But I find it ridiculous that I am not allowed to say that I believe that something is the best.
Again, "best" has a specific meaning, denoting unparalleled excellence. You're saying that Monopoly is your "favorite" game; that doesn't make it the "best."
Yes, you may say you believe that Monopoly is the "best" game, but saying you "believe" something is an unnecessary modifier. I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. It just so happens that my belief is supported by a plethora of empirical evidence. Any time you assert something, you are (typically) stating a belief. Some people will make assertions for the sake of argument, but that's not what you're doing here.
There are 3 broad types of beliefs: evidence-based beliefs, faith-based beliefs, and opinion-based beliefs. Your assertion does not fall into the first two categories, so it must be of the last type: a statement of personal preference. This is fine. We state personal preferences all the time. However, all beliefs are subject to scrutiny, because all beliefs have some sort of rationale.
So, we have a statement of personal preference. Your statement indicates that you hold Monopoly in higher regard than any other board game ever made; that's what the word "best" means. Saying that any game is the "best" sets the bar at the highest possible level; it's an assertion that requires a great deal of arguing and case building in order to have any chance of making an impact. The word indicates a very strong belief, so it requires very strong support.
Saying "I like Monopoly" will still be scrutinized, but the requirement for support is much lower. Saying that Monopoly is better than every other board game will require a lot of convincing, especially among board game aficionados.
Does that make sense now? I can keep breaking it down for you if you like.
It all started when I posted that "I believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
This triggered a shit-storm of comments that had very little to do with monopoly and more to do with how I expressed my opinion. I strive to use correct language everyday, and I did.
I never said opinions were sacred, I spent my time arguing that my posts were opinions. That was what was in dispute. The fact that everyone seemed to assume that I objectively declared Monopoly THE best game ever.
So then I end up arguing several people about Grammar, logic and other things. And nobody was talking about the physical game ( except by mentioning that it sucked)
I wanted to support my arguments, but the arguments of the FRC community were not really related to the actual game, but more in the way of how I said "I believe..."
This triggered a shit-storm of comments that had very little to do with monopoly and more to do with how I expressed my opinion.
No, they were about Monopoly. You demurred, claiming that your opinion was unassailable, and people took issue with that. You then hid behind a string of poorly constructed semantic arguments.
. The fact that everyone seemed to assume that I objectively declared Monopoly THE best game ever.
You effectively did. You called it "one of the best." Why did you say this if you weren't willing to defend it? Why did you use the word best?
adjective, superl. of good with better as compar. 1. of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: the best work; the best students. 2. most advantageous, suitable, or desirable: the best way. 3. largest; most: the best part of a day.
adj. Superlative of good. 1. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent: the best performer; the best grade of ore. 2. Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable: the best solution; the best time for planting. 3. Greatest; most: He spoke for the best part of an hour. 4. Most highly skilled: the best doctor in town.
I wanted to support my arguments, but the arguments of the FRC community were not really related to the actual game,
They were, but you immediately fell back on semantics.
"I may sound mainstream here, but I still believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever. It can be a great and competitive game. Especially with 4 players (sometimes I don't like more than four because everything takes too long and its harder to get a monopoly). I have great memories of Monopoly games that last all afternoon. They get so fun."
I want to highlight this, I never said that it was THE best game, I said it was one of the best. I think its important to point that out.
I would love to support my argument, however, once again these discussions are not related to the actual properties of the game. So don't imply that I don't have support or that I am not willing to support my arguments. This discussion simply went off-topic.
If it is within my opinion that Monopoly is one of the best board games ever made. Then there is nothing wrong with that. It does not have to be true for you, or anyone else. Heck, it could maybe only apply to me. But it is correct nonetheless, not correct as in its the best, as in its correct that I think its the best.
Stating that something is my favorite and that something is one of the best are different. Favorite means it is my favorite board game. Favorite also means personal opinion. Stating that I believe Monopoly is one of the best, is also personal opinion,
I believe: as in it is my belief
that Monopoly is one of the best: that Monopoly is one of the best board games out there
"No, you specifically said you believe it is one of the best board games ever. It's an objectively bad game, and that is not affected by whether it's mainstream or simple." -Anastius
This was the first post by Anastius, this is kinda related to the game. But he is quoting me as objectively saying that Monopoly is one of the best.
