referred to the - for the situation - exact same mechanic, namely taking the action before activation. The difference is in card slot and name, which has no bearing on the mechanic. They used AdvS when another card name was correct, so wrong label for same content.

With Jam they referred to several different parts of the effect, namely which tokens. Tokens that are now very different, and much more so than in 1.0. They added more content to the effect, which is much less likely to happen compared to mislabelling something already present.“

But I‘m actually impressed, you almost got me!

Edit: I just realized I left a blank to fill on your own. To make sure you understand: it‘s not an old/new question for both, but a form/content question. Form for AdvS (=name, label) and content for Jam (= mechanic)

There was no misinterpretation from my side. I very clearly labeled the analogy as you can see below. If you misinterpreted it... well that's on you.

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

Are you saying that there is a fundamental difference between the two mistakes?

Like. Person A changes his phone numbers, because he moved to another city for a job. When asked about his new number, he might:
A, Give his old phone number by mistake (this is an analogue for the old mechanic for Jam)
B, Give his new, company phone number by mistake (this is an analogue for the new, added mechanic)

With Jam, in this case, the old/new paradigm is applicable, because it used to remove Locks, and that was the subject of the conversation. I don't think that the difference in tokens is relevant. The new content to the effect (like the removal of calculate or reinforce) was not the point of the discussion. They are irrelevant in whether or not Jam removes Locks, or how people remember the effect.

Then you say this:

"Reverting back to an old, known number is an easy mistake, so it's very believable and realistic. But mixing up his new private number with his company number would be a strange mistake. They have different functions, so why would he think of work when trying to give the private number?"

So, I introduced the analogy, where I clearly labeled situation A as a case of Old/New mixup. See above why.

Then you bring up different functions, which while true in the analogy, isn't really applicable in this example. I explained why. We were talking about a feature that exists (or not) in both versions of Jamming.

5 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

If you misinterpreted it... well that's on you.

Yes it is. I didn‘t realize immediately why the analogy breaks down. But now that I did, why don‘t you reply to my actual explanation instead of your analogy?