[Glorthoron]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, every day of my life I have seen the sun come up, but since I don't have evidence that it will not rise tomorrow, I have to assume that it will rise tomorrow.  I don't have evidence that it won't, so it will.  The onus is on someone else to prove otherwise.

[All4BigGuns]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, every day of my life I have seen the sun come up, but since I don't have evidence that it will not rise tomorrow, I have to assume that it will rise tomorrow.  I don't have evidence that it won't, so it will.  The onus is on someone else to prove otherwise.

No it isn't. Even in the case you mentioned, the end of the world could theoretically come tonight, in which case even that assumption would be proven false. (Yes i know it's silly and unlikely, but no more silly than using the sun rising to try and prove a gross generalization of a group of people labelled with a very subjective term.)

[Glorthoron]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, every day of my life I have seen the sun come up, but since I don't have evidence that it will not rise tomorrow, I have to assume that it will rise tomorrow.  I don't have evidence that it won't, so it will.  The onus is on someone else to prove otherwise.

No it isn't. Even in the case you mentioned, the end of the world could theoretically come tonight, in which case even that assumption would be proven false. (Yes i know it's silly and unlikely, but no more silly than using the sun rising to try and prove a gross generalization of a group of people labelled with a very subjective term.)

Ok, let me use something a little less silly and then I will use something probably even more silly.  Never in my life have I ever tasted liver and liked it.  Therefore, liver must taste awful.  Until someone proves to me otherwise, liver will always taste awful.  There is no evidence that liver tastes good, therefore it does not.

Now for the silly argument.  The statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." is the same argument that religious folk use to prove the existance of god.  "you can't prove he doesn't exist, so he must."

[All4BigGuns]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, every day of my life I have seen the sun come up, but since I don't have evidence that it will not rise tomorrow, I have to assume that it will rise tomorrow.  I don't have evidence that it won't, so it will.  The onus is on someone else to prove otherwise.

No it isn't. Even in the case you mentioned, the end of the world could theoretically come tonight, in which case even that assumption would be proven false. (Yes i know it's silly and unlikely, but no more silly than using the sun rising to try and prove a gross generalization of a group of people labelled with a very subjective term.)

Ok, let me use something a little less silly and then I will use something probably even more silly.  Never in my life have I ever tasted liver and liked it.  Therefore, liver must taste awful.  Until someone proves to me otherwise, liver will always taste awful.  There is no evidence that liver tastes good, therefore it does not.

Now for the silly argument.  The statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." is the same argument that religious folk use to prove the existance of god.  "you can't prove he doesn't exist, so he must."

If you'd said 'most' instead of making it a blanket generalization, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem, dude.  Especially with--as I've said several times already--how subjective the term used as the descriptor for the group of people is.

[Glorthoron]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, every day of my life I have seen the sun come up, but since I don't have evidence that it will not rise tomorrow, I have to assume that it will rise tomorrow.  I don't have evidence that it won't, so it will.  The onus is on someone else to prove otherwise.

No it isn't. Even in the case you mentioned, the end of the world could theoretically come tonight, in which case even that assumption would be proven false. (Yes i know it's silly and unlikely, but no more silly than using the sun rising to try and prove a gross generalization of a group of people labelled with a very subjective term.)

Ok, let me use something a little less silly and then I will use something probably even more silly.  Never in my life have I ever tasted liver and liked it.  Therefore, liver must taste awful.  Until someone proves to me otherwise, liver will always taste awful.  There is no evidence that liver tastes good, therefore it does not.

Now for the silly argument.  The statement "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." is the same argument that religious folk use to prove the existance of god.  "you can't prove he doesn't exist, so he must."

If you'd said 'most' instead of making it a blanket generalization, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem, dude.  Especially with--as I've said several times already--how subjective the term used as the descriptor for the group of people is.

True, my perception of a munchkin may be different from the next.

[ArkangelWinter]

I love how quoting the first rule you learn in every university science course ended got replies about how unscientific it was, in so many words.

