Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9553264" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Now you understand part of why I get so tetchy when people get all up in my face over "destroying" the game. Yes, that was in fact the exact word used in prior threads.If you haven't, so, so many others have already. I have been straight-up told that, because I take steps to mitigate just this one, narrow, specific form of death, I've totally deleted all possible stakes and value and made the game an instant-win, always-win experience. I've had people tell me that in this very thread. I don't recall you taking much issue with that hyper-extreme strawman of my position then, even if you weren't the person to actually say it. It'd be nice to have some backup in the future when folks accuse me of such things, because if I were a betting man, I'd bet good money it's gonna happen again. (Sadly, I am not, so no easy money for me on this one.) We're already getting a more-sophisticated, less-accusatory version of this argument from Lanefan right now: if you have any death at all (and don't accept fudging), you absolutely must have all possible forms of death everpresent, which he alleges means I have to be against all forms of death just because I prefer to mitigate one narrowly specific type.</blockquote>