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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dracorat" data-source="post: 3131870" data-attributes="member: 40170">Yep, but my comment still stands.It is my opinion (of course) that you have to be pretty arrogant to add rules where there are none under the pretext of "I can slide it in here since it didn't specifically say I couldn't slide it in here."Not to be confused with "this is a houserule I have decided to use" or "I am extrapolating rules from other sources" which are of a different vein and are more valid of a standpoint to take in such a debate.But to actually attempt to insert entire blocks of rules and claim that the rules were written with blind disregard is quite... wow.Put plainly: mvincent I may not agree with but has the right approach to his method. He admits readily where the rules do and do not support his position and attempts to use them as they stand. He does not attack them simply if they do not agree with how he *wants* them to read, which is the right point of view to take.But once you cross the line of attempting to subjugate RAW by insertting your own definitions, twisting words to mean what they do not and then asserting your twisted reality is RAW, you cross the line from reasonable to benighted.That doesn't mean you can't envision something working a specific way, but it does mean that rules have probably accounted for it. By specifically addressing it in the areas it applies to. Any other area is superfluous and not supported at all by RAW, in any shape or form.</blockquote>

Verification