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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6147016" data-attributes="member: 87792">In the past week you've been both <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?337497-Warlords-Should-D-amp-D-be-tied-to-D-amp-D-Worlds/page3&p=6144388&viewfull=1#post6144388" target="_blank">orange texted for mindreading and getting personal</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?337497-Warlords-Should-D-amp-D-be-tied-to-D-amp-D-Worlds/page4&p=6144490&viewfull=1#post6144490" target="_blank">red texted for threadcrapping against me</a>. You've also had a mod suggest you put me on your IL. And you're accusing me of harassment? Get thee to a mirror. Half the responses you quote from me are in reply to an actual ENWorld Moderator who didn't ask me to back off. But despite not being a moderator and facing two personal mod-warnings about harassing me you have decided to continue to harass me and try to take on the role of a moderator.Why is it desirable to have a personal attribution from the person who was directly responsible for the appearance of a specific problem he singles out in 4e (a medium sized solo in the very first WotC 4e module, of which he was the lead writer) when he is using that specific issue that he himself was responsible for the appearance of as a problem with 4e? Is that the question?If James Wyatt were to say bad things about major sections of the 4e DMG 1 without pointing out that he himself was responsible for the 4e DMG 1 I would have exactly the same problem. He has not, as far as I am aware, done this.If, on the other hand, Mearls were to have had the grace of Monte Cook and say "Yes, I was responsible for doing this" (e.g. Ivory Tower Game Design) "And no it wasn't a good idea. I'll do better next time and ensure we don't make this mistake in the future." then I would be praising rather than criticising him for this. And I'm talking about his actions as a game designer and lead developer. I believe these are directly relevant to the subject of D&D Next.Every single one of which was, so far as I am aware (a) justified, (b) relevant, and (c) using his own words in the spirit with which I believe they were intended. Mike Mearls words mocking the warlord were relevant to likelihood of Warlords appearing in D&D Next and his personal words are a big part of why I considered Kamikaze Midget's approach to be nothing like the D&D Next I see being created. Are you telling me that they were irrelevant, or that I was wrong to attribute his words to him, or simply that using [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] was the wrong way to do it?Says the person with two personal mod rulings telling you to lay off me in the past week. Good day to you.</blockquote>

Verification