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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8202973" data-attributes="member: 6802765">This statement makes me fear I've failed to adequately explain my objection. To clarify, I have no problem with the idea of ruling over rules. I have no problem, in general, with stating that 5e favors rulings over rules.My objection is to addressing a declarative statement about whether a ruling is supported by the plain reading of the text to a poster who disagrees about the plain reading of the text. Such a statement pretends the disagreement doesn't exist, implying that the other poster's opinion has no value or doesn't count. In my opinion, appending a "but, rulings over rules" to the end of such a statement adds a note of condescension on top of the implicit dismissal, rather than coming across as conciliatory (which is how I hope it is intended).Does that make sense? I not trying to jump down anyone's throat, I'm only trying to point out that what may be intended as a conciliatory disclaimer can, in certain (very common) circumstances, instead be inflammatory. Admittedly I'd also be thrilled if fewer conversations devolved into both sides making declarative statements that refuse to acknowledge the existence of any contrary opinions, but I don't think I'm likely to make much headway there. <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=":)" />Xetheral finishes singing "Kumbaya" and puts away his lute.</blockquote>

Verification