Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7192037" data-attributes="member: 12731">Hang on here a bit, something iffy's going on. First, I need to say:&nbsp; [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION], this guy spent four paragraphs diverting the focus away from your proposals instead talking about they way you presented them. That's never a good idea on the internet. My advice: ignore all of that and focus on the issue at hand.Then, Hillsy: after all that you create an obvious bad-faith example. It might not be obvious to the casual reader, but this example is rife with assumptions that we simply don't have to stand for. How about the consequence &quot;Fight and probably win anyway out of sheer bravado and awesomeness, creating a memorable moment because the rest rules prevented us from taking the safe Tiny Hut or Teleport tactics that the rules as written always let us trivialize encounters with&quot;?For starters.And even if not: them's the breaks. Everybody knew the rules going in. If you can't accept actually getting defeated, maybe you shouldn't use these rules in the first place?In other words, you might want to make it out to be a neutral example and you to be an reasonable argumenter, but if your real agenda is: &quot;I don't want to have to fight against bad odds&quot; or &quot;I don't want there to be a risk of actual defeat&quot; then just say so <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sharply,CapnZappPS. I might come across strong here, but you really did spend four paragraph attacking vonklaude rather than his arguments, there. Since I have myself fallen into the trap of responding many many times (which then conveniently derails the thread), I wanted to set the record straight. I remain prepared to apologize, Hillsy, if you feel unfairly treated here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7192037, member: 12731"] Hang on here a bit, something iffy's going on. First, I need to say: [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION], this guy spent four paragraphs diverting the focus away from your proposals instead talking about they way you presented them. That's never a good idea on the internet. My advice: ignore all of that and focus on the issue at hand. Then, Hillsy: after all that you create an obvious bad-faith example. It might not be obvious to the casual reader, but this example is rife with assumptions that we simply don't have to stand for. How about the consequence "Fight and probably win anyway out of sheer bravado and awesomeness, creating a memorable moment because the rest rules prevented us from taking the safe Tiny Hut or Teleport tactics that the rules as written always let us trivialize encounters with"? For starters. And even if not: them's the breaks. Everybody knew the rules going in. If you can't accept actually getting defeated, maybe you shouldn't use these rules in the first place? In other words, you might want to make it out to be a neutral example and you to be an reasonable argumenter, but if your real agenda is: "I don't want to have to fight against bad odds" or "I don't want there to be a risk of actual defeat" then just say so :) Sharply, CapnZapp PS. I might come across strong here, but you really did spend four paragraph attacking vonklaude rather than his arguments, there. Since I have myself fallen into the trap of responding many many times (which then conveniently derails the thread), I wanted to set the record straight. I remain prepared to apologize, Hillsy, if you feel unfairly treated here. [/QUOTE]

Verification