NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5723846" data-attributes="member: 6957">You mean... THEM? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />I have to say that I have not encountered that vast sea of Critics that WD mentions either.I will go so far as to call them anecdotal.That was kind of the point of the way I phrased it, I am not emotionally engaged in this, I just found his starting with an insult, then pointing to an article on how arguments happen, and become heated, to be disingenuous. So, I responded in like manner - without insult, I hope, because: a. I am not completely certain, just mostly certain; b. it might be a fun argument; c. doing so in a like oblique manner amused me. Like playing chess with only pawns, bishops, and the king.I did not report the thread because I did not think that it was offensive enough to garner a report. But I do think that it is offensive enough to garner a retort that his tactic had been noted.My main actual point was that a like offensive argument, comparing WotC to Palladium as an example, would also be considered an insult. And that he knew that it was an insult when he made his opening post. It was not the post that I was commenting on, but only the disingenuous nature of his post.Without his pointing to that article I would have passed without comment. I would have rolled my eyes, then moved on. The article was irrelevant to the fact that I am pretty sure that he wants an argument.So, you don't have to worry about me carrying on in a rant.I believe 'trolling' originally began as a reference to the fishing term (cruising the forums, fishing for arguments) not the monster reference that it is currently considered. Trolling came first, the term 'troll' came as the definition of 'those that troll'. I reserve the term 'troll' for 'fishermen' of more personally insulting combative bent. So, no I don't think that WD is a troll in the thin and rubbery, loathsome sense. If you use 'Troll' to mean 'One who is fishing for arguments' then that is a more defensible position, and one that he might well qualify for. And do you honestly want folks calling each other trolls to their faces? I somehow have my doubts.... So, he veils his insults and others veil their retorts. If folks remain civil, little to no harm is done. Or, in a Pythonesque manner you can say that he is looking for the Argument Department, not Abuse.So, let us begin to compare WotC to Palladium, shall we? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />No, I am not going to do that, either.... WotC is making completely different mistakes than Palladium, and their current game is bad (in my opinion) in a completely different way - being overly concerned with balance, rather than completely uncaring about the matter. For all that I dislike 4e it had decent editing, is well tested, and WotC is much less prone towards tort mayhem. Something to do with being sued by Palladium in the past, perhaps?[MENTION=547]Psychotic Jim[/MENTION] - Yes, that is the incident, and yes, that is how Paizo asked to have it resolved.And given that I never used either the Epic rules or Psionics, I have no horse in that race.The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification