Grease - Uses of and effectivity.

[Jeff Wilder]

Numerous times you have outrighted stated that your opponents in this debate are one or more of the following: illogical, have no common sense, munchkins, nuts, duplicitous, and insecure.

That's simply untrue. I've posited motives that some people have for holding onto rules that are clearly broken, in the hope -- "outright stated" -- that the people arguing for the overpowered version of grease would step back and examine their own motives. If I've called anybody "illogical," I've shown how they're being so. The "common sense" comment was in reply to someone else calling my position common sense. I didn't call anyone "insecure" until I was unambiguously attacked by someone digging desperately for a diversion. And, finally, there's a big difference between calling someone out for a "rhetorical trick," and calling them "duplicitous." But you, of course, know that very well. The very use of "duplicitous" in this context is a rhetorical trick.

Additionally, you have a generally condescending and sarcastic tone.

So I'm both forthright ("outright stated") and "condescending and sarcastic"?

Sometimes I am condescending and sarcastic, it's true. Always in response to the same from others.

You put things like "dude' in parentheses to condescendingly call out Caliban's written dialect as if yours is superior.

Actually, they were quotations, and I put them in quotations to call out the "dude" because I don't like being called "dude" by someone insulting me.

You accuse me of some agenda (really, I still have no idea what that comment means).

I don't know what that comment means, either.

You also continually pat yourself on the back, as if that's suppose to endear you to readers.

What in the hell are you talking about?

The fact is that you actually do make some reasonable arguments, if one is able to wade through the enormous amount of sarcasm and condescension. It's hard to do, though.

Nah. What's hard to do is to address the argument. What's easy to do is shift the focus from the argument to me. Not that I should be surprised, because such diversionary tactics actually work very, very well, and have forever. Even here, rather than address "reasonable arguments," you decide to continue the attack. I honestly don't know why I expect anything different.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

By the pure rules, as you have pointed out yourself , there is no logical explanation...

Actually, you misread, going from the general to the particular. I think WCS's interpretation is perfectly logical. (I don't think it's explicit in the rules, but that's not the same thing.)

you choose to fill that up with something that does not unbalance things, while many others prefer the 'logical' way to fill it up with something that makes sense in the context.

No, I choose to do both. On the one hand there's a logical explanation that maintains the power of a first-level spell as a first-level spell, without the creation of new rules. On the other hand, there's a logical explanation that vastly increases the power of a first-level spell and requires the creation of new rules. I choose the first.

I don't think your view is the logical one here.

Well ... that's obvious, right? so what's the point of this statement?

 

[Thanee]

No, I choose to do both. On the one hand there's a logical explanation that maintains the power of a first-level spell as a first-level spell, without the creation of new rules. On the other hand, there's a logical explanation that vastly increases the power of a first-level spell and requires the creation of new rules. I choose the first.

What 'creation of new rules' are you talking about here?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In post 33, you basically start with the "munchkin" thing, and in post 44, it's already "But as you can tell from this thread, "common sense" ain't all that common.".

This -- "Once again: grease is a perfectly fine spell without turning it into a munchkin's dream. Clearly, some of y'all disagree" -- is what you consider an insult? Seriously? Please point out exactly who is insulted here.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What 'creation of new rules' are you talking about here?

In post #54, you imply that you believe a character in grease is flat-footed ... without the character even having made a Balance check. Am I misreading your statement, or is that what you believe?

In post #63, Zandel creates a whole system for increasing save DCs to simulate fighting in grease.

In post #80, Caliban claims that "bonuses and penalties" a character may enjoy or suffer "tend" to last until that character's next turn, a "rule" that is simply not true, as I showed at length.

These are new rules that people have created to make their version of grease function.

 

[Xael]

This -- "Once again: grease is a perfectly fine spell without turning it into a munchkin's dream. Clearly, some of y'all disagree" -- is what you consider an insult? Seriously? Please point out exactly who is insulted here.

That's not an actual insult, but munchkin is a bit negative word (IMO) and tends to stick out. For some reason, bringing the term up in the former sentence and the next -- "And that's without turning it into the munchkin's wet dream you want it to be." -- caused my brain to somehow connect the term being applied to peole disagreeing with you. Seems a bit far-fetched now, I agree.

I was a bit more worried about the common sense thing anyways. You said later: -- "The "common sense" comment was in reply to someone else calling my position common sense." -- , but that really doesn't change what you said in any way. It still seems to me that you were referring to people who disagreed with you having no common sense. And that's what I would consider an insult.

But I just have to say that for some reason some of your posts leave some kind of a negative feeling after reading them. I'm not sure why exactly.

Later in the thread, this whole thing kinda exploded though.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Seems a bit far-fetched now, I agree.

Thank you for reconsidering.

It still seems to me that you were referring to people who disagreed with you having no common sense. And that's what I would consider an insult.

Okay. I consider that almost surrealistically sensitive. I can't imagine how, if you really consider that an insult, you get by in life without becoming involved in constant duels-on-the-green. But it was intended as a negative, even though it in agreement with the other poster, so if you genuinely feel insulted by it, I'll accept that, and offer my apology.

But I just have to say that for some reason some of your posts leave some kind of a negative feeling after reading them. I'm not sure why exactly.

I suspect it's because of two things: (1) I'm a lawyer and I write like one. I present arguments in a straightforward fashion, without smilies and constant reassurances for the other side. (2) People really do look for insults, especially from someone they disagree with. It's human nature, but as someone trained to recognize the difference between "argument" and "quarrel," it's very frustrating.

 

[Thanee]

Am I misreading your statement, or is that what you believe?

No, that's right. I believe, that you are 'balancing' while you stand on a surface, which requires you to make a Balance check if you would move, even without actually moving.

These are new rules that people have created to make their version of grease function.

Ok. And why is that rule you like better not 'creating a new rule' then?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Xael]

Thank you for reconsidering.

Okay. I consider that almost surrealistically sensitive. I can't imagine how, if you really consider that an insult, you get by in life without becoming involved in constant duels-on-the-green. But it was intended as a negative, even though it in agreement with the other poster, so if you genuinely feel insulted by it, I'll accept that, and offer my apology.

I wasn't insulted and I don't need an apology (thanks for offering it though ), but I can't certainly see it as a good way of referring to people who you're discussing with. And because of the nature of text-based communication, everything tends to come out a lot more negative than meant (I think this causes most of Internet arguments, really), so I usually try to be damn careful with what I write.

And frankly, saying/typing things like that repeatedly, I can't imagine how "you get by in life without becoming involved in constant duels-on-the-green". Right?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ok. And why is that rule you like better not 'creating a new rule' then?

Because there's no creation of a new rule. All there is is recognition of an existing rule: when a negative situation no longer exists for a character, the negative effects of that situation no longer exist for the character.