Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerakSpielman" data-source="post: 385777" data-attributes="member: 7464">Ok, you want to examine the situation logically?Let us decide than, using only logic and the information available on this thread, what your purpose in posting this thread really is.You have stated the following (my own comments and analysis are after each quote):ANALYSIS: This is something you are actually intending to do. You even have a sketch for an ongoing plan "if this works."IMPLICATION: Either this post is misleading, or the subsequent posts describing this as a mental excercize are misleading.  ANALYSIS: So you know this is not going to work. See my analysis above. IMPLICATION: This must not, therefore, be something you intend to do. This makes your initial post misleading. You could simply be foolish, but you later state that you are not an idiot. Assuming you are correct, then you must have been DELIBERATELY misleading. Why would you do this? ANALYSIS: So this is just a mental excercise. You are aware that the rules are inconsistant and have loopholes. This is just some sort of a game that you and your DM play with each other. ANALYSIS: So we're back to you actually thinking of ways to convince your DM to allow this? Hadn't you already tried to tell us that this is just an excercize? Unless this is a hypothetical example. But you are giving stats of your character as part of the arguement you would give your DM. That sounds less hypothetical and more like a specific tactic you intend to try. ANALYSIS: Again, we're back to this being an actual tactic you are going to employ. You are certain your DM will disallow your attempt. Why are you attempting it if this is, indeed, simply a sort of mental game you and your DM play to discover hypothetical loopholes in the rules?IMPLICATION (ONGOING): You are being very inconsisant. It is seeming more and more like you are altering your stated purpose of posting to better respond to the problems people present. This is not a posting pattern that is indicitive of somebody actually trying to recieve useful information. Rather, it seems that you are attempting to get as many people arguing with you as possible. ANALYSIS: So the rules as they are written are not exceedingly important to you. Why then, all the effort to expose loopholes in them? Why bring up the question here when our opinions matter not at all, since your group is the only body with authority to debate rules and restrictions that apply to it?IMPLICATION: Another post that seems inconsistent with your others. See my ONGOING implication above. ANALYSIS: There seems to be a discrepancy between this and the previous quote, which states that anything is acceptable as long as the whole group agrees to it. So do you follow the rules or not? ANALYSIS: You seem extremely familiar with the DMG and the specific text and examples that pertain to your arguement. You're even quoting relevent material. ANALYSIS: Trying again to argue that this is a mental excercise. ANALYSIS: So you are experienced at RPing. This would seem to agree with your familiarity with the rules mentioned above. ANALYSIS: Few people think they themselves are an idiot.IMPLICATION: Simply stating this does not make it a true statement.  ANALYSIS: Not only are you familiar with the rules, it seems that your entire group is as well. ANALYSIS: You are attempting to assert the legitimacy of your post. What you say is technically true. It does not mean that anybody who posts a rules question is NOT a troll. It just means that this post is not in danger of being moved to "General Discussion". ANALYSIS: I think the very argument that has insued is insurance enough of the fact that the rules are flawed. Nobody has ever stated that the rules are, or even that they should be, flawless. You are also back to your arguement that your group is rooting out these flaws deliberately to get rid of them. What, then, about your above posts about using the rules to your own advantage and the implications that this is something you intend to actually attempt? ANALYSIS: You have indeed repeatedly stated this. You have also contradicted yourself multiple times. See above. You have made enough points to fit anybody's reply to you. Your points simply fail to all agree with each other.ANALYSIS: Once again, we see that you are intimately aware of the intricacies flawed system that is D&D 3rd ed. ANALYSIS: We have not yet made a firm decision regarding your intelligence or sanity. I might also note that you did not actually deny being a troll.IMPLICATION: Yes, if this is a troll post you are being stupid. We already knew that.ANALYSIS: We have established above that not only are you and your entire group intimitely aware of most of the rules of D&D, but that you have already explored numerous ways in which they are flawed and inconsistant.IMPLICATIONS: You are not really looking for a rule you've missed. You are well aware that you have overlooked nothing. Yet posted the question and continue to post. This is, by definition, trollish behavior.ANALYSIS: Indeed. Remember, you didn't actually deny it.FINAL CONCLUSION: Your statements have been inconsistent and contradictory. There seems to be no way you have posted this thread seeking real debate or actual information, regardless of you unsubstantiated assertations otherwise. You are officially a troll, and not even a clever one like our local, cuddly Bugaboo. Trolls such as yourself exist to make your lonliness seem lessened by having real people (albeit anonomous) respond to your infantile statements. Give it up.</blockquote>

Verification