Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9633797" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I certainly understood the later (Beuller references help). And I don't have a problem with what you said, I simply had to refute the other individual's notion that my comment was flawed reasoning when it was in fact very specifically reasoned. I understand why you are thinking of it. Scenarios like this are the reason why people have preferences (and sometimes really strong opinions) on rules lite/high-crunch games. But that's pretty much my point* -- if you've made a decision on what level of fiat-consistency you prefer, it should be because you are aware that situations like this will arise, and already cognizant to the pros and cons of each potential choice -- and this individual instance should not change your position on it except potentially as a single straw toward the total on the camel's back**. *And why I said no to your question in the first place. **i.e. someday you might say &quot;I keep having to adjudicate situations like this, and have decided I don't like it, it isn't worth the situational adaptability benefit fiat systems provide, and I'm willing to put up with rigid rulings I don't find to be actually good to be rid of it.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9633797, member: 6799660"] I certainly understood the later (Beuller references help). And I don't have a problem with what you said, I simply had to refute the other individual's notion that my comment was flawed reasoning when it was in fact very specifically reasoned. I understand why you are thinking of it. Scenarios like this are the reason why people have preferences (and sometimes really strong opinions) on rules lite/high-crunch games. But that's pretty much my point* -- if you've made a decision on what level of fiat-consistency you prefer, it should be because you are aware that situations like this will arise, and already cognizant to the pros and cons of each potential choice -- and this individual instance should not change your position on it except potentially as a single straw toward the total on the camel's back**. [SIZE=2]*And why I said no to your question in the first place. **i.e. someday you might say [/SIZE][I][SIZE=2]"I [U]keep [/U]having to adjudicate situations like this, and have decided I don't like it, it isn't worth the situational adaptability benefit fiat systems provide, and I'm willing to put up with rigid rulings I don't find to be actually good to be rid of it."[/SIZE][/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification