But you are part of a group, the group of people that don't like Steam. Obviously it's not an official card carrying type of group but the debate in the thread has largely split into two informal groups. You appear to be in the anti-Steam group and are arguing from that position as opposed to a position of objectivity. While the other user did not use that exact word I think partisan describes some of your arguments and the point he was trying to make nicely.

Edit:Also for clarification I did not call you a partisan, I called your argument partisan. Do not assume that every label applied to your argument automatically applies to you.

You are reading far to much into things. He did not say "you are crazy". At best you could argue that he said "your point of view is crazy" but I'm guessing he more meant "you're pursuing your point of view with far more zeal than the facts support". But even if he was calling what you said crazy there is a significant difference between addressing the argument and addressing the speaker. I could for example say that something you said or an idea you had was crazy, or in this case that a line of argument you are perusing resembles a crusade. However I would be in no way speaking about you as a person, calling someone words or ideas crazy is not the same thing as calling them crazy. Even if someone were to call you a crusader it would still be labeling you as such in the context of and because of your argument and so it would not constitute an ad hominem.

To paraphrase:

"Okay, so you aren't really a partisan, but I'm going to claim that you are, because I believe that you are part of an informal group, henceforth known as X."

"If someone implies that you are a zealot, it's not ad hominem because it's only a subtle attack on your character. Nuance!"

I giggle every time I read this statement. So any ad hominem can be excused based on context? When is ad hominem not employed in the context of some larger argument? Why would anyone invoke an ad hominem, if not to avoid substantive argument by discrediting another participant? There is always context! The absurdity of your claim is both amusing and infuriating. What?

You are hung up on "context." Any attempt to discredit an opponents character, regardless of its relation to the context of the argument, is ad hominem. There are different types of ad hominem, so perhaps you are limiting yourself to a stricter definition. I can't think of a more effective ad hominem than the crusader or zealot label, because it discredits an opponent by portraying him as illogical and blind to reason.

A simplified case follows:

"How can we believe what John says about the quality of Mountain Farm vanilla ice cream? He's a chocolate zealot! If it's not chocolate, he hates it, regardless of the quality."

The above employs a logical fallacy because it disqualifies John based on his character and preferences, and does not address his argument. If you argue the person instead of the argument, it is ad hominem.

That's nice, I guess. Sadly, feelings are irrelevant.

A person being called a crusader is actually a commentary on the arguments they are putting forth. The label is a description of their argument, one cannot be accurately labeled as a crusader without arguing a crusader like position. It only discredits the speaker as it relates to their argument.

It is not a logical fallacy and if I'm using a strict definition then well it's the official one. Virtually any rebuttal to any argument is going to reflect negatively in some small way against the original speaker, one cannot define any and all impingement against an opponents character (especially if indirect and incidnetal) as ad hominems. At that point the definition becomes almost meaningless.

While I certainly agree that there is a logical fallacy there it is not in the word zealot. It is in simply assuming that John's preference for chocolate interferes with his ability to determine vanilla ice cream quality (and it might, logical fallacies are not necessarily false they are just not necessarily true.) The degree of his chocolate preference from mild to zealotry is irrelevant.

It appears that we suffer from a fundamental disagreement in the realm of semantics.

In the interest of this thread, we should move on.

 

So, it is ok for "some" to be cutthroat but not everyone? Well...I suppose it is the very definition of cutthroat business to be unfair. 

Anyway as Firbolg already pointed out in both cases there is "anti-competitive" (or just competitive depending on the point of view) behavior.

 

On a different note this is something I'm curious about:

Gamersgate, the other big DD site was owned by Paradox. I'm not sure what was involved in them releasing Gamersgate to be an entity on it's own and they still have a small part in it, but their games are now sold everywhere. Impulse, Steam and Gamersgate alike. 

It is possible to assume that they felt that the interests of Paradox as a publisher were conflicting with Gamersgate's interests and decided it would be best to have Gamersgate be a free company.

