Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20200214154305/@comment-32182236-20200217172714

@Tsskyx:It's been four years without a major find, ANYWHERE in the Undertale canon. It's about time for a change in how we analyze things, so that we're better equipped to find such facts.

So many arguments end up going nowhere, because we can't agree on what the rules are. If finding the truth was a game of chess, then plenty of people are trying to play checkers instead, wondering why we're moving pieces in L-shapes, and also wondering why we're telling them not to move their rook diagonally.

Or, perhaps, someone who's trying to play hockey, but throws a football at the goalie and then yells "Checkmate!". As you probably know, if this happens, things won't progress in the game. Likewise, since logic isn't being used correctly, we're not progressing in our theorization through debate. Which is likely why we've been at an impasse for four years.

If we all knew how to theorize correctly, we'd be that much better at doing it, and actually getting somewhere rather than just staying stuck in a dead-end for 4 years.

So the discussions about logic themselves don't bring us any fruit. They bring us a map to the fruit.

The fact that it, in of itself, doesn't bring any fruit is therefore somewhat irrelevant. Saying that it's a reason to just not do this at all would be like saying that since compasses don't bring us new lands or resources, there's no reason to invent them. (That is, at a point in time where they haven't already been invented-Suppose that discussion was going on in the 1st century BC.)

Or perhaps the internet is also out, because it doesn't directly give us anything new. Everything on the internet was found through other means, only placed on the internet. So, in a way, the internet doesn't give us any new fruit either:Only allows us to share it with each other.

We have to think about the future as well. Just because the reward is delayed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Once we all know how to analyze properly, debates will become more rational, and we'll start actually getting somewhere.

Sort of like if we found a way to explain to the checker-player that this is a game of chess, and explained what those rules are, so they could finally start playing the right game-Then we'd actually be able to play chess.

Which is why I made this series. By making it clear what the rules actually were, and how to properly theorize rationally, we can finally start actually getting somewhere!

Of course, if you have a problem with the system itself, you can make an objection, and I'll make a response to it. I do want to make sure I've designed the right system. So if there are flaws, I need to fix them. (When Discussions comes around though, I'll be unable to do so here, because in Discussions, after 24 hours, you can no longer edit your post. So I'm hoping we get somewhere before April.)

But "why are we doing this?" is not a flaw.