Syaoran, I don't think I follow you. It's unfair for me to accuse him of throwing out the baby, because the bath also had water in it? Even if he was provoked, being provoked is no excuse for being deliberately indiscriminate.
If you're trying to tell me that I was one of the ones who provided nothing positive to go along with the negative, that's just not the case. Even in my first post on the second page, I already provided an alternative solution. He simply dismissed it, silently.
Rebuttals to the very long post (as I didn't have the energy for them when I woke up):
Seeing as how debating has continued in complete ignorance of what
@Ametheliana said here and what I repeated here, I guess I'll have to concede the point seeing as how no one paid any attention to it in the first place.
It's hypocritical to complain about debates taking place in a thread and then still make posts full of quotes and rebuttals. Other alternatives to arguing (aside from ignoring arguments outright) include summarizing or redirecting; the goal then would be to explain yourself rather than to defeat an opponent.
If you,
@Navian, or literally anyone else in this thread wants to submit a different system for review (or even just start a discussion thread!), please feel free to do so.. I'm not stopping you...
This seems like a backward way of implying that the amount of effort someone puts into their idea, or how dedicated they are to it, has some sort of direct relationship with the merit of the idea. Since you've put a lot of effort it, this serves you well, but it simply isn't true. Ideas should stand on their own merits, and partisanship should be irrelevant.
...nor am I trying to "insist" upon anything...
I'm not sure what I'd call your tone if not 'insistent'. 'If you think your idea's so good, try to beat me, fair and square' is one of the things you're insisting on. I'd consider this uncivil.
As I requested of Navian in an earlier post of mine, please point these flaws out so that they may be addressed and fixed.
Given these were already pointed out before the post containing this quote was made, and that was again pointed out, I'd call this belligerent. Failing that, it's at least stubborn. When he got around to answering this, he just dismissed them as 'out of scope'--so apparently, the system is intended to be porous by design. That's odd.
Are you attempting to imply that the opinions of those who voted "Yes" aren't relevant to this community?
Are you attempting to imply that the opinions of those who voted "No" aren't relevant to this community unless the "No" vote wins? I didn't think so. Please don't say things like this. When a "Yes" vote is successful, the "No" voters get something forced on them whether they like it or not--that's how referendums work.
...this submission is not intended to replace or strip power from the NTSE moderators. It is a tool for them to utilize. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's also a tool for the players. We do have players who use the NTSE guidelines to keep the staff from doing their jobs already, this proposal will give those players more power.
The poll was not my idea. It was the brainchild of Wes. The time limit was put in place to prevent this farce of a discussion from continuing for the next three months.
Frankly, I wasn't talking about the poll. I was talking about the insistent posts in this thread.
For the third time now, I have not "insisted" anything.
There's the irony we're looking for in this sentence alone.
Has it ever occurred to you how painful and arduous getting everyone to agree upon something as extensive (and complex) as a list of starship, mecha, vehicle, and small craft roles would be?
I did not say a word about extending this list beyond starships. I suspect it would be less arduous than coming up with a comprehensive point-buy design for starships. I don't think we need to drag in anything other than starships into either proposition.
I don't think veiled insults are appropriate here either, Navian, especially since you're implying that anyone who voted "Yes" in the above post as someone who enjoys "gam[ing], lawyer[ing], exploit[ing], and distort[ing]" and the rules.
You said it, not me. I suspect no more than half the people who voted yes were motivated by this, possibly as low as one or two. Yes, we do have gamers and rules lawyers on an internet roleplaying website with dozens of members, that shouldn't surprise anyone. It's hard to find a five-man roleplaying group without any.
Also, even I enjoy all those things in the right context, it's not criminal to enjoy these things. It's just inappropriate to be motivated by a desire to do these things with regard to the use of an OOC setting submissions forum for a creative writing site. It contradicts the purpose and spirit of the venue.
I mean, if you're going to be uncivil (in spite of what Ametheliana said here and what I repeated here), at least focus your efforts on me and spare the rest of the community, okay?
Same to you, apparently.
How exactly would considering multiple options at once be any worse than this absolute cesspool of a thread?
No matter how bad things things look to you now, they can always get worse. For example, people could end up leaving the site or getting banned, in any quantity. I've already decided not to get involved, but to everyone else, I recommend not making this a competition. It's better to use bad ideas than multiple conflicting ideas.
Once again, the reason I didn't cover such topics is because of the fact that if I did so the submission would be at least three or four times more complex and restrictive.
For complexity, this might be true, but it wouldn't have to be. The specific suggestion I made, for modifying weapons with 'virtual tiers' to represent how factors other than damage alter their effectiveness, would be at most half again as complex, and it could even reduce the complexity by streamlining the current two-mode system you've written. If it was done well, it'd be much more restrictive--its
goal would be to be restrictive. Again, these are guidelines telling ship designers what they can and can't do. It's possible to be restrictive in a good way, that's largely the point of having rules.
I still haven't read 'the Section'... almost done.
[/quote]Exactly what "vision clash" are you referring to? If any existed, they would immediately be struck down by the
Faction Manager.[/quote]Or they'd argue with the Faction Manager, who'd get exasperated and either make concessions or leave the site. We also fight over who gets to be FM, who gets to be co-FM, who
deserves to be FM, and create splinter groups when there's conflict between FMs and players in their factions. These conflicts are real, and their end-game isn't as clean as you'd make it out to be.
I wasn't referring to you, and even if I was, it wasn't an insult. This is something that really happens, which is why this submission is dangerous--especially if you don't realize what we need to defend against--or preferably, discourage from happening. I don't feel too good about our prospects of being able to 'defend' a rule system from exploitation, which is a large part of why I proposed an alternative to one.
Interesting how I'm also attempting to introduce a "clear and comprehensible" guideline that, strangely enough, is quite unpopular.
Clear and comprehensive guidelines are unpopular with those who benefit from
muddled and incomplete guidelines, and vice-versa. I don't think this alone is what motivates the majority of voters on either side, but it surely motivates some of them.
Please, no more of these.