"Whether you had typed believe or not doesn't matter. My argument still stands, since you said in your opinion it is objectively good, and, even further, that it is objectively better than most games. You are allowed to like it, but that is in a whole different territory." -Anastius
Here is a retort by anastius again, once again attacking and misquoting me. I never said that I think it is objectively good. This is where the discussion drifts off. This is where I defend and argue my point. It was not weak semantics. it was addressing the futile arguments of some of the FRC community.
We know it's your opinion. It can only be your opinion.
Now back it up.
Look, stop fucking implying that I'm hiding from the original discussion ok? It is starting to get irritating. Just because I address the arguments of others does not mean I can't back myself up. How am I supposed to back myself up if there is another argument going on?
There are 2 distinctly different discussions going on in this thread.
EDIT: OK, do whatever else you think you need to. However, the argument about what an opinion is is done. At this point, all you have to do is back up your opinion.
I want to highlight this, I never said that it was THE best game, I said it was one of the best.
You do realize that there is no substantial difference between the two, right? The contended point - whether or not Monopoly is the best or one of the best - is the same.
Stating that I believe Monopoly is one of the best, is also personal opinion,
I believe that cutting my own arm off is one of the best things I could do today.
Opinions are worthless without rationale. Beliefs are not special, and get no special treatment unless backed. You very clearly stated that you believed Monopoly was one of the best games. You did not back this up. Several people disagree with you. Defend it, or stop posting.
Firstly, I think Monopoly is one of the best because of its simplicity and fun. I have great memories of long games in the afternoon with my family. It is competitive, long lasting and simple enough to be played by a wide variety of ages.
The main point I like about Monopoly is its enjoyability and simplicity. You don't really need to know a lot to play the game. it has a simple layout, everyone is familiar with money, and the goal of the game is simple, put everyone else out of business. Granted it may not have the depth and strategy of other board games. its still fun, and that is why I enjoy it. Because we play games to have fun.
I am sure Settlers and other board games are equally enjoyable for others. But I grew up with Monopoly. And even if most of the game is about luck, so what? Many games involve luck. Any Gambling game (Poker, BlackJack), games involving dice. Look, almost everything in our lives in affected by the thing we call luck, you could say that luck is simply the uncontrolled variable in every game. And that certain games have more control than others. But I certainly disagree with any argument that says monopoly does not require any thinking or strategy, it may not require as many as other games, but it certainly has enough.
There is a very substantial difference. its the difference between calling a game the best game ever created or calling it ONE of the best, that means there are other games of equal caliber of enjoyment.
Cutting your arm off and discussing the enjoyment of Monopoly are two different things. It is accepted that cutting your arm off will hurt, It is objectively accepted as so. It is non debatable. That is scientific.
Look, the point is I ended up arguing how I present my opinions before I could support my rationale. The argument went off-topic, so I addressed that first.
So what you're saying is that Monopoly is good because
It's simple. You have fond memories of it.
These are not things about Monpoly. These are things about YOU. You enjoy simple things, but simple things don't make a game better. In fact, a game being simple generally makes it worse. Also, your fond memories might be the reason you like Monpoly, but just because you have fond memories of something doesn't mean it's good for anyone else. I have fond memories of my backyard, it doesn't mean that my backyard is better or worse than any other.
If you want to get any respect, you are going to have to present an academic evaluation of the game itself. Just sharing your feelings with us is completely pointless. Your personal feelings towards something have absolutely no relation to it's actual standing as good or bad. I really like Initial D, but it sucks. I don't like the Mona Lisa, but it's the best.
The question you answered is "Why do you like Monpoly?" That's not the question that is being asked of you. The question being asked of you is "Why is Monopoly a good game?" Don't discuss your feelings. Discuss the game itself.
It still seems as if you are incapable of understanding this very basic concept. Life's going to be pretty rough until you figure it out.
You enjoy simple things, but simple things don't make a game better.
That's not necessarily true. T&E; is an example of a relatively simple game with complex play. Quite often, you only need a few rules interacting with each other to make a game interesting. Consider the inverse situation of a hideously complicated game: some are good, but many get bogged down with too much "stuff."
I think what you mean to say is that there's a distinction between simplicity in the rules and simplicity in strategy. A game with simple rules can often have incredibly complex and intricate strategies, and a game with very complicated rules may wind up having very simple strategies, as the rules lend themselves to optimization.
Monopoly has both simple rules and simple strategy. Well, really, the strategy is largely nonexistent. That's why I lose interest in it pretty quickly.
So what you're saying is that Monopoly is good because
It's simple. You have fond memories of it.
