Unit Abilities vs The Interface

[deMangler]

FRD affects the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it controls your ships directly) and it performs nontrivial (important) tasks that the user would find overly tedious.

Control nodes affect the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it builds and controls your ships automatically) and it performs nontrivial tasks that the user would find overly tedious ("time to check up on my units" = tedious).


Logically these seem to be in the same category.  I don't understand why you separate them?

This is the "subjective" part i'm talking about.

I don't consider FRD a gameplay element because it isn't automatically activated at any time it is sensible to use (which means the player still has to explicitly order it's use).

I don't consider control nodes (at least the ones that are in the game, with maybe a couple exceptions) a gameplay element because there isn't any logic behind it: they behave in a somewhat similar manner to interface toggles (and to assuage any new protestations of "why can't they be interface toggles then", they offer the ability for whatever features implemented to be come gameplay elements), simply changing a relatively minor aspect of one unit or class of unit's behaviour.

I think we're finally in agreement.  Neither of these are gameplay elements.

I consider them both interface elements, or interface assists, and they should both be freely available IMO.  Or they should both cost some amount of resources, which I don't support, but at least it's consistent.


In response to deMangler:

...don't start putting stuff like default ship behaviour prefs in it over having an in-game immersion enhancing toy.

This ship behaviour is already possible through tedious micro-management.  Does removing this tedious micro-management lessen the immersion?  Having the pause the game and click click click your way through a dozen planets while checking up on your units is the antithesis of immersion.

Furthermore, all we are proposing is helpful control options for those players who wish to use them.  You do not have to use them; and you will not be at a disadvantage for not using them because this game is not competitive.

It seems one mans's gameplay enhacing feature is another mans tedious micro-management.
But we already know that. This is why there are widely diverse successful games. I am against micro-management for it's own sake in AI War. One of the good things about it.  I am simply putting forward the view that in preference to interface, out of game solutions, in-game feature solutions seem to be being discarded.
Competition doesn't come in to it, as you say.
It's all interface, it's all numbers. How it is presented to the player is my point. Control nodes are an excellent grey area here.
Are they interface elements presented as gameplay elements, or vice versa?
The answer is neither. It is a matter of perspective choice for the player. With other ways of presenting information the player does not so easily have that choice of perspective. I like that choice. I think it is skillful interface design.
In any case, I think we understand each others point of view and it is clear that I have shared my view, which was all I wanted to do.
So, I will not be dissapointed if I haven't changed anyones mind....

[x4000]

Here's the real question, regarding all of this -- and it's something that a lot of the commenters here seem to be missing: is this worth the time of discussing it?

In my opinion, no, and it's not a topic I'm going to pay any attention to regarding whether control nodes should be a menu or not unless it comes up in the community DLC poll.  That sounds cold, perhaps, but let me paint the picture a different way:

Fact 1: There are a fixed number of hours per month that are put into maintaining and extending AI War.
Fact 2: There are far more features that players would like to see get implemented than would fit into 10x that number of hours.

Ergo, I am pretty choosy with how I budget that time, and part of the point of the community DLC is to let players influence how those hours are spent, but beyond that I'm looking at all the things that people suggest and making decisions on what I think will improve the game the most for the most number of people.  Bugfixes are obviously very high on that list, as are certain interface elements and new features that a lot of people clamor for.

In the case of the control nodes costing knowledge, at least the specific ones that were already implemented, that change has already been made, and yet people are still debating it.  For the issue of whether control nodes should be a menu or not, that is also rather a silly discussion from my perspective -- they are already present, they already work, and it's mostly a semantic issue.  I don't think anyone is majorly confused by this implementation, or finding them incredibly inconvenient or anything.  I originally implemented them this way because I thought I'd try something new with them, which since then I've decided not to do (the knowledge costs, along with some cross-node interactions that never got implemented).  And the other major reason I implemented them this way is because it was quick and effective, and otherwise you would not yet have any of the functionality represented by them because there would not yet have been time to code out the new menus for that stuff.

So that's it.  From an economist's standpoint, why the nodes are this way and what led to them is irrelevant for current discussion: those are "sunk costs," and it's an economic fallacy to weigh them when deciding where to go from here.  Instead, you need to look around at what is currently the situation (control nodes exist and function a certain way), and what possible future costs are (changing these to menus would take time that could be spent on something else more useful, and would only serve to make a semantic change to the interface).