One could make the case about Stardock and Impulse too. I'm sure sometimes they debate if they could sell more game if their games were everywhere and not only on Impulse. My guess is they think it is still more profitable to stay with Impulse's monopoly.

 

In the end it is about profits. I really don't care much for Steam. I much rather have my games bought through Gamersgate but I fail to see how Steam needs to be labeled the big bad wolf out there when all I see is everyone doing the same thing.

In other words. If you bought GalCiv or Elemental, a Impulse monopolized game, what is the difference if you buy Civ5? Other then of course you not liking Steam as an aplication, which is a totally different thing.

For the record, I agree that it was a little inflamatory to claim that you were on a crusade. That was the onely thing I said that was remotely deragatory towards you though so I think your decision to ignore everything else I said and focus on that one thing is a bit extreme. But I will agree that I should have used a different word then that.

For the rest though, I feel I have pointed out any number of cases in which your arguments were exagerated or where your complaints against Steam were not reasonable that you have failed to in any way refute. So I stand by my statement that you may have a strong opinion beyond what is justified.

Dear steam

 

I would like to thank you for sending your sales people to spam this forum of your competitor with badgering, insults and annoying strawman arguments. You may be wondering why I'm thanking you. Let me explain. Thanks to the annoying behavior of the likes of Firbolg, FadedC, falconne2, and Rebell44 I will never be using your service or buy any of your products. You made my decision for me and saved me time checking out whether steam might be of some use. I'm sure your people have not convinced one single person here to use your service and they probably convinced many to avoid your company altogether. Even some who had been using your company in the past may have been convinced to cease making any new purchases through you out of disgust for your poor behavior. I know your people have certainly convinced me to avoid your company altogether.

Dear firaxis

I had been considering Civ5 as a possible purchase (if it proved worth it upon further inquiry), but the steam requirement has completely killed that prospect. You guys signed up with a company that believes the way to sell a product is to annoy potential customers. Not too bright. And you lost a sale. Many sales, probably, since anyone reading this thread will be put off by the steam sales people, and insulted that firaxis would use such a shoddy outfit. I am already busy pointing this out to all those I know personally as reason to avoid your product because I'm one of those old fashioned types who think companies should be driven out of business once they cross the line and start jerking around customers.

Congratulations, guys.

 

Edit:

Unless the owners of Civ and steam have merged and are now the same company, this post "September 21, 2010 6:30:00 PM" by kaiapo is also a time wasting strawman and I apologize for missing this poster in the list of steam sales people.

1. I am glad that troll like you wont be using Steam

2. Your flamebait was reported to moderators

3. nice false accusation

btw.: those black helicopters are tracking you even despite your premium quality tinfoil   

 

Cry me a river, sales boy.

I did what now?

I am guessing it was the silly idea that the only people being locked out of their Steam accounts are careless stupid people. Personally, I thought blaming victims was still in fashion, right up there with kicking puppies and mugging grandmas. <shrugs>

Seriously though, Steam has advantages and disadvantages. Anyone who focuses only on one side of the issue isn't being honest with themselves or anyone else.

reply 714 ... yikes

 

also, that feeling wears off after a while ... whether a few hours, a few days, or a few months ... it wears off.

If you wish to become a true hate-master, you must master your hate, nurture it, and become a ball of resentment and loathing that lives for nothing but to see Steam suffer and burn.

 

Uh... yeah... what? As a consumer I love Steam, it's running on my computer right now (as is Impulse) and I'll probably pick up a copy of Civ V whenever it goes on sale. I have some concerns about the effect that Steams domination of the market and a hard linkage of games to a particular distribution platform could have on the industry. But I still buy games on Steam just like I still buy cheap crap made in China even though I'm worried about the gutting of the American manufacturing sector and the resulting transfer of our technical knowledge eliminating the only advantage America has left. Individual actions do not always mirror macro level concerns, call it a variation on the tragedy of the commons.