Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vespucci" data-source="post: 5587199" data-attributes="member: 6675688">This is closer.  Actually, I rolled out the flip reply because you clearly don't always talk about the paladin's mount as a "pokemount". <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As regards this term, I'm not so sure about the linguistic practices.  It used to have a definite meaning for a certain ref tactic (overuse of which was the sign of a bad ref), but with the prevalence of scripting in the New School, it could descend into a mere term of abuse for refs who prefer that style.While I do understand the way you're using the terms, and don't consider it illegitimate, my banner was raised against people who only ever use the terms p-------rs and m-------ns.  It's because of them that I think these terms are best retired.Seriously, if you ask me about letting Tom into your game, and I say, "Well, he has a history as a problem player," you're either going to take my word as good coin and keep Tom out, or ask for specific information.  The middle ground, where I explain what's wrong with his play using a convenient handle that happens to be used as a pejorative for whole styles of play doesn't seem to get us any further.I don't think you should feel guilty.  I just don't think these are helpful terms.  They just add fire to an argument.  Problem players and refs are a problem for everyone.  Play styles are a matter of taste.</blockquote>

Verification