I'm a practical guy, and I'm not impressed by ideological arguments.  The only thing that means anything to me on this discussion is this: is the change worth the time it takes?  Is this change more important than other features that we could instead undertake in that time?  Apparently the answer is yes for some folks here, although given the spirited debates it's hard to know when people are just arguing because they want to be right.  Recently I've been coming to a realization that I've been engaging in far too many debates where they simply are not practical and nothing gets accomplished.  I'm happy to read what others post, in general, but this is a horse that has been beat to death and then some.  I get it: some people don't like this, others do, and the reasons vary.  It seems like a hack, it seems cool, a menu would be better, and on and on.  No matter how long people argue, everyone is not going to agree, which is why I'm not going to participate in the debate.

If the faction that wants this changed feels that strongly about it, I suggest that you nominate this for a future DLC poll entry and then get it voted for.  The topmost entries in that poll are not necessarily something that I promise we'll implement in general -- popular requests are not always feasible for a variety of reasons -- but in this particular case the item is feasible, I just don't think it is worth the time. If it makes it that far up on the community DLC poll then I'll consider that a clear sign that enough people feel like this issue is so important that it should be addressed ahead of other items that I consider more impactful.

In the end, that's all I can do, right?  There are only so many hours in the month, so much staff, and there's a lot more work than hours.  So, we prioritize internally and ask the community for their opinions on what they consider a priority.  Semantic debates, while interesting to a certain point, ultimately just suck down hours of my time and make it so that even less gets done; in the best interest of Arcen as a company and you guys as customers, I've resolved to stop letting myself get so sucked into that sort of debate, and instead state my piece and otherwise let players voice their opinion through the DLC poll if they disagree with me that strongly.  There are a hundred, a thousand, a billion different ways that AI War could be designed and implemented compared to how I have done it.  And not everyone is going to agree with every decision.  When a lot of people disagree with me that certainly does give me pause, and in some cases there have been instances where I went with the majority despite my personal feelings.  But, overall, I think the game benefits from having a consistent, coherent design and not design-by-committee, if that makes sense.  A lot of the AAA games that you guys gripe about the design of are that way because of that sort of design process.

I'm starting to ramble and repeat, so I'm cutting this off.  I'm not a man of few words, but I'm going to try to be more of one in the interest of productivity and not spending time spinning my tires in the mud.  I hope that makes sense.

[deMangler]

It doesn't help that new people like me come along and add to the walls of text, although I only add my view when I think it is relevant and not represented...
I also noticed that the forum usage has upped 300% lately.
I think it would be amazing if you managed to maintain the level of personal support in the forum under these conditions and still find time for anything else.
People like me though, just have too much time on our hands....
Cheers X4000.


 

[RCIX]

Here's the real question, regarding all of this -- and it's something that a lot of the commenters here seem to be missing: is this worth the time of discussing it?

In my opinion, no, and it's not a topic I'm going to pay any attention to regarding whether control nodes should be a menu or not unless it comes up in the community DLC poll.  That sounds cold, perhaps, but let me paint the picture a different way:

Fact 1: There are a fixed number of hours per month that are put into maintaining and extending AI War.
Fact 2: There are far more features that players would like to see get implemented than would fit into 10x that number of hours.

Ergo, I am pretty choosy with how I budget that time, and part of the point of the community DLC is to let players influence how those hours are spent, but beyond that I'm looking at all the things that people suggest and making decisions on what I think will improve the game the most for the most number of people.  Bugfixes are obviously very high on that list, as are certain interface elements and new features that a lot of people clamor for.

...

I'm starting to ramble and repeat, so I'm cutting this off.  I'm not a man of few words, but I'm going to try to be more of one in the interest of productivity and not spending time spinning my tires in the mud.  I hope that makes sense.

Sorry to continue the discussion. You have good points, and i don't intend to vacuum up your time. It's just that beyond all of these arguments for the control nodes being an interface thing, there is a good and useful idea behind them.

FRD affects the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it controls your ships directly) and it performs nontrivial (important) tasks that the user would find overly tedious.

