Food for Thought, Basic: The Oberoni Fallacy

[Josh]

Oberoni Fallacy – Restated Here

For the sake of clarity I would like to include This now classic statement:

Oberoni Fallacy- as originally stated:
Originally posted by Oberoni on the D&D general board July 23, 2002:

This my my take on the issue
Let’s say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

-“There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X.”Several correct replies can be given:
-“I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X.”
-“I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X.”
-“I disagree, you’ve merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.”

Okay, I hope you’re with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:

-“There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.“

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself–the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the “non-problem.”
It doesn’t follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.
Simple enough.

So for clarity the summary statement is:

It is a fallacy to state that: “There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.“

I was going to post this in something else, but have had luck on this board getting people to suggest better ways to state things.  So is there a better way, and are there any comments?  Has anyone not heard of this?

[woodenbandman]

It's pretty much the same as response number 2. It's basically someone saying, "yeah that would be a problem if you're dumb enough to allow it," which is kinda harsh, but they aren't really committing a huge breach of logic or anything. I don't think this really needs a thread.

[RobbyPants]

Well, there is a difference between response 2 and the fallacy.

Response 2 states both:
- I agree
- fix by doing X

Whereas the fallacy states:
- I disagree
- fix by doing x

The only difference is that with the Oberoni Fallacy, the person is asserting there is no problem because it can be fixed, which of course, makes no sense, because why whould they need to fix something that's not a problem in the first place.  It's a tiny difference, but worth noting.

As to your question, Josh, I think the bolded portion states what needs to be stated, but I like the three good example Oberoni posted ahead, just for clarification.  I think it further helps to distinguish why the last response is wrong.

[Halloween]

Oberoni`s Fallacy is simply stated as is.

If you wanted to boil it down further I guess you could reduce it too:

"The existence of a solution to a mechanical problem in the text of an RPG, does not negate the fact that the problem does exist."

I believe that Oberoni's post is short enough that reposting it in it's entirety is almost always a better idea.

This is a vital understanding to have when discussing mechanics. Without all parties agreeing to this concept, no worthwhile argument can occur.

[veekie]

I prefer to think of it as a "Good GMs can always patch bad rules. Good rules don't need to be patched. Why give the poor guy more work?" thing.

[Lakira]

"If you have to fix it, it's broke. After you fixed it, it doesn't mean it didn't use to be broke."

Edit: Better yet:

"If you have to fix it, it's broken. If you've been given a tool to fix it, it's still broken."