Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 3333538" data-attributes="member: 12460">So you admit you are making the rationally absurd (but literally plausible) assertion that when you take 20, you automatically fail many times regardless of how good you are, and then on the twentieth try you succeed (if your bonus is high enough).Me? I prefer to base my rulings on what makes a reasonable amount of sense and not allow technical definitions to obscure my position on otherwise rational rules. But as long as you are willing to admit that your position is rationally absurd (but literally plausible), then I will concede the argument to you. But if you maintain your argument is both rational AND correct, then you are deluding yourself. Like I said before, you sound like a lawyer trying to get your client off on technicality when you know he's guilty.Edit: After reading Hussar's post, I decided to actually reference the rule and this resulted in me changing some of my wording a bit. It does not, in fact, say you fail 19 times before getting a 20. It says the rules &quot;assume&quot; you fail many times before getting a 20. Some may read &quot;assume you fail&quot; to mean &quot;you do fail,&quot; but an assumption is not, by definition, correct.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="airwalkrr, post: 3333538, member: 12460"] So you admit you are making the rationally absurd (but literally plausible) assertion that when you take 20, you automatically fail many times regardless of how good you are, and then on the twentieth try you succeed (if your bonus is high enough). Me? I prefer to base my rulings on what makes a reasonable amount of sense and not allow technical definitions to obscure my position on otherwise rational rules. But as long as you are willing to admit that your position is rationally absurd (but literally plausible), then I will concede the argument to you. But if you maintain your argument is both rational AND correct, then you are deluding yourself. Like I said before, you sound like a lawyer trying to get your client off on technicality when you know he's guilty. Edit: After reading Hussar's post, I decided to actually reference the rule and this resulted in me changing some of my wording a bit. It does not, in fact, say you fail 19 times before getting a 20. It says the rules "assume" you fail many times before getting a 20. Some may read "assume you fail" to mean "you do fail," but an assumption is not, by definition, correct. [/QUOTE]

Verification