Dammit

[magnate]

Arryn said:
So, if you write a post that could be (mis)interpreted as flamebait, you should not be surprised or indignant if the response you get is ... a flame. Remember the old (and tired) adage about sowing and reaping, and the other one about casting of stones.

I do read a lot of novels in real life and am well aware of the advantages of descriptive prose. We'll have to agree to disagree about the linguistics - I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

Interestingly you have neglected to comment on my most significant point, which is that even if you had correctly interpreted my post as serious, your response was unnecessarily unpleasant. A simple statement of your differing viewpoint, that you didn't think it was actually at all important, would have sufficed without opening hostilities.

CC

[Arryn]

magnate said:
I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

There can be a great deal of "nuance" in ambiguity. You cannot argue that you were being vague in order to promote inference (and multiple possible interpretations) and then protest innocence of intent of nuance. You cannot have it both ways.

By way of an analogy to your actions, why don't you try your technique of deliberate ambiguity in a pub sometime, and see how "funny" it might be? Walk over to a stranger (preferably an inebriated and muscular dock worker), spit on the floor vaguely (ambiguously) near to them, and then observe whether their reaction to you is positive (or, most likely, not). Perhaps your idea of humor is getting punched in the face and sent to the nearest hospital. Some people have an odd sense of humor.

magnate said:
Interestingly you have neglected to comment on my most significant point, which is that even if you had correctly interpreted my post as serious, your response was unnecessarily unpleasant. A simple statement of your differing viewpoint, that you didn't think it was actually at all important, would have sufficed without opening hostilities.

What you find "significant" may not be what others do.

It *was* a "simple statement of a differing viewpoint". I said the discussion of the topic was a waste of time (and I even explained why, just so you needn't be psychic), and I contradicted your allegedly humorous one-liner regarding your feeling that the thread's topic was "important". That apparently offended your tender sensibilities (was "unnecessarily unpleasant" as you put it). It was you who chose to "open hostilities", and to twist *my* words. You chose to put words into my mouth I did not say, and to misconstrue what I did say. Shall I quote the text of your various personal attacks? Or will you choose to berate me (again) for quoting your own words, which you find inconvenient to have pointed out to you? If you don't like someone quoting your words back to you, you should be more careful of what you say.

[magnate]

Arryn said:

There can be a great deal of "nuance" in ambiguity. You cannot argue that you were being vague in order to promote inference (and multiple possible interpretations) and then protest innocence of intent of nuance. You cannot have it both ways.

We're talking about very minor changes (or not) to a superb and complex piece of software, which is a hobby we all pursue in our spare time. It genuinely did not occur to me that anybody would think that the word "important" could seriously be used to describe anything in this thread, which is what I meant by lack of nuance. In that sense it was obvious. The ambiguity was simply the absence of a smiley. I don't think I am trying to have it both ways, though your argument is phrased well.

[snips painfully stereotypical and thoroughly un-illuminating analogy about dockers]

Arryn said:
What you find "significant" may not be what others do.

It *was* a "simple statement of a differing viewpoint". I said the discussion of the topic was a waste of time (and I even explained why, just so you needn't be psychic), and I contradicted your allegedly humorous one-liner regarding your feeling that the thread's topic was "important". That apparently offended your tender sensibilities (was "unnecessarily unpleasant" as you put it). It was you who chose to "open hostilities", and to twist *my* words. You chose to put words into my mouth I did not say, and to misconstrue what I did say. Shall I quote the text of your various personal attacks? Or will you choose to berate me (again) for quoting your own words, which you find inconvenient to have pointed out to you? If you don't like someone quoting your words back to you, you should be more careful of what you say.

Here we have a simple difference of opinion. You believe that your response to my one-liner was completely inoffensive, and that I took offence completely erroneously and chose to open hostilities. My view is that your response was unpleasant and hostile, and that I merely responded in kind. For the benefit of other people's bandwidth, we should perhaps leave it there.

CC

[Arryn]

magnate said:
We're talking about very minor changes (or not) to a superb and complex piece of software, which is a hobby we all pursue in our spare time.

Well said, especially the praise, but I disagree with your belief that the changes might be minor. And I especially disagree that even if they were, the devs should (much less would) do anything about it. But that gets into rehashing what's already been said (and said again, and again, and again).

magnate said:
It genuinely did not occur to me that anybody would think that the word "important" could seriously be used to describe anything in this thread, which is what I meant by lack of nuance. In that sense it was obvious. The ambiguity was simply the absence of a smiley. I don't think I am trying to have it both ways, though your argument is phrased well.

Thank you. And I'll accept what you say regarding the (mis)interpretation of your use of "important". Which goes back to mine (and Cainehill's) point regarding how one's intentions can be easily misconstrued if one isn't very careful with how one goes about communicating one's thoughts. But we've beaten this horse bloody and I think we are in some reasonable approximation of agreement that there's been plenty of error and blame on both of our parts that we can call it even and let it go.

magnate said:
[snips painfully stereotypical and thoroughly un-illuminating analogy about dockers]

Hey! Where's *your* sense of humor?

magnate said:
For the benefit of other people's bandwidth, we should perhaps leave it there.

Agreed.

[Cainehill]

I notice that for all the talk of salient points being ignored, none of the proponents of Panther's "new and improved" morale system (where commanders simply make a morale check when a troop of soldiers routs) has responded to my pointing out that this would be totally broken, because _all_ pretenders and prophets (morale 30) would stay and be slaughtered, even with a mere 10 or less base hit points.

[Arryn]

Cainehill said:
none of the proponents of Panther's "new and improved" morale system (where commanders simply make a morale check when a troop of soldiers routs) has responded to my pointing out that this would be totally broken, because _all_ pretenders and prophets (morale 30) would stay and be slaughtered, even with a mere 10 or less base hit points.

In order for such a system to work, the devs would also have to implement the capability for additional orders, such as "retreat if no troops remain under my command", or "retreat if no friendly troops remain on the battlefield", etc. In short, the changes need to be much more involved than the simplistic ideas that have been proposed thus far. IMO.

A partial "fix" is much worse than leaving things well enough alone. Let's not go and break one thing trying to fix another.

[Cheezeninja]

Arryn said:
A partial "fix" is much worse than leaving things well enough alone. Let's not go and break one thing trying to fix another.

Amen to that. And thats all i have to say.