[SBLOCK=BS]
By definition a compromise is two sides giving in from what they want so they can meet in the middle and by your own words, RA, you no longer try. Either I cave, which you seem to see as compromise, or we have stalemates while I foolish try to talk to you and show you my reasons why I did things.
In a game of D&D, if a player asks something and the GM says no, that's the answer. There will be no compromise. If the GM asks for a reason, and the player gives it, and it makes sense, then sometimes there will be. However, the notion that a player should generally be able to get a GM to 'compromise' on a given issue (which to you seems to mean giving you what you wanted in the first place, perhaps minus something insignificant so it sort of looks more like you're meeting in the middle, though not really) when the GM has already made a decision is ludicrous. Ask anyone or I can even put up a poll. The GM's word is final. But guess what 'Mr. Compromise'. As we stand here talking, one of us has edited the post and one of us *still hasn't*. Guess which one hasn't edited--it isn't me.
Now, I don’t have my side of the conversation anymore
That's another annoying thing. A
very annoying thing. In some of the other players' minds this ranks above yor disruption to the game as the worst thing you ever do. You sometimes delete posts without asking me or even
telling me. I had to hear from unleashed in an e-mail "Hey, what happened to those last few SBLOCKs" to find out that they were gone. The only reason that I can think of why you would do this in such a rude manner is to destroy the evidence for the following:
I was more than willing to do an edit
No you weren't--you *still* haven't even edited for Athena's sake! If you were really willing to edit, you would have done so
first before asking me to edit.
I knew that Catullus in spirit wouldn’t have said such a thing
I could indeed tell from your OOC at the end of your post that you knew that your interpretation was wrong--and frankly, the fact that you clearly knew that made matters worse--you couldn't claim ignorance. So let me look back and show you what you should have done if you wanted not to be a disruptive player:
The cast of characters are--
NDP (non-disruptive player--someone who handled this the way that would have worked. This is probably how Bront or Keia, for example, would do it)
BS (the normal you that I think is basically what you are thinking)
DEM (Demogorgon--a theoretically possible Demon Player who is Chaotic Evil and does the same things you do but has different reasons (I hope) behind it)
------------------
Part 1: All of the players have read my post. All but Demogorgon's right head, Hethradieh, have come to your initial conclusion about what it means.
NDP: Oh dear. That interpretation seems totally out of character for Catullus. Let me read that again, as that is obviously not what RA is saying...Hmmm, I asked him a yes or no question in the last post, so that must be why he's saying no, not no as in no to Kalli. That explains it! Now I can make a reply that will work.
BS: Hmm...that interpretation seems totally out of character for Catullus. I'm going to ignore that and post a response and then put an OOC note. That will give me more leverage to argue.
DEM(Aameul): Hmm...that interpretation is totally out of character for Catullus. Oh well, I'm going to ignore that, though, and post a response that I know that will annoy the GM and then add an OOC note that shows that I knew my interpretation was off to shove in his face the fact that I knew better, which will annoy him even more. Bwahahaha!!!
DEM(Hethradieh): I know what the correct meaning is. Let me read it several times and then consciously attempt to twist the wording to come up with that interpretation. I'll spend ten minutes trying to come up with a completely invalid meaning that twists the yes-or-no answer into meaning something that makes no sense and requires a large amount of effort to even think that anyone could possible find that meaning. Then I will further infuriate the GM by noting that I knew it was wrong. Bwahahaha!
Part 2: For some reason, NDP cannot figure out the correct interpretation as he did in Part 1. Only he has a Part 2, though, because BS, and Demogorgon both have already posted.
NDP: Oh dear. I still know this is wrong, but this is absolutely the only interpretation I can find. Let me ask RA what he meant...
Oh, he meant no as in the answer to my question was no--that's great, now I can write a post that works nicely!
Part 3: We'll assume that everyone, even NDP, has already written the post, after which my post clarifying what it meant and asking to please change it appeared. We'll also assume that they would like it for Catullus's wording to change.
NDP: "Alright, thanks RA. I've already edited my post to fit in with the true meaning. Now I was wondering, is there any way maybe you could make a minor change just to eliminate any possible misinterpretation. We're just talking about a few words here or there. If not, that's cool too and we'll continue on."
BS: "No, I'm not changing until you change it first. I don't like what it says at all--change it to say something like 'Of course not Kalli, I truly want to be with you forever, if not for Lynestra' and then I'll change it. I'm empathic and that's what makes me a good roleplayer, so I know that I'm right and that Kalli's response is the only possible response and so it's not going to change until you edit, and perhaps after you edit if I don't think it's edited enough"
DEM: Bwahahaha...Foolish mortal, does he think we didn't know the true interpretation? We are just toying with him, and now we shall continue by forcing him to change his post instead of changing ours. That is sure to cause dissension and strife and slow things down!
You see, BS, the problem is that we all have to take your word for your true motives, and especially considering how you like to generally portray yourself as a victim even when you are the instigator, that makes it suspect. In fact, if it hadn't been for our history that lets me try to see the BS response in between the NDP responses and Demogorgon, let's say for instance that the person who was causing these problems wasn't you but instead some new poster who just joined their first game with me, I would have assumed they were trying to be a problem player like Demogorgon and tossed them out already. As it is, I can't be sure, although I of course hope that the BS line of reasoning is the case, but the fact is that whether or not you are thinking the Demogorgon line while doing it, you are *doing* the same thing as Demogorgon would do. In other words, even if you aren't intentionally trying to be a disruptive player, you are being one.
Why is this problem here? Why is it with you and not with any other player? It is because you are a disruptive player. You pick the path that causes the most frustration even when *you know* that there is another path to take.
Then you try to act all innocent afterwards. The injustice would frustrate me more except that everyone except you sees it my way too, which helps me feel vindicated.
[/SBLOCK]