These are not things about Monpoly. These are things about YOU. You enjoy simple things, but simple things don't make a game better. In fact, a game being simple generally makes it worse. Also, your fond memories might be the reason you like Monpoly, but just because you have fond memories of something doesn't mean it's good for anyone else. I have fond memories of my backyard, it doesn't mean that my backyard is better or worse than any other.
If you want to get any respect, you are going to have to present an academic evaluation of the game itself. Just sharing your feelings with us is completely pointless. Your personal feelings towards something have absolutely no relation to it's actual standing as good or bad. I really like Initial D, but it sucks. I don't like the Mona Lisa, but it's the best.
The question you answered is "Why do you like Monpoly?" That's not the question that is being asked of you. The question being asked of you is "Why is Monopoly a good game?" Don't discuss your feelings. Discuss the game itself.
It still seems as if you are incapable of understanding this very basic concept. Life's going to be pretty rough until you figure it out.
My primary academic evaluation was that it was simple lord Apreche.
Look, Life is not going to be tough just because I can't defend Monopoly on this forum. This is nothing to do with life. Did your parents abuse you as a child? All of your posts have a very aggressive and negative tone, and I am definitely sure I am not alone on this. You are blowing things way out of proportion, this is a discussion about a board game and you are acting like its a life lesson. You can't accept anyone else's point of view. You attack me for sharing my "feelings", I must apologize Apreche, I have feelings, I am fucking human, deal with it.
If you look at your post. Don't you think you are being a bit melo-dramatic? I find the tone of your posts more disturbing then this whole discussion. You come across as arrogant, angry and aggressive. And those are traits that will give you problems on in life. I mean this in all seriousness. No matter how smart or articulate you think you are, nobody likes a guy who thinks he is always right. Now I am not saying you should never argue, but calm down. Its a forum for discussion, not a lawsuit. I can just tell you take any chance to attack my opinions or statements. And frankly it is getting annoying.
So please tone down the egotistical attitude. And please think before you answer this with a series of random personal insults. I am not trying to offend you. I just wanted to point this out. Because I am an honest guy.
I also have good memories of Monopoly. It was the only board game on a long cruise ship gig last January so Pola and I played it quite a bit. We had a lot of fun. But then again we also spend hours playing Triple Yahtzee, a game we both "solved" years ago. It's something to do while chatting, something we don't have to think about.
As an actual board game rather than a diversion? Monopoly sucks!
If you look at your post. Don't you think you are being a bit melo-dramatic? I find the tone of your posts more disturbing then this whole discussion. You come across as arrogant, angry and aggressive. And those are traits that will give you problems on in life. I mean this in all seriousness. No matter how smart or articulate you think you are, nobody likes a guy who thinks he is always right. Now I am not saying you should never argue, but calm down. Its a forum for discussion, not a lawsuit. I can just tell you take any chance to attack my opinions or statements. And frankly it is getting annoying.
You do know that's Scott, of the podcast who's forum you are posting on...right?
Your life isn't going to be tough because you can't defend Monopoly. Your life is going to be tough because you are apparently incapable of accurately expressing your ideas in written form, and lack the ability to critique things outside of the context of your personal preferences.
I also have great memories of Monpoly. I actually really like the aesthetic of the game. Iconic railroad icons, brightly colored money, going to jail, it's pretty great. The thing is, as a game, it is bad. We're not arguing whether or not you like monopoly. We know you like it. Nobody is disagree that you like it. However, you are making this leap in logic that somehow because you like Monopoly, that makes it great. You liking something does not make it good. If you want to argue that something is good, you need to tell us what about the thing makes it good. Don't tell us about your feelings. Tell us about the game. What characteristics of Monopoly itself make it a good game?
We are not ragging on you because you like Monopoly. We are ragging on you because of your repeated failure to comprehend this basic concept.
"However, you are making this leap in logic that somehow because you like Monopoly, that makes it great. You liking something does not make it good."
I never ever said or implied this. However, I see your point and I admit I could have expressed it more accurately after all this. I understand the basic concept. However, the argument diverted from its original topic, so Its not as if I couldn't back up my statement. Do you get what I mean?
"However, you are making this leap in logic that somehow because you like Monopoly, that makes it great. You liking something does not make it good."
I never ever said or implied this. However, I see your point and I admit I could have expressed it more accurately after all this. I understand the basic concept. However, the argument diverted from its original topic, so Its not as if I couldn't back up my statement. Do you get what I mean?
