Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 3344501" data-attributes="member: 957">Now you are basing your arguement on abusing a word YOU substituted into the debate.&quot;Trust&quot; was a stretch when you narrowly applied it to the reality of either (a) being aware that a player would have a hard time not beign disruptive in a specific role or (b) simply not knowing a given player well enough to be certain and not risking it when other options are available.But what the hell, it wasn't worth arguing.Now you are turning around and misrepresnting the whole thing as being at the crux of whether a player is worthy to be at the table with you.&nbsp; That is absurb.There are a lot of players out there who become anti-fun in certain roles.&nbsp; Some because they revert to jerks, but many for less overt reasons.&nbsp; If you really can jump in your mind from that to someone you could not game with due to &quot;trust&quot;, then you are vastly oversimplfying the situation to your own lose.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 3344501, member: 957"] Now you are basing your arguement on abusing a word YOU substituted into the debate. "Trust" was a stretch when you narrowly applied it to the reality of either (a) being aware that a player would have a hard time not beign disruptive in a specific role or (b) simply not knowing a given player well enough to be certain and not risking it when other options are available. But what the hell, it wasn't worth arguing. Now you are turning around and misrepresnting the whole thing as being at the crux of whether a player is worthy to be at the table with you. That is absurb. There are a lot of players out there who become anti-fun in certain roles. Some because they revert to jerks, but many for less overt reasons. If you really can jump in your mind from that to someone you could not game with due to "trust", then you are vastly oversimplfying the situation to your own lose. [/QUOTE]

Verification