Battlefield spell + retreating?

[K]

JimMorrison said:
7/37 game threads specifically ban the move, 0/37 specifically state that it is acceptable. How can you possibly claim that as devastating evidence that everyone who can't be arsed to post here, supports you?

This is fun. I like how when you talk circles around a lawyer (or law student), they continue trying to think that you are the one standing still.

Since the position of "nerf battlefield spells and MoD" is a change from the baseline rules, that puts you in the position of meeting the burden of proving that your position is valid.

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.

At this point you are stuck with the Conceptual Balance guys and the "nerf all gem items" guys: a recognizable minority whose position is understandable but completely unsupportable. It is the position of: "the game doesn't support my play style, so everyone should support a change that will."

[AdmiralZhao]

This thread makes much more sense if you assume that K is a time traveler.

It was probably a future-K who wrote this:

2.1 It it considered a bug by the devs? Yes, it does not work as they intended. The board moderator Gandalf Parker considers it a major bug, which is why it is red-listed in the Bug forum.

and it was probably some past-K who just wrote the above post about burden of proof. The above post doesn't make any sense in light of the bug status of MoD + Retreat, but since this was written by past-version of K, he isn't aware of that.


Now back to the _Time Traveler's Wife_ ...

[K]

AdmiralZhao said:
This thread makes much more sense if you assume that K is a time traveler.

It was probably a future-K who wrote this:

and it was probably some past-K who just wrote the above post about burden of proof. The above post doesn't make any sense in light of the bug status of MoD + Retreat, but since this was written by past-version of K, he isn't aware of that.


Now back to the _Time Traveler's Wife_ ...

Just because the devs consider it a bug doesn't mean that it adversely affects game balance and should become a rule people should follow. In fact, I consider it as an improvement to game balance because it reduces the importance of SCs and thugs.

The burden of proof is on you to show that people should follow this rule. I've given an affirmative defense (playstyles of MP players) and have dismantled all your arguments (see previous posts). Either would have worked.

[Zeldor]

I suggest a simple new rule for MP games:

"Player K is banned"

I am sure I wouldn't want to play with cheater. And as game admin I'd ban all cheaters.

[AdmiralZhao]

No, I've dismantled all of *your* arguments and have given an affirmative offense. Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to show that people shouldn't not disobey this rule.

[llamabeast]

K isn't a cheater Zeldor, that's not reasonable.

[K]

AdmiralZhao said:
No, I've dismantled all of *your* arguments and have given an affirmative offense. Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to show that people shouldn't not disobey this rule.

The burden of proof is on you because you are the one asking people to refrain from a certain style of play by playing by a houserule.

By the way, there is no such thing as an "affirmative offense." Since that's not your first logical error, I'm not sure you even know how to dismantle an argument because clearly that has not happened despite the fact that I clearly labeled them with numbers and everything.

So, if everyone is done with the personal attacks on me and my abilities, I'd like to let this thread die. I never imagined I'd convince any of the die-hards, but I wanted the arguments to be in the boards for posterity.

[Zeldor]

Using exploits is cheating. Supporting the use of exploits is too. He is willing to use the biggest bug in that game so he is a cheater. Simple. I wouldn't want him in my game and have a risk of him finding a new bug and calling it strategy. Maybe he is even willing to support .2h file hacking and saying that if game creators didn't want it to happen they'd protect that files better?

K:
Yeah, right. I am sure attorney general and supreme court support you. They didn't say theu support us so it is logical they are on your side.

[Endoperez]

Zeldor said:
I suggest a simple new rule for MP games:

"Player K is banned"

I am sure I wouldn't want to play with cheater. And as game admin I'd ban all cheaters.

Behave!


If you were a game admin, your first responsibility would be to ensure that everyone would know what is considered breaking the rules.
If you failed to do that, the blame would be your own.

K is arguing about whether or not a house-rule is necessary. Has he said that he will use MoD and retreat even though it has been clearly prohibited in the game he is playing? If he hasn't, I think you should apologize.

[K]

Zeldor said:
I suggest a simple new rule for MP games:

"Player K is banned"

I am sure I wouldn't want to play with cheater. And as game admin I'd ban all cheaters.

Very mature. If you can't win the argument, attack the reputation of the person arguing.

Would you believe that I've never cast MoD in a multiplay game? Or that I always follow the rules set up in the game? In fact, I've never broken a NAP, traded unfairly, or lied in MP. Ask people who've played with me.

As an example, in order to clarify these issues I set up a game called DarkParadise on llamabeast's server with rules explicitly saying what is possible in order to promote fair play and protect everyone's reputation.