Control nodes affect the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it builds and controls your ships automatically) and it performs nontrivial tasks that the user would find overly tedious ("time to check up on my units" = tedious).


Logically these seem to be in the same category.  I don't understand why you separate them?

This is the "subjective" part i'm talking about.

I don't consider FRD a gameplay element because it isn't automatically activated at any time it is sensible to use (which means the player still has to explicitly order it's use).

I don't consider control nodes (at least the ones that are in the game, with maybe a couple exceptions) a gameplay element because there isn't any logic behind it: they behave in a somewhat similar manner to interface toggles (and to assuage any new protestations of "why can't they be interface toggles then", they offer the ability for whatever features implemented to be come gameplay elements), simply changing a relatively minor aspect of one unit or class of unit's behaviour.

I think we're finally in agreement.  Neither of these are gameplay elements.

I consider them both interface elements, or interface assists, and they should both be freely available IMO.  Or they should both cost some amount of resources, which I don't support, but at least it's consistent.

Can i highlight part of the quote you seem to have missed:

(at least the ones that are in the game, with maybe a couple exceptions)

[keith.lamothe]

A somewhat sideways question:

Take the recently added "Stay at MRS" control node that makes ships that have just been repaired by an MRS stay with the repairer rather than return to the location they were tugged from.  Is that "better" as an interface checkbox or as a global control node?  Now break down the meaning of "better".

Thanks
Keith

[RCIX]

A somewhat sideways question:

Take the recently added "Stay at MRS" control node that makes ships that have just been repaired by an MRS stay with the repairer rather than return to the location they were tugged from.  Is that "better" as an interface checkbox or as a global control node?  Now break down the meaning of "better".

Thanks
Keith

Since i'm from the "control nodes are good" camp,

I think it's better as a control node because:

 * It's more visible and easier to remember. I won't forget about it.
 * It's per game. If the reason i wanted that node (using leech starships in my fleet) changes, i don't have to use it.
 * It's not something i would expect the interface to control. I don't expect my interface to do things only i'm accustomed to doing (in this case, issuing vanilla move orders). And i don't want to hear about FRD: that's different!

[Revenantus]

A somewhat sideways question:

Take the recently added "Stay at MRS" control node that makes ships that have just been repaired by an MRS stay with the repairer rather than return to the location they were tugged from.  Is that "better" as an interface checkbox or as a global control node?  Now break down the meaning of "better".

I think there are two definitions of 'better' that are relevant to this discussion. The first is whether implementing a given element in the game makes the game 'better'. In this case I think that the game is 'better' if the implementation of the element results in a net gain of enjoyment of the game for the general playerbase.

In the case you've questioned, which implementation of a given piece of functionality is 'better' is, in my eyes, dependent on the following factors;

 - Context. Does the implementation make sense in the context of the game universe?
 - Consistency. Are other elements that provide similar levels of behaviour implemented in similar fashion?
 - Convenience. Does the implementation make sense in terms of usability?

Now, all of those are unfortunately subjective, and so can only really be decided by majority vote. I have challenged control nodes in all 3 areas in the past, and that's not because I think that having them available is bad, in fact I'd much rather have the functionality provided by control nodes than not at all, but because I'm concerned that they're not the optimum design choice.

I'm continuing with this debate at this point largely because I find it interesting on its own merits, and not because I am really expecting anything to change because of it. I'm completely satisfied that Chris, and many others, have read and seriously considered my views rather than dismissing them, and that's really all I require. If, having seriously considered my concerns, others don't agree with me, I am still all the happier for having had the discussion and don't harbour any grudges whatsoever. I'll continue to discuss this topic for as long as I feel I can make productive arguments, and then no further.

It's a fact that these debates take up time, and so if others don't always have that time available to participate in them beyond a certain point, that's unfortunate but there's nothing that can be done there. Everyone has to prioritize their time.

[deMangler]

I was quite surprised to find that there is a historical precedent for this very debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnp3NCMrH1M

Anyone who understands German should watch with the sound muted.....

Anyone offended by satirical internet memes should not watch at all....

dM


<edit> 

A bit surprised that Constantin Film blocked it on copyright grounds. Satire was fair use I thought. 
Anyway.....
The vid can be watched or downloaded for posterity here.
dM   

<edit>

[vonduus]

Here's the real question, regarding all of this -- and it's something that a lot of the commenters here seem to be missing: is this worth the time of discussing it?

