- No text -

This is as stupid as the 'Mars/Venus/Green/Brown/Past/Future" argument on VoG - teams with common sense (and ANY new players at all) settled on 'Left/Right' (sometimes with the clarification of 'while looking at Atheon', to avoid the Templar issues) just because anything else generated unnecessary frustration. "Inside/Outside" here generates exactly the same unnecessary frustration, so why not just not use those words?

I get what you're saying, though if we were to nitpick, anyone who used the term "Mars and Venus" was being factually incorrect, and defending that made people sound flat-out stupid, since anyone with at least one functioning eye could tell that they were in the same room on Venus at different points in time...

Beside the point entirely. Using Mars/Venus or even Red/Green is the fastest way of communicating the information as received (although it slightly slows the decoding on the other end). Its continued use was not meant to assert that the players have actually been transported to Venus, but rather a shorthand for saying "we're in the environment that looks like Venus, or in the one that looks like Mars".

The idea that every Raid callout needs to be canon-safe is silly.

Using left/right is nearly as good, but it slows down the encoding slightly. You have to look at the environment and then remember which side that corresponds to. And then the people hearing the answer "left" or "right" need to make sure they are properly oriented to decode that and translate it into action. But since they can't start decoding the information until they get it, it makes sense to try an minimize the delay on the encoding side, by giving the person making the callout as simple as possible a connection between what they are seeing and the information they have to relay.

Apologies for any offense. This issue is a sore point for me because I didn't start playing VoG until long after everyone was comfortable with it. (I think my first run-through was at the end of 2015.) You say 'past/future or brown/green are "very clear"... but they're only clear to people who've actually gone there. The first few times I ran it, I wasn't ever teleported. Folks would say "brown" or "past" or whatever... and I'd stand there like an idiot, not knowing where to go. (Of course I asked, the first time. And the second. I was made fun of both times I asked, so I stopped asking. I just waited until the other two non-teleported folks went somewhere, and I followed. But this led to trouble - usually getting blown up by a Supplicant, because I wasn't in the right place.)

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I didn't ever notice that the away team showed up on the radar; I learned that today. (I've cleared Atheon dozens of times.) I bet I'm not the only one, though.

I've seen similar confusion over the sisters in Oryx, and many other places in raids where jobs are split into two groups.

The VAST majority of groups I've raided with have minimal patience for new people. Almost all of them are willing to walk someone through what they need to know the first time, but get progressively shorter after that as mistakes are made. (Chappy's groups are a standout set of exceptions.) So to me, it matters a lot that callouts are unambiguous. Saying "I'm going inside" during the Calus fight doesn't tell me ANYTHING - so it shouldn't be used.

I guess that was my real point. I'll try and stay away from personal insults when making those.

- No text -

Actually I think as follows:

The set of all things that are in, is not the same as the set of all things that are inside.

However,

The set of all things that are in a space, by contrast, is.

You cannot be in an area, without necessitating that that area have an in, an out; by virtue of being an area with an in, and an out, there is a boundary or boundaries, of some sort; by virtue of having a boundary, you can then refer to that portion of area as a shape, and thus that portion of which is in can be termed a side of a shape, and in, thus inside. That portion that can be

If I said I walk "in the forest", this would mean "inside the forest", although it could unlikely be taken to mean "into the forest". If I say I walk "out of the forest", it means I left it. I could say I walk "outside the forest", although that does kind of run into the same problem. I would solve this with saying I "walk around, outside of the forest", although there might be a more optimal solution.

But a bad mood is not an area, not a space, so if I was to say I was "inside a bad mood", it would be weird, because it doesn't really make sense.

"But Raichu, it's-"

Look, here's my point. My entire point. The whole point.

It is logically correct by utter necessity in terms of denotation of the words, to say you are inside a space, whenever you are in that space, for any real, physical space.

It can be clumsy in terms of connotation, however, in certain contexts.

But now, moving with this proof,

And shifting the conversational context to one in which "I'm inside!" predominates over "I'm in!", it is suddenly normal to say inside, and it should carry no ambiguity, if there is no ambiguity about the space being referred to and the boundaries of that space.

And if there were those ambiguities, "I'm in!" would run into an identical problem.

And that's my problem with this argument, basically.

It's everyone taking a bunch of examples where inside is clunky and going "There! Look, there! You're not talking like a native English speaker!" When my point is that these are just cases where inside is logically true. To demonstrate that it's not a matter of some list of types of spaces you can be in but not inside of. It's that some words we just want to say in, because of turns of phrase and general habits of language, or whatever.

But when you shift things into a context where inside is more natural, like referring to which part of a boundary you happen to be on, like the context in the Raid, it suddenly becomes completely normal to say inside.

That's where I was saying it was normal to say it!

Which was pointless, because in that part of the Raid it's unhelpful, but my whole point was saying that because it makes sense for both, it's unhelpful. If I was wrong, then one might be able to predominate, the convention that "inside" refers to the Throne Room; but look! Look at the strongest evidence here! It hasn't.

Pointing out other places where it makes sense was just an attempt to correct people's apparent notions that there are spaces you can be in, but not inside of, which is an argument that doesn't make sense.

They were arguing that it's about boundaries. But any space you can be in or out of will have a boundary! It just has to! It might be as simple as a wall, or as arbitrary as a line on a map, or as strange as the case with the Shadow Realm- where you don't know the boundary, because the two areas don't seem to ever touch- but you must accept there is a boundary in some way to be saying in or out of.

Look, just.

Just give me one example where saying you're inside of something is wrong,

When that something is a space, area, location, or the like,

Where saying you're in that something is right,

When in refers to whether your location is in the area or not,

And not "into" or something silly like how people can take "coloring in the lines" to mean coloring over the lines, and not the spaces between the lines. (An ambiguity that I'll note "coloring inside the lines" doesn't have, because, used correctly and barring accidentally bridging into figures of speech or turns of phrase, inside will never be more ambiguous than in. "Raichu, the whole point is that by specifying this extra bit of context when you don't need to, you're-" Look. If you or anyone else sees this incredibly minor difference, that is, if anything, a little helpful, if clunky, and thinks "Wow this person has an inalienable difference in their entire approach to language and are out of step with English convention" and not "Huh, okay", then I think I've gone past the realm where it's my communication problem.)

Would I wonder why he said that he'd be inside, instead of in? No, and you likely wouldn't either.

A native speaker speaking to another person absolutely would, devoid of context.

It's really simple to me. Inside implies being in a confined space. In implies being in an open space. That open space can still have boundaries but by using "in" you're putting emphasis on your location rather than your location relative to the boundaries of the location.

I think you have a predilection for what "inside" means, and it's probably why it's so confusing to me how badly you've been missing the point (no offense, of course). Indoors does mean inside (because indoors is relative to being outside of those doors), but inside does not inherently mean indoors.

It's not just my predilection. It's how it's commonly understood. And I never once said that inside inherently means indoors.

You may not care about common usage but it greatly affects readability, which isn't about whether something makes sense and is about how easily words can be read and understood. You can say you're going for a walk inside the forest and be understood, but you may not be pegged as a native English speaker. :)

See that's where it's weird. I'm not a native English speaker, but I also don't feel like I need to be a "professional MLG writer" to understand such a simple concept.

I don't know what "professional MLG writer" means.

If someone says "I'm going to be in the forest", then obviously he will be in the forest. If he says "I'm going to be inside the forest", then obviously he will be located somewhere within the confines of that forest. I don't need giant walls put up around the forest, or a bright crayon line circling the forest to understand where he will be relative to the forest's border (hint: within the area considered "forest"). There does not have to be a visible thing for it to be contained within to understand that he is giving a point relative to another point that could be considered "outside" of the established area.

Who said you did? Not me. I never said that wasn't understandable. I said that wasn't common usage. It isn't.

Would I wonder why he said that he'd be inside, instead of in? No, and you likely wouldn't either.

I would wonder, at least for a split second, what he means by "inside the forest" instead of "in the forest," and that extra processing gums up efficient communication.

Case in point, When Speed was insisting that the Shadow Realm that he was in was "Outside", and he inevitably screwed up, I deliberately asked "Inside team, what are you doing wrong?" and he immediately started making his patented excuses. Even his brain could process it immediately, because he knew that I was completely right about everything, even if he didn't want to admit it.

Ignoring Korny BS braggadicio™.

I guess what we can take from this entire thread is that sometimes words can have several definitions and contexts, and what may be confusing to some on paper might make perfect sense after all. We just have to start by being able to accept the fact that we might be wrong, even if we consider ourselves experts in a certain field.

If you're saying I'm wrong about common usage, you're mistaken.

Ultimately, as with prior compromises (and the point that Claude's been making since before quoted searches became a deciding factor in anything), we just have to agree to using certain terms once we start the encounter, since people might interpret things differently, even in seemingly bizarre ways (like Kermit said, some people on Xbox refer to the Cleavers/Axes as "Scissors"!).

For comic effect, but I realize you can't resist the opportunity to tease Xbox users.

