Battlefield spell + retreating?

[Sombre]

K said:
Then play in a game that explicitly has rules against it. There are seven out of 37 playing now, so you won't be alone. You are just in the minority.

Heck, I might even join you. I follow all rules set by the admin. For the record, I've never taken the position that people should violate agreements.

I just advise you to take a little responsibility and don't expect people to read your mind about what you consider "lame."

I don't remember asking for your advice. I probably won't be playing any games with you K, just based on the way you've acted in several threads I've read. It could happen we're in the same game though, where I'm sure we'd both follow the rules.

[K]

Sombre said:

I don't remember asking for your advice. I probably won't be playing any games with you K, just based on the way you've acted in several threads I've read. It could happen we're in the same game though, where I'm sure we'd both follow the rules.

Willing or not, you've all been part of my personal crusade to clarify this issue and make MP less contentious by having explicit rules (either pro or con is fine for me).

Considering how quickly and completely I've been personally attacked and demonized, I can now understand why no one has really been willing to draw out the relevant issue. I'll probably have to create a new account just to get people to play in MP with me again.

I'm actually really happy that several games have added these rules as explicit rules in their game as a result of this thread. It means that sacrificing my DomIII reputation was worth the effort.

[Strider]

Having multiple accounts is not acceptable. The Board rules are very clear about this.

[Donny]

What I think is, no matter what the rules says, it's always good manner not casting BE-retreat when you are able to do so, cuz it will cause conflicts.
It's unfair to say everyone casts this is bad, though.

Well, considering MoD I'd say that it's not a problem itself just like all the other GEs. BUT, it causes a serious bug, that's the difference makes all the opponents cry.
For example, in GhostBat i'm currently playing, DryaUnda (MA PY) and cipher (Agartha) had a battle. The MoD bug hit, crushing the game (even llamaserver failed to generate new turns correctly, llama fixed it though).
I really appreciate DryaUnda as he casted MoD without retreating, however he was beaten and his mage routed. But MoD was still there, causing bug making all the agartha's MOs disappeared.
Similiarly, I guess if two super SCs have a battle but can't kill each other will cause the same bug, not tested though.
MoD is a very possible way to causing bugs that's the reason it should be considered different than the other GEs and be banned until it's fixed.

[Endoperez]

K said:
Considering how quickly and completely I've been personally attacked and demonized, I can now understand why no one has really been willing to draw out the relevant issue. I'll probably have to create a new account just to get people to play in MP with me again.

I'm actually really happy that several games have added these rules as explicit rules in their game as a result of this thread. It means that sacrificing my DomIII reputation was worth the effort.

I haven't really payed much attention to this thread. Most players probably haven't. Also, while some people who HAVE read this thread might prefer not to play with you, it probably won't keep them from joining a game you also have happened to join, at least after a while, or if the retreat bug is fixed.

I don't think the reaction was about what you've argued for or against, but the way you argued. I don't know what started this argument about logic, and I'm not interested. It don't think it helped you, though. I take your point was that unless something has been clearly banned, there's no reason not to use it, even if it's regarded as a bug.

I fully agree with that.

There are lots of players who don't know that e.g. Storm continues if your mage retreats. A player may not be recognize it as a bug, and may not realize MoD will automatically cause the opponent to lose. It took years before the bug was discovered, after all. Accidentally discovering a bug that some other people know about shouldn't be punished. It should be prevented, by using the mod (very elegant solution) or by writing down the unwritten rules.

[Edi]

K said:
Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.

You are correct about arguments and evidence. This is especially true in science and the scientific method.

K said:
Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.

This is not entirely correct. Moral arguments can be logical ones, but one must first define a premise for them. It is entirely possible top construct a logically ironclad moral argument complete with evidence, but that argument will rest on some premise that is accepted as true. If the premise is successfully challenged, the whole argument comes down. For example, if we take the premise that suffering is generally a bad thing, it is very, very easy to construct logical moral arguments against wars of aggression, torture, bullying and a large number of other things and objective evidence is not hard to come by.

The problem with the MoD + retreat discussion seems to be that you and the rest of the forum have very differing standards of evidence. I for example take Illwinter's word on how MoD currently works with retreat vs how it should work as very strong evidence that the mechanic is broken to the point of being an abusive exploit while you obviously do not.