I'm continuing with this debate at this point largely because I find it interesting on its own merits, and not because I am really expecting anything to change because of it. I'm completely satisfied that Chris, and many others, have read and seriously considered my views rather than dismissing them, and that's really all I require.

To x4k some discussions seems to be a waste of time, because he is a very busy man. I agree that discussing the merits of control nodes can feel a bit superflous, if you have allready decided that they will not be changed in this game. Personally I find this particular discussion highly interesting from a pure theoretical point of view, and if it terminates in a new way to conceptualize interface stuff, we may have made game history - even if our conceptual innovations does not get implemented in this particular game. And if it terminates in nothing useful, well then, at least we have learned that much. In other words: Anything that can make people disagree is worth discussing.

I am still looking forward to Revenantus' post on consistency - consistency is a topic that may or may not have an impact on how this game will change in the future, but even if it turns out to be irrelevant, such a conclusion was not something most of us could have figured out in advance. I have my views on consistency and its role in the world, they are probably at odds with Revenantus' views, and this is exactly the reason why I am interested in hearing what he has to say: Even if I don't really believe so, it might be me, that is wrong on this point. I shall never find out if I don't discuss it.

Like the power optimization debate: Some argued pro, some against, and in the end Chris decided that this feature shall not be implemented after all. Was this discussion wasted then? Imo not. The discussion made it possible for Chris to make an informed decision.

[RCIX]

Here's the real question, regarding all of this -- and it's something that a lot of the commenters here seem to be missing: is this worth the time of discussing it?

I'm continuing with this debate at this point largely because I find it interesting on its own merits, and not because I am really expecting anything to change because of it. I'm completely satisfied that Chris, and many others, have read and seriously considered my views rather than dismissing them, and that's really all I require.

To x4k some discussions seems to be a waste of time, because he is a very busy man. I agree that discussing the merits of control nodes can feel a bit superflous, if you have allready decided that they will not be changed in this game. Personally I find this particular discussion highly interesting from a pure theoretical point of view, and if it terminates in a new way to conceptualize interface stuff, we may have made game history - even if our conceptual innovations does not get implemented in this particular game. And if it terminates in nothing useful, well then, at least we have learned that much. In other words: Anything that can make people disagree is worth discussing.

I am still looking forward to Revenantus' post on consistency - consistency is a topic that may or may not have an impact on how this game will change in the future, but even if it turns out to be irrelevant, such a conclusion was not something most of us could have figured out in advance. I have my views on consistency and its role in the world, they are probably at odds with Revenantus' views, and this is exactly the reason why I am interested in hearing what he has to say: Even if I don't really believe so, it might be me, that is wrong on this point. I shall never find out if I don't discuss it.

Like the power optimization debate: Some argued pro, some against, and in the end Chris decided that this feature shall not be implemented after all. Was this discussion wasted then? Imo not. The discussion made it possible for Chris to make an informed decision.

This reminds me of quote i recently read from Chris Taylor: he compared "innovation" in RTSes with "Adding and removing wheels on a car: I feel like i can make the air conditioning better, or maybe make it run smoother or be more fuel efficient." (or similar).

Ah, here's the actual quote: "But I definitely think there's been some desperate moves in the industry to find a new place for RTS. There was a game that had you fighting on the surface and below the surface - Armies of Exigo - and there was one where you could be fighting on a ground map and also in space. All these kinds of variations, but it's like saying let's add a fifth wheel to a car, or let's take a wheel off. But maybe we can actually make the car more comfortable, maybe we can make the drive less noisy or more fuel-efficient."

[deMangler]

I myself am going to have to cut down on my gaming and forum time - I have had a quiet patch but things are picking up again.
I have found observing the debates on this forum both educational and entertaining. A lot of it is quality stuff in a theme I am interested in.
Usually I don't have a lot to add because I agree with what one or other of the posters has already said and I couldn't put it any better.
Sometimes I have nothing to add because the debate is an old one and it is good to watch people have old debates to see what they come up with. Sometimes it is something new and unexpected.
Sometimes it is good to just join in the fun.
I feel lucky to have found this community. It is indeed excellent, as is AI War and the independent-minded approach and discipline that has enabled it to be a developing success.
Thanks X4000, and thanks to the community. (That's you lot)

[keith.lamothe]

To x4k some discussions seems to be a waste of time, because he is a very busy man.

