Change Jester so it takes away points instead or give zero points

[Infern]

Since people are obviously making negative comments on forums just to attempt to farm steam points. Would be nice for it to be a bad thing instead of a good thing.

The problem that people brought up is that. If it is used to take away exp it would be used to troll other people by giving jesters to certain people on purpose.
So having it so it only gives zero points is good enough. Since right now it is just an incentive to farm points by saying outlandish things on purpose.

[Pierce Dalton]

Escrito originalmente por oh man im so freaking cute:

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

These "you can't prove" arguments are always funny. Well, I can't prove dragons don't live inside Mars, but it's kinda obvious they don't. The same applies to certain other obvious things.

It's called common sense.

pierce wtf are you talking about. how are you gonna prove non-existence of something
and why are you comparing it to proving someone's intent
and why does this matter at all. whoever said that probably meant that you can't know why someone stuck a jester to your post cause maybe they were just being playful

You're missing the point, obvious things require no proof. We all gonna die one day. We don't need proof, we simply know it.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Escrito originalmente por oh man im so freaking cute:

pierce wtf are you talking about. how are you gonna prove non-existence of something
and why are you comparing it to proving someone's intent
and why does this matter at all. whoever said that probably meant that you can't know why someone stuck a jester to your post cause maybe they were just being playful

You're missing the point, obvious things require no proof. We all gonna die one day. We don't need proof, we simply know it.

Yup, and that's why it says "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".

That much is true, but you CANNOT prove a negative assertion, only a positive.

[Psymon²]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

You're missing the point, obvious things require no proof. We all gonna die one day. We don't need proof, we simply know it.

Yup, and that's why it says "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".

That much is true, but you CANNOT prove a negative assertion, only a positive.

today i learnt that "someone awarded a jester because they want to call that user a clown as an insult" is an "extraordinary claim" 🤡

[Pierce Dalton]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por oh man im so freaking cute:

pierce wtf are you talking about. how are you gonna prove non-existence of something
and why are you comparing it to proving someone's intent
and why does this matter at all. whoever said that probably meant that you can't know why someone stuck a jester to your post cause maybe they were just being playful

Good old Pierce has had burden of proof explained to them clearly by me, including links and clear explanations, but still doesn't understand it's a POSITIVE assertion that carries burden of proof.

Are you sure? Then why lawyers are often required to prove the inexistence of crimes?

[Pierce Dalton]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

You're missing the point, obvious things require no proof. We all gonna die one day. We don't need proof, we simply know it.

Yup, and that's why it says "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".

That much is true, but you CANNOT prove a negative assertion, only a positive.

Define extraordinary claim.

[Psymon²]

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Good old Pierce has had burden of proof explained to them clearly by me, including links and clear explanations, but still doesn't understand it's a POSITIVE assertion that carries burden of proof.

Are you sure? Then why lawyers are often required to prove the inexistence of crimes?

ah, the good old "beyond reasonable doubt"
implies you're dealing with reasonable people :C

[Pierce Dalton]

Escrito originalmente por Psymon²:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Yup, and that's why it says "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".

That much is true, but you CANNOT prove a negative assertion, only a positive.

today i learnt that "someone awarded a jester because they want to call that user a clown as an insult" is an "extraordinary claim" 🤡

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it...

[Psymon²]

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Escrito originalmente por Psymon²:

today i learnt that "someone awarded a jester because they want to call that user a clown as an insult" is an "extraordinary claim" 🤡

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it...

but of course, 'tis just common sense :D

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Good old Pierce has had burden of proof explained to them clearly by me, including links and clear explanations, but still doesn't understand it's a POSITIVE assertion that carries burden of proof.

Are you sure? Then why lawyers are often required to prove the inexistence of crimes?

Cool, demonstrate where that happens.

And why that is the same as probving a NEGATIVE claim, (which it isn't).

A NEGATIVE claim is something like "prove to me you're NOT a pedohpile". You cannot.
Because you can't prove everywhere you've been ever and so on.

[AROCK!!!]

https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative%3famp

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por ÁROCK!!!:

https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative%3famp

Well where's the peer review for this then?

[white but not quite]

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Yup, and that's why it says "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".

That much is true, but you CANNOT prove a negative assertion, only a positive.

Define extraordinary claim.

so you think dragons on mars isn't an extraordinary claim?

[Brian9824]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por ÁROCK!!!:

https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative%3famp

Well where's the peer review for this then?

Someone didn't read the article and only skimmed the title. It actually confirms you can't prove conclusively a negative, and that only certain negative statements are able to be proven.

Like for instance you can prove the statement "my house isn't on fire" by observing my house and seeing its not on fire. You can't prove "there was never a fire in my house" because you don't know the full history of it, or have any way to see what happened in the past.

So not being able to prove a negative still holds true in this context as you have no way to prove what everyone is thinking when they award a reward.

[Pierce Dalton]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Are you sure? Then why lawyers are often required to prove the inexistence of crimes?

Cool, demonstrate where that happens.

And why that is the same as probving a NEGATIVE claim, (which it isn't).

A NEGATIVE claim is something like "prove to me you're NOT a pedohpile". You cannot.
Because you can't prove everywhere you've been ever and so on.

I know what a negative claim is, but thank you. I like this example:

There's no rats in the restaurant.

As you can see, that's a negative claim. This claim is easily verifiable, all you gotta do is investigate the restaurant to find out the truth. It's easy to prove that something does not exist, if its existence is limited to a certain space. Let me use another example: this thread does not contain any word in French. Again, easily verifiable.

Let's talk about what really matters, though: jesters. As we can see, this thread right here got one: https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/3458221015447817953/

So I must ask: what is funny about this?

If we asked ten thousand people to read this post, how many of them would laugh?

You know, I don't think Valve should bring the volunteers back, but I see nothing funny there. Do you?

[Pierce Dalton]

Escrito originalmente por oh man im so freaking cute:

Escrito originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Define extraordinary claim.

so you think dragons on mars isn't an extraordinary claim?

Sigh, sorry but you really gotta improve those interpretations skills. I think saying the jester is often used as an insult isn't an extraordinary claim, on the contrary: that's easily verifiable.