Quote:
K said:
...Considering that I've dismantled all your arguments and provided some proof (though not conclusive proof) means that I won this argument around four pages ago. You neither met your logical burden nor provided any proof. In a sense, I actually won this argument twice.
I don't have to prove that a majority support my position. The mere fact that there is no proof that a majority do support you is enough to defeat your proposition. The result of no explicit rules to the contrary is to support using the baseline rules, either explicitly or implicitly...
|
Ehh, the only actual "proof", as in factual evidence of
anything that you have provided in the thread, supports the basic notion that people do not agree with the use of the tactic in question.
Apparently this is the way you have defied logic and won the argument twice - you won first by providing the only evidence available which supports your "opponents", and then you won again by declaring yourself the victor? o.O
You even ignore the fact that Llama confirmed to you that he does indeed have a personal set of rules that he has neglected to type up - which are focused on maximizing enjoyment of the players on his server - and that MoD will be included in that list. The sheer number of games that this effects, may well push the count from 7/37 over the halfway mark, to an actual majority.
And still, the most damning evidence of all, is that you have not a single vocal supporter. Not one material witness will stand in the defense of your position. You are a single man, lecturing to a mass on the correctness of your position, while they all try hopelessly to get you to listen to the fact that they all agree.
So if 90% of the people who post on this thread agree that MoD is an (unfair) exploit, then that is a pretty clear majority as well.
You cannot claim a victory as a majority of 1. You also cannot claim victory on the grounds of silence - as your assertion that they consent due to the base existence of the spell, is more than balanced by my assertion that they silently agree that it is a bug that needs fixing.
If you want to continue to disagree about whether or not bugs should be exploited to win a game, that's fine, but I really think it just makes you look bad, as Zeldor is trying to point out.