[ArkangelWinter]

Well, close after "plagiarism is bad and wear goggles, shit explodes in here."

[Glorthoron]

I love how quoting the first rule you learn in every university science course ended got replies about how unscientific it was, in so many words.

Is this the same university you learned english? 

[Glorthoron]

I love how quoting the first rule you learn in every university science course ended got replies about how unscientific it was, in so many words.

Is this the same university you learned english? 

Sorry, that was harsh.

[ArkangelWinter]

When I'm posting from my phone I tend to not proofread well. You may also notice that I sometimes have to go back to edit for typo because I replaced spaces with "." or "b".

[JustADude]

I've seen no evidence to convince me that my statement is not accurate.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I love how quoting the first rule you learn in every university science course ended got replies about how unscientific it was, in so many words.

And I love how people, deliberately or not, will twist the meaning of other people's words just so they can fit a pithy saying into their rebuttals.

Now, personally, one of the first things I learned in science class is that if repeated trials support a hypotheses, that hypotheses can be treated as true until new evidence disproves it... and consistent results, whether through experimentation or empirical observation, generally get categorized as "evidence".

Glor's empirical observations (apparently) support a theory that players that fall into a group he has labeled "munchkins" make poor GMs and will try to skew play in favor of their own characters if given the chance. Lack of anything contraindicating that theory is not an "absence of evidence." It's an "absence of contradictory evidence"... which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Glorthoron]

I've seen no evidence to convince me that my statement is not accurate.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I love how quoting the first rule you learn in every university science course ended got replies about how unscientific it was, in so many words.

And I love how people, deliberately or not, will twist the meaning of other people's words just so they can fit a pithy saying into their rebuttals.

Now, personally, one of the first things I learned in science class is that if repeated trials support a hypotheses, that hypotheses can be treated as true until new evidence disproves it... and consistent results, whether through experimentation or empirical observation, generally get categorized as "evidence".

Glor's empirical observations (apparently) support a theory that players that fall into a group he has labeled "munchkins" make poor GMs and will try to skew play in favor of their own characters if given the chance. Lack of anything contraindicating that theory is not an "absence of evidence." It's an "absence of contradictory evidence"... which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Thanks for putting it that way JustA. You've worded it far more effectively than I could have managed.   

[ArkangelWinter]

I wasnt attempting a pithy rebuttal so much as expressing surprise. Could have worded that better. But you also can't make that an extremely broad generalization like that, as it was discussed we may not all have a standardized idea of "munckining". And YMMV, but as I've said elsewhere some of my players make me wanna take a crowbar to the face til the headache ceases, but have proven to be pretty good GMs (forever-to-take-his-turn guy was my example, I think).

In my experience, players GMing sometimes dont allow the very shenanigans that makes them annoying players. Or, in the case of super min-maxers and munckins, they know how to handle it because its what they do:
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9441792.jpg

[GiraffeShaman]

In my experience, players GMing sometimes dont allow the very shenanigans that makes them annoying players. Or, in the case of super min-maxers and munckins, they know how to handle it because its what they do

Yes, I found this to be the case in my experience as well. You can also learn how better to GM them by observing how they respond to you using their own tricks on them.

When I hear the term munchkin what automatically pops into my mind is something like a combination powerplayer/retard, likely with some cheater thrown in. However, if you look up a definition, you'll often find it's a term applied to powerplayers. This is why it's a dangerous term to use. Even if you don't intend to insult a large number of SR players, you probaly are by accident, more so in a forum that sees lots of SR players of many different stripes.

There was a time that I'd have simply lumped all powerplayer types as munchkins, but I've had to gain some tolerance and understanding in order to keep a decent sized group together.

[ArkangelWinter]

I've only called one guy a munchkin to his face; he deliberately derailed every plot of every game we've ever been in together, but wasnt much of a powergamer. He just gets his kicks trying to avoid story advancement.

He was my first GM though, and I respect his skills in that regard.