As soon as you made you first statement, about a dozen people said you'd made a mistake in expressing yourself. You could have stopped the entire discussion by saying:
"You all are right. What I meant to say was that Monopoly is one of my favourite games, not one of the best game."
We don't mind that at all around here. Except with religion.
Seriously. Tearing bad arguments to shreds and stomping the bits into the dirt is practically the official pastime of the FRC forums. Except with religion.
Comments
Yes, you may say you believe that Monopoly is the "best" game, but saying you "believe" something is an unnecessary modifier. I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. It just so happens that my belief is supported by a plethora of empirical evidence. Any time you assert something, you are (typically) stating a belief. Some people will make assertions for the sake of argument, but that's not what you're doing here.
There are 3 broad types of beliefs: evidence-based beliefs, faith-based beliefs, and opinion-based beliefs. Your assertion does not fall into the first two categories, so it must be of the last type: a statement of personal preference. This is fine. We state personal preferences all the time. However, all beliefs are subject to scrutiny, because all beliefs have some sort of rationale.
So, we have a statement of personal preference. Your statement indicates that you hold Monopoly in higher regard than any other board game ever made; that's what the word "best" means. Saying that any game is the "best" sets the bar at the highest possible level; it's an assertion that requires a great deal of arguing and case building in order to have any chance of making an impact. The word indicates a very strong belief, so it requires very strong support.
Saying "I like Monopoly" will still be scrutinized, but the requirement for support is much lower. Saying that Monopoly is better than every other board game will require a lot of convincing, especially among board game aficionados.
Does that make sense now? I can keep breaking it down for you if you like.
It all started when I posted that "I believe Monopoly is one of the best board games ever"
This triggered a shit-storm of comments that had very little to do with monopoly and more to do with how I expressed my opinion. I strive to use correct language everyday, and I did.
I never said opinions were sacred, I spent my time arguing that my posts were opinions. That was what was in dispute. The fact that everyone seemed to assume that I objectively declared Monopoly THE best game ever.
So then I end up arguing several people about Grammar, logic and other things. And nobody was talking about the physical game ( except by mentioning that it sucked)
I wanted to support my arguments, but the arguments of the FRC community were not really related to the actual game, but more in the way of how I said "I believe..."
I want to highlight this, I never said that it was THE best game, I said it was one of the best. I think its important to point that out.
I would love to support my argument, however, once again these discussions are not related to the actual properties of the game. So don't imply that I don't have support or that I am not willing to support my arguments. This discussion simply went off-topic.
If it is within my opinion that Monopoly is one of the best board games ever made. Then there is nothing wrong with that. It does not have to be true for you, or anyone else. Heck, it could maybe only apply to me. But it is correct nonetheless, not correct as in its the best, as in its correct that I think its the best.
Stating that something is my favorite and that something is one of the best are different. Favorite means it is my favorite board game. Favorite also means personal opinion. Stating that I believe Monopoly is one of the best, is also personal opinion,
I believe: as in it is my belief
that Monopoly is one of the best: that Monopoly is one of the best board games out there
This is my opinion, I expressed it correctly.
Now back it up.
This was the first post by Anastius, this is kinda related to the game. But he is quoting me as objectively saying that Monopoly is one of the best.
"Whether you had typed believe or not doesn't matter. My argument still stands, since you said in your opinion it is objectively good, and, even further, that it is objectively better than most games. You are allowed to like it, but that is in a whole different territory." -Anastius
Here is a retort by anastius again, once again attacking and misquoting me. I never said that I think it is objectively good. This is where the discussion drifts off. This is where I defend and argue my point. It was not weak semantics. it was addressing the futile arguments of some of the FRC community.
There are 2 distinctly different discussions going on in this thread.
1) is about Monopoly and its playability
2) is about how I present my opinion
I'm tackling one at a time.have patience.
EDIT: OK, do whatever else you think you need to. However, the argument about what an opinion is is done. At this point, all you have to do is back up your opinion.
Opinions are worthless without rationale. Beliefs are not special, and get no special treatment unless backed. You very clearly stated that you believed Monopoly was one of the best games. You did not back this up. Several people disagree with you. Defend it, or stop posting.
Firstly, I think Monopoly is one of the best because of its simplicity and fun. I have great memories of long games in the afternoon with my family. It is competitive, long lasting and simple enough to be played by a wide variety of ages.
The main point I like about Monopoly is its enjoyability and simplicity. You don't really need to know a lot to play the game. it has a simple layout, everyone is familiar with money, and the goal of the game is simple, put everyone else out of business. Granted it may not have the depth and strategy of other board games. its still fun, and that is why I enjoy it. Because we play games to have fun.
