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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7800060" data-attributes="member: 6795602">LOL.  I see what you are getting at.  But there is a difference between behavior we find frustrating and frustrating behavior being done in "bad faith".  It's possible to unintentionally frustrate people.  I'm pretty sure I do so quite often - unintentionally.  It's another thing entirely to be frustrated by someone arguing in bad faith.  Sure, misinterpretation is possible.  So is mis-speaking.  So is taking one explanation only to realize it's failing now and swap over to a different explanation.  In any event, I think I cited the text that informed my belief.  It's easy enough to say I misspoke or there's more nuance there than I realized and explained the nuance.  Heck, it's even easy to say that can't mean what you think it means because xyz. In which case everything is great.  Frustration over and thread continuing.We all are scratching our head on that one LOL.  Maybe he's using the rather nuanced formulation for the meaning of failure that's been used in this thread for goal and approach, that failure must have a risk or some consequence and that the status quo cannot be maintained.  In that sense, obviously the check is failed, but the status quo is the same and so no "failure" by that definition.For example, if you and an orc are rushing for the magic ring.  You roll an athletics check to see who gets it first.  If you fail that check all it means is that you still don't have the magic ring.  So in the context of "failure" on this thread, does that meet the criteria for a meaningful failure.  If not, are we being told to never roll such opposed checks?  But aren't nearly all opposed checks of the same structure?That's what I think he is trying to say.  But he's apparently rolled a 1 on his explanation check so I'm not sure we will ever know for sure.Thank you.</blockquote>

Verification