Just keep in mind that nine times out of ten, pickup groups will probably refer to the contained pocket of space that you get teleported into as "inside", and the real world that you escape back out to as "Outside", but that doesn't mean that you're dumb if you don't see it that way!

A bold claim that may even be right if there is a common understanding among gamers (maybe steeped in fantasy and sci fi) as to what the void is, but I seriously doubt "inside" on it's own will ever be sufficient to prevent confusion simply because EVERYONE conceives of a room as being inside. The funny thing is, this conversation has to happen only once at the beginning, and can be as simple as asking who's staying in the throne room? It isn't nearly as important as the Mars/Venus, past/future confusion.

Good talk all around, and God bless.

/thread

Heh, you wish.

Who said “you’re running with the right crew”? ;)

You did, sir. And you were right - it was a solid crew. (The crew I play most often with on Xbox is just as solid. I've learned that playing with solid crews can be a disadvantage, when you step outside that circle - things that seem smooth as butter are not. And that causes extra frustration, on top of the standard "we're not executing" frustration that everyone feels when things aren't going well.)

Geez, Robot. How many times did I tell Raichu he's not wrong? I acknowledged that our conceptions of the void affects how we refer to it.

I must have missed this part. I did see you tell him he needed an editor and that toddlers were taught to see things your way. :-)

I responded to Speedracer (while agreeing with him) that I learned as a toddler that the presence of walls (and ceiling) meant I was inside (referring to the throne room). As did we all.

Everyone benefits from having an editor. People I know who write for a living know this. In my world this is accepted wisdom. No offense to Raichu was intended.

Knowing you, I'm pretty sure those statements were meant with a different tone, but they easily can come off as a means of establishing the other person's ignorance. Given that I initially thought of that realm as inside, I was probably a bit defensive. I'm not saying that inside is the most helpful description, but it isn't without logic.

I don't remember how our team referred to it (I don't recall that we were there more than 15 minutes and it was all new to everyone).

We were there a bit longer than that (long enough to figure out all the major components, albeit with one massive misunderstanding). We had a discussion about the inside vs outside naming because it was not readily apparent to everyone and we decided "away team" was a better descriptor. Mind-Palace came up but was rejected because the throne room was also in a palace.

I now vaguely remember that terminology, and you have to admit, that's a pretty imaginative and very possibly unique descriptor. Again, my perceptions were based on feeling enclosed vs. not.

Irrespective to raiding (which predictably becomes problematic when terminology isn't commonly understood) this debate was about broader English usage because that's where Raichu took the debate. I stand by my point regarding the common usage of "inside" vs. "in." I'll defer to many here regarding many subjects, but not this one.

This is probably my fault in the reading, but I read this whole sub-thread in relation to the validity of the raid usage. While common parlance easily proves your point in the some conceptions (in the city vs inside the city), it becomes a moot point when different conceptions are at play. In my case, being inside his head or mind-palace was the first concept I latched onto. Common parlance gets murky here. Sure getting "in someone's head" is a common phrase, but so is getting "inside someone's head." I guess that, to me, suggesting that these are errors only a non-native speaker would make feels off-putting. Again, this is probably a result of me reading the whole common parlance thing in relation to the initial validity of using inside as a descriptor in the raid, as opposed to a debate of Raichu's specific examples.

That being said, my biggest character flaw may be the ability to play devil's advocate for almost anything. If there's a hill to die on involving competing interpretations, I'll find it.

Gosh, I can't relate to that AT ALL. <3

The non native speaker thing is valid. Even though you can sometimes say both in and inside, it doesn't mean they have the same meaning. There is a subtlety in it that Kermit was getting at, which is being argued against, although everyone kind of acknowledges that subtlety in the argument.

The native speaker intuition is a real thing, and it's a major part of all types of linguistics. Syntax, semantics, morphology, all of it.

A non native speaker, no matter how good he ostensibly is at the language, ends up missing some things. Slight differences in words, like this example, or certain awkward adjective ordering, like saying "red old big house" instead of "big old red house," which are almost identical, and can be argued logically to mean the same thing, but don't to native speakers. All native speakers have an intuition for it.

Raichu has explained himself kinda, why he uses inside and not in, but still maintains that they're functionally identical, which we all natively know is wrong.

Now, I agree with you that it's a moot point in the context of the raid, since it depends on how you see the area (having seen this part, I think "inside"), and I don't think that anyone in the real world has this problem. I just jumped on when I saw claims of language outside the game, which is something to which I have some limited knowledge to add. Maybe I misread the claims as more general than they actually are. But either way, moot points are the purpose of forums.