Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 7000295" data-attributes="member: 6701872">This is kind of the root of your issue in my view. You know you aren't that experienced, and yet you figure that you know why a rule was not included as part of the default game well enough to decide to use it.It no more says &quot;this rule won't affect game balance&quot; than it says &quot;this will unbalance your game if you don't know how to stop it from doing that&quot;, so why is it that you feel the assumption of one of those things is more reasonable to make than the assumption of the other?There was a warning. You misread it.I won't say that's entirely your fault since &quot;Optional&quot; isn't the clearest possible warning - but it is a warning.Just like when a restaurant puts a little image of a chili next to the name of a menu item, someone assuming incorrectly that it means &quot;has some spice to it&quot; rather than &quot;has enough spice that it will hurt to eat if you aren't used to spicy food&quot; isn't actually something the restaurant is responsible for. And yes, I realize that the chili warning likely seems more clear to you than the optional label warning does... but you've had the later trick you, and I've had the former cause me great disappointment (though in the reverse, since I look for that chili because I love spicy food, and sometimes the supposedly spicy food is not worthy of even being called spicy, let alone being accompanied by a warning that it might be too spicy for some customers), so they seem fairly similar to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 7000295, member: 6701872"] This is kind of the root of your issue in my view. You know you aren't that experienced, and yet you figure that you know why a rule was not included as part of the default game well enough to decide to use it. It no more says "this rule won't affect game balance" than it says "this will unbalance your game if you don't know how to stop it from doing that", so why is it that you feel the assumption of one of those things is more reasonable to make than the assumption of the other? There was a warning. You misread it. I won't say that's entirely your fault since "Optional" isn't the clearest possible warning - but it is a warning. Just like when a restaurant puts a little image of a chili next to the name of a menu item, someone assuming incorrectly that it means "has some spice to it" rather than "has enough spice that it will hurt to eat if you aren't used to spicy food" isn't actually something the restaurant is responsible for. And yes, I realize that the chili warning likely seems more clear to you than the optional label warning does... but you've had the later trick you, and I've had the former cause me great disappointment (though in the reverse, since I look for that chili because I love spicy food, and sometimes the supposedly spicy food is not worthy of even being called spicy, let alone being accompanied by a warning that it might be too spicy for some customers), so they seem fairly similar to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification