Spring RTS Engine

who the fuck is dot? you mean det?

Ye, ban det plz, he's nothing but a vulgar german nazi.

You two are an irregular riot.

neddiedrow wrote:You two are an irregular riot.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology, I mean, have you ever seen a regular riot?

You're assuming that orchestration precludes assignment of the riot label.

neddiedrow wrote:You're assuming that orchestration precludes assignment of the riot label.

I'm not just assuming it. A riot is characterized by it's disorder and thus neither regular nor orchestrated could be a description of a riot or per definition, it wouldn't be a riot anymore.

Raghna wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:You're assuming that orchestration precludes assignment of the riot label.

I'm not just assuming it. A riot is characterized by it's disorder and thus neither regular nor orchestrated could be a description of a riot or per definition, it wouldn't be a riot anymore.

WHERES REPLAY OF YOU BEATING DAY

Riot is often applied pejoratively to gatherings which do not meet the definition and the public is entirely unaware of that fact. As far as the public is concerned, these gatherings are riots because they have been called riots, and nobody can say otherwise with ease.

Labels do not deal entirely in truth.

neddiedrow wrote:Riot is often applied pejoratively to gatherings which do not meet the definition and the public is entirely unaware of that fact. As far as the public is concerned, these gatherings are riots because they have been called riots, and nobody can say otherwise with ease.

Labels do not deal entirely in truth.

That's like saying: Apple's might be defined as round, but they're never actually 100% round, even if people don't think about it that way, so I'll just call them square.

Not at all, though I appreciate that position. The two are not analogous situations, and the point of my statement is being missed. There are organized, regular social gatherings which are classified as riots. Arguably most things you know to have been "riots" are, in fact, to some extent structured.

To make this a tautology you need to arbitrarily restrict/define the other elements of the equation - this is fine, formal logic is useful within such a narrow focus - but reality, which is created through your perception of your experiences, cannot usually be accurately or usefully modeled with formal logic. The formal definition is more a guideline than a logical value.

neddie, please, split your offtopic into another thread.

neddiedrow wrote:Not at all, though I appreciate that position. The two are not analogous situations, and the point of my statement is being missed. There are organized, regular social gatherings which are classified as riots. Arguably most things you know to have been "riots" are, in fact, to some extent structured.

To make this a tautology you need to arbitrarily restrict/define the other elements of the equation - this is fine, formal logic is useful within such a narrow focus - but reality, which is created through your perception of your experiences, cannot usually be accurately or usefully modeled with formal logic. The formal definition is more a guideline than a logical value.

You speak of this as if you'd be at the centre of the cause of these so-called structured gatherings. Or as if you were an illusionary creator of conspiracy theories. That you knew all secrets or were an expert on rioting and it's roots.

Although half of what you're saying there is just some desperate attempt at confusing one with unusual vocabulary. All you're saying is that 'Appearances are not what they seem' but in 61 words. (btw modelled is with 2 'L's)

Now, to set this straight: A riot is 'caused because a large, gathered group of persons each individually decided to revolt in a violent fashion opposing an idea or an authority for the same reason.

Even if it has been manipulated or provoked in any manner, the riot remains irregular and unpredictable as it's not acting as a group. If it was acting as a group and therefore in any way organized or as you say it: orchestrated, then this would be classified as organized crime or in a bigger scale such a thing would be a revolt or a rebellion.

An "irregular riot" is just a riot which is irregular. What you just defined was a normal/regular riot. Therefore, for it to still be a riot but become irregular it must be somewhat different to a normal riot. An organized and well thought through riot with a sense of purpose would be defying the very definition of a riot. Therefore, by adding the word "irregular" to it, allows for more flexibility with the definition.

For example, one might class an "irregular riot" as a planned, well thought through mob assault.

JAZCASH wrote:An "irregular riot" is just a riot which is irregular. What you just defined was a normal/regular riot. Therefore, for it to still be a riot but become irregular it must be somewhat different to a normal riot. An organized and well thought through riot with a sense of purpose would be defying the very definition of a riot. Therefore, by adding the word "irregular" to it, allows for more flexibility with the definition.

For example, one might class an "irregular riot" as a planned, well thought through mob assault.

I think you missed the whole point of this.
The discussion was all about whether a riot is by default irregular (and therefore neddie would've made a tautology) or if a riot could be organized and planned and still be named a riot.

Try again, JAZ.

If any confusion has resulted, rest assured that was not my intent. I'm saying that a riot is just a label applied to a gathering, with little relation to the formal definition, and that your attempts to define irregular riots as a tautological and thus repetitive statement are misguided. It simply isn't that simple.

At no point did I put myself at the center of an example. I'm not exactly sure why you came to that conclusion, as it doesn't appear in my statements.

To address the rest of your most recent post; there is great contention in several fields as to whether the formal notion of independent action generating violent mass action is correct even as a definition. Many riots are not violent, those with violent elements are seldom entirely violent, or even comprised of individuals engaging generally in violence. It is unclear whether treating individuals as a mass is valid from an analytical standpoint. There is even the question of whether any action is independent.

As for organization, it is clear it can be in part or in whole, some people present mass social activities as the interactions between groups which may internally be organized, but influence each other in unplanned ways. Others opt for the classic individualist model you've alluded to, but this neglects the background of mass action - how can people be working independently if they happen to be physically proximate and capable of interacting to produce "violent mass action"?

Anyway, I'm probably not going to contribute much further to this side topic. I wanted to make people think, and some have.

Addendum: Modelled is the Commonwealth spelling and Modeled is the American spelling. So, while you're technically correct, the spelling I used is more common - in fact, it was a personal misspelling on my part, since I usually employ Commonwealth English spellings. However, I could be similarly censured - and am often so - for deviating from the American English line.

if we let them continue we may see some great answers in the workings of the universe appearing. much like monkeys on typewriters only these people might have appreciable I.Q.s

/me gets the cola

Raghna wrote: The discussion was all about whether a riot is by default irregular (and therefore neddie would've made a tautology) or if a riot could be organized and planned and still be named a riot.

Any definition without the "irregular" prefix is by default regular right?

a riot is a tank, good for killing peewees

discussion over

Sausage wrote:a riot is a tank, good for killing peewees

discussion over

You mean Leveler? ^^