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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8807474" data-attributes="member: 8461">Making themselves clear is the responsibility of the person making the post. If only half of everyone reading what they said got their meaning, and the other half misunderstood, that's not an indictment on half of the reading audience; it's an indictment of the person who wasn't as clear as they intended to be. There's a reason why you're the only person defending that poster's interpretation, whereas more than one person found them to be unclear.You've previously intimated that some posters are mistakenly interpreting someone else's post, with the implication that they might be doing so on purpose. So by that logic, perhaps you're the one who's deliberately misunderstood my post. See how it cuts both ways?Likewise, leaving aside that what you wrote is an appeal to whataboutism, you can't write that other poster's lack of clarity off as "at least a few people will always misunderstand something," because this isn't an instance of some (implied small) percentage of people who just so happen to misread what was there. The post itself was markedly unclear in delivering its intent, in no small part because it fit with a previous pattern of posts from that individual which made major errors of fact. Hence, there was no presumption that hyperbole was being employed. As such, the misunderstanding was the poster's fault, not the readers.If you think that's too low a bar for talking about an aspect of D&D on a D&D-specific forum, then I'd say you're not bringing much of value to the conversation.No, you can call it factually incorrect, because it is. That the good gods took part in the Cataclysm, rather than being "powerless to stop it," isn't a question of interpretation. It's what the lore tells us happened. Objectively stating something wrong as though it's correct is relevant here, because it establishes the pattern on that person's part of making outlandish claims that are easily dismissed if a few seconds' worth of research is done.Except that they're not weak; quite the contrary, they're stronger than you're giving them credit for, which is disingenuous.</blockquote>

Verification