TheRubberDuck

@Logikal I think you're conflating validity of the argument with the truth of the conclusion. The fact is, bullet #3 in the question (as it is currently written) does not logically follow from bullets #1 and #2, but people often seem to think it does. The question asks whether there is a special name for that mistake in logic. Note that #3 can be true, easily observed, and even proven logically by other facts, but all of that is irrelevant because the question isn't actually about #3. It is only about one fallacious argument.

@Logikal I'm not sure what you think is missing, especially after this latest edit. It seems fine to me. Could you be more specific about what needs to change? It's possible that, as you said, this isn't actually a fallacy. But that's best communicated as an answer, not as a comment or change to the question.

@Peregring-lk, I submitted an edit that adds a line that should hopefully address the confusion people seem to be having. Please feel free to reject it or build upon it if you think there's a better way to say it.

@Logikal It sounds like maybe you should turn your comment into an answer. Either way, please delete your comment as comments should not attempt to answer the question, but only clarify.

@encryptoferia I think this is the sunken cost fallacy. The training cost and the cost of the mistake are already gone. A history of costly mistakes implies a risk of future mistakes, and that risk may not be worth taking. That said, it takes a lot for that to happen and people shouldn't be fired unless it's a significant error.

@Hakaishin I think the original "definition" (which were really just examples) might be summed up as "don't whistle at somebody unless practically required for communication (or agreed to ahead of time)". Similar is snapping fingers or clapping at a person. These actions are jarring ways to get someone's attention.

So you didn't think I was making an assumption based on gender - you were just warning for future situations?

Thus, "I can't help but think you're also interpreting me in an unfavorable way." I made no assumptions about anyone's gender or what it used to be. So, in fact, an assumption was made about me to support an incorrect accusation. I'm just not what people expect, I guess? But, as I said, I'm really trying to figure out how to conform better.

"Asking someone on a software technical site": Crud, you're right. I was getting my wires crossed between this and arquade, which is more about playing games.

I admitted having trouble communicating, but I can't help but think you're also interpreting me in an unfavorable way.

Are you in software? You may have an opportunity to try it out!

I thing one critical issue for speech-to-text in this context is that a CUSTOM name or pronoun could come with a custom pronunciation. You'd need to rely on more than just the spelling, but allow people to tweak to customize.

@brug, for context, I wrote an answer that suggested that custom pronouns had the same shape as custom names. There' was no intent to avoid addressing one, but just that the answer to one can apply to the other.

I gotta say... I'm frustrated that I have such a hard time communicating. That was a simple enough answer, but this chat room is full of people answering the questions I wasn't actually asking. I don't know how to get better at directing that attention.

That's a good point - the compromise is only with voice acting AND custom names, not custom names as a whole.

(at least for name)

Correct that there are other options?

That feels like a compromise - you must WRITE AROUND a technical limitation. I'd hate to do that if there are other options - and it seems there are other options (at least for name).

Right, you've picked an example that works. But that demands that the story provides you an acceptable default name that's appropriate to use in all voice scenarios.

If I name my character Pete and not Shepherd, Shepherd is the wrong name! Unless you're re-writing your story to give a character a nickname for the sake of making voice acting easier.

I guess I'm just not going to understand what that means.

Why can you ignore someone's nominal identity and call them "Shepherd" but can't use "they"?

So that solution is to ignore the custom name in voice but use it in text? Would that work for pronouns?

So then how does a "bark" replace a name?

Ah, jargon I didn't know about. Bark, to me, just meant dog noises.

I guess we mean different things by "barks". Can you give me an example?

Do you think barks are words?

@doppelgreener this is a relatively new problem, right? Evidence of existing answers may not exist. I get that this site may be a bad place for untested suggestions, but there may just be no answer. I hardly think "use non-words" is an answer - having voices is a significant look and feel decision and shouldn't be thrown away because pronouns are hard.

You are all suggesting things that require drastic changes to dialog or story implications. What if Pete is not a chosen one, or anything to that effect? You can't always replace "Pete" with a pronoun - so you must find a way to re-write your dialog for the mechanics rather than the meaning.

The trouble with "This is my friend Pete" is that it's a nice example of an optional name. There are sentences where the name is NOT optional - what would you do then? "The prophesy has spoken. You must search for Pete."

@AlexF: I didn't say that custom names were pointless - quite the opposite! I, unlike @doppelgreener, think that custom names are more than a mechanic but are a way to personalize the dialog and make it feel like it's about your character. And yet, you're willing to write the dialog such that you don't have to say those names out loud. Why not do the same with pronouns?

"but makes that element of character creation suddenly pointless" is true about names too, is it not? Like you said, you may have to adjust the dialog to avoid using a name where it can't sensibly be in text but not voice. What is the meaningful difference between doing that with names and doing that with pronouns? They're both custom and personal.

So you're willing to adjust the dialog to depersonalize a name to a pronoun when the name can't be omitted. Is it acceptable to adjust the dialog to avoid pronouns in places where you can't simply omit it? It seems like a re-iteration of the same dilemma.

How do you plan to handle custom names? In particular, how would you handle this sentence: "Hey, would you mind showing [custom name] around?"