To continue with my habit of focusing on a single word in a post that isn't even central to it's subject: "waste" is probably not what he sees it as.  It's all a system of tradeoffs.  Is there value in discussing control nodes vs interface options? Yes.  Is there value in continuing that discussion even now? Yes.  But the benefit curve has declined rather significantly as the units of "discussing control nodes vs interface options" have piled up.  So now the marginal utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility) of an additional unit of said discussion is much less than the marginal utility of an additional unit of development time (or whatever), so the decision goes towards the development time.

At least that's my guess

Edit: I meant to be clear that I was describing the "one's own personal participation"  part of the decision process, not the "what everyone else should do" part.

[x4000]

Sigh.  I never meant that I expected everyone here to stop discussing this -- you guys are free to discuss whatever you want, I'm not the boss of you and nor do I consider myself a censor.  My post was meant to explain why I am no longer discussing this, and why it's nothing personal to anyone here, etc.  In fact, I went so far as to say if you guys convince enough other people and run it through the community DLC poll, I'll reconsider despite the fact that I think that this conversation is mostly relating to interesting theory for most folks now, rather than a practical change that needs to happen for significant and compelling reasons.

Keith is absolutely right about the marginal utility of my continued involvement in debates in general.  The typical pattern is thus:

1. Someone disagrees with something I've said or done, and posts about that, in long or short form, being nice or nasty.

2. I write back in as much length as is necessary to explain my points, which typically means a pretty long post because the issue and my thinking on it is probably complex.

3. Someone else, probably the original poster plus others, may still not be convinced and write back with more opposition, often somewhat-varied restatements of their original arguments, sometimes expansions of those original arguments.  Still others tend to write in support of my position, thus escalating the debate far beyond just me and the original poster.  I may write back with clarifications and/or expansions of my original idea if it's clear that my point was simply not understood the first time.

4. At this point there is a branch: either someone in #3 has cleared up a misunderstanding or convinced someone.  In the case of my being convinced, the conversation is effectively over because a change will be made.  In the case of the OP being convinced, the conversation might well not be over because new people join the fray and take up their cause without reading all the remarks in the entire thread (who has the time, right?  And I'm not being sarcastic).  Alternatively, neither side is convinced by the other, though they understand each other perfectly well.

5. Then the thread tends to devolve into restatements and possibly emotion, and can spawn many lengthy posts on a variety of "for," "against," and "sort-of-for/against" positions.  At this point almost no one is changing their minds, but a ton of time can be eaten up by participating in the conversation and trying futilely to change the other side's mind without the aid of new arguments.  This is fun for many people, but debate is never something I've engaged in just for the heck of it, and it's a huge time sink for when I'm working on the clock and should actually be... you know, making stuff.  And I don't come into these or any other forums when I'm not proverbially on the clock.

Obviously there are variants on the above, as not nearly every topic even turns into a debate -- quite often I'm convinced by the original post, or the other party is convinced by my original response.  I'd say that works out about 50/50 on average, not that I've counted.

My post, then, was about at what point the marginal utility of my involvement goes through the floor.  Clearly #2 is a value because otherwise you guys have no idea what I'm thinking.  And I find it useful to really understand the arguments that are being made in opposition of my position, so reading #3 tends to be a value.  And if I simply wasn't clear, then my posting a second time as part of #3 can also be a value.  Beyond that... the marginal utility of my time drops through the floor until in almost all cases.  I'm a speed reader and am able to parse lots of written text very quickly -- fortunately for my job, or else I'd never be able to do it -- but writing responses takes huge amounts of more time.  I'm a quick writer, too, but not that quick.

My post was basically attempting to say that this isn't elitism, or me trying to "win by disappearing," or me going off silently to pout that you guys don't agree with me or something.  Not everybody is going to agree with every decision I make, and that's simply a fact of having a lot of people involved.  Once I understand an argument and have made my decision one way or the other, there's nothing more for me to contribute unless a new but related argument is levied.  Instead, I should be getting something else more productive done.  But others are free to spend their time as they wish, and I agree that getting a lot of people into a big debate can occasionally lead to a new insight that no one from the group would have come up with alone.  But you also don't need my direct involvement for that sort of thing.