I am sure Settlers and other board games are equally enjoyable for others. But I grew up with Monopoly. And even if most of the game is about luck, so what? Many games involve luck. Any Gambling game (Poker, BlackJack), games involving dice. Look, almost everything in our lives in affected by the thing we call luck, you could say that luck is simply the uncontrolled variable in every game. And that certain games have more control than others. But I certainly disagree with any argument that says monopoly does not require any thinking or strategy, it may not require as many as other games, but it certainly has enough.
Cutting your arm off and discussing the enjoyment of Monopoly are two different things. It is accepted that cutting your arm off will hurt, It is objectively accepted as so. It is non debatable. That is scientific.
Look, the point is I ended up arguing how I present my opinions before I could support my rationale. The argument went off-topic, so I addressed that first.
It's simple.
You have fond memories of it.
These are not things about Monpoly. These are things about YOU. You enjoy simple things, but simple things don't make a game better. In fact, a game being simple generally makes it worse. Also, your fond memories might be the reason you like Monpoly, but just because you have fond memories of something doesn't mean it's good for anyone else. I have fond memories of my backyard, it doesn't mean that my backyard is better or worse than any other.
If you want to get any respect, you are going to have to present an academic evaluation of the game itself. Just sharing your feelings with us is completely pointless. Your personal feelings towards something have absolutely no relation to it's actual standing as good or bad. I really like Initial D, but it sucks. I don't like the Mona Lisa, but it's the best.
The question you answered is "Why do you like Monpoly?" That's not the question that is being asked of you. The question being asked of you is "Why is Monopoly a good game?" Don't discuss your feelings. Discuss the game itself.
It still seems as if you are incapable of understanding this very basic concept. Life's going to be pretty rough until you figure it out.
I think what you mean to say is that there's a distinction between simplicity in the rules and simplicity in strategy. A game with simple rules can often have incredibly complex and intricate strategies, and a game with very complicated rules may wind up having very simple strategies, as the rules lend themselves to optimization.
Monopoly has both simple rules and simple strategy. Well, really, the strategy is largely nonexistent. That's why I lose interest in it pretty quickly.
My primary academic evaluation was that it was simple lord Apreche.
Look, Life is not going to be tough just because I can't defend Monopoly on this forum. This is nothing to do with life. Did your parents abuse you as a child? All of your posts have a very aggressive and negative tone, and I am definitely sure I am not alone on this. You are blowing things way out of proportion, this is a discussion about a board game and you are acting like its a life lesson. You can't accept anyone else's point of view. You attack me for sharing my "feelings", I must apologize Apreche, I have feelings, I am fucking human, deal with it.
If you look at your post. Don't you think you are being a bit melo-dramatic? I find the tone of your posts more disturbing then this whole discussion. You come across as arrogant, angry and aggressive. And those are traits that will give you problems on in life. I mean this in all seriousness. No matter how smart or articulate you think you are, nobody likes a guy who thinks he is always right. Now I am not saying you should never argue, but calm down. Its a forum for discussion, not a
lawsuit. I can just tell you take any chance to attack my opinions or statements. And frankly it is getting annoying.
So please tone down the egotistical attitude. And please think before you answer this with a series of random personal insults. I am not trying to offend you. I just wanted to point this out. Because I am an honest guy.
As an actual board game rather than a diversion? Monopoly sucks!
I also have great memories of Monpoly. I actually really like the aesthetic of the game. Iconic railroad icons, brightly colored money, going to jail, it's pretty great. The thing is, as a game, it is bad. We're not arguing whether or not you like monopoly. We know you like it. Nobody is disagree that you like it. However, you are making this leap in logic that somehow because you like Monopoly, that makes it great. You liking something does not make it good. If you want to argue that something is good, you need to tell us what about the thing makes it good. Don't tell us about your feelings. Tell us about the game. What characteristics of Monopoly itself make it a good game?
We are not ragging on you because you like Monopoly. We are ragging on you because of your repeated failure to comprehend this basic concept.
"However, you are making this leap in logic that somehow because you like Monopoly, that makes it great. You liking something does not make it good."
I never ever said or implied this. However, I see your point and I admit I could have expressed it more accurately after all this. I understand the basic concept. However, the argument diverted from its original topic, so Its not as if I couldn't back up my statement. Do you get what I mean?
"You all are right. What I meant to say was that Monopoly is one of my favourite games, not one of the best game."