P.S. -- deMangler, sorry to see you go, but I'm glad that it sounds like things are going well for you in your life, and I wish you best of luck.  When you have more time again and are around here more, we'll be happy to see you, and we'll still be here. Thanks for all your contributions!

[vonduus]

To x4k some discussions seems to be a waste of time, because he is a very busy man.

To continue with my habit of focusing on a single word in a post that isn't even central to it's subject: "waste" is probably not what he sees it as.  It's all a system of tradeoffs.  Is there value in discussing control nodes vs interface options? Yes.  Is there value in continuing that discussion even now? Yes.  But the benefit curve has declined rather significantly as the units of "discussing control nodes vs interface options" have piled up.  So now the marginal utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility) of an additional unit of said discussion is much less than the marginal utility of an additional unit of development time (or whatever), so the decision goes towards the development time.

At least that's my guess

I am not sure if marginal utility can catch all aspects of this situation. 

To you, as a developer, time is a scarce ressource, so it makes sense to you just to take a look at a five-page thread that developed during the night ('on the extra-logical characteristics of control nodes as a metanarrative construct') and decide that this may be of only marginal utility to the development process. If you are interested in logic or narrativity or any of the buzzwords you would probably read it anyway, out of curiosity, but on your own time. From an idealized developers view, it would most probably be a waste of time. Of marginal utility, if you prefer.

Now, I am a gamer, not a developer, and I am basically wasting my time everytime I play a game or do some gaming-related stuff. Noone is gonna pay me for playing, on the contrary, I have expenses. No woman will love me more because I am a great gamer . It might earn me some respect from my children, but this is not the reason why I play. I play in order to play. Doing game-related stuff like reading forum posts or military history or game magazines has its utility relative to gaming, but gaming itself has no utility, it is an end in itself. Like music.

When I am inside the game, it has its own utility structure. But this is all  pretending, in other words a fake. I am not really a space commander. 

It is part of what I do as a gamer to utterly neglect any questions of utility outside the fake utility structure of the game world. If some of my fellow space commanders insist on discussing the merits of metanarrativity as an offensive weapon, I couldn't really care less of what some developer in a totally different world writes about the marginal utility of said discussion . 

Gamers will post on anything imaginable, this is the internet. The developers, I guess, will have to choose their posts. x4k and keith, feel free not to read or respond to my longwinded posts in the general discussions section.  When I am really serious  about getting your attention, I will post it in the developers section.



edit: Read some other thread, followed a link, forund this:

http://superuser.com/faq

"Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!"

This is one way to solve utility questions.

edit again:  The general discussions area should be free so crazy gamers can discuss anything imaginable (with a few provisos, like it is now).
It is not ethically wrong or 'elitistic' for a game developer to ignore such crazy gamers' threads. How could it be? We should never forget that it is the developer that has the final responsibility for the game, it is his career that gets screwed if he fails. This entitles him to have the final say concerning any aspects of his own design.

An aside, somehow connected with x4k's post: I think we all hope this game will be a blockbuster, the game and the people who created it has deserved it. The consequence will probably be that this forum will be flooded by whining and ranting, unless some heavy moderator activity is  planned. The worst that can happen to this game, I believe, is if a lot of people who are too stupid to play the game (pardon my french) will buy it, and then come here and post a few thousand posts accusing Chris for selling an 'unplayable' game and discussing if it is a flop or  what. I fear this invasion of the united naysayers of the world, they make no differentiation between big corporations and indie companies, they just shoot  on sight. People visiting the ETW forum (SEGA) or the HoI3 forum (Paradox Interactive) in 2008 will know what I am talking about. So I feel it is a real priviledge to be a member of this forum at this time, where most people are most decent most of the time.

[x4000]

I'm not interested in discouraging others from discussing this sort of thing, though -- and my comments about marginal utility do not apply to anyone else here (except other Arcen staff, unless they are doing this on their own time).  It's simply an explanation for why I can't participate more, but others are free to talk about this as much as they want; it is an interesting subject, and "utility" of a debate like this is measured differently if you are getting something different out of it than me.