Another idea that struck me while writing an AAR.

[Graeme Dice]

BigJMoney said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Graeme. I'm going to assume you did not update yourself and read my last post, which explains exactly why I contradicted myself, and corrects the contradiction. I shouldn't have to say that bringing it up again coud be considered intentionally deceitful. Please read my post before this one and update yourself on my stance.

I'm certainly not going to go back and change my original post in this thread. That you changed your stance once it was pointed out to you that you were contradicting yourself is immaterial to the fact that you were contradicting yourself in the first place.

You will see that my idea does not call for any change in micro-management.

Your original post does call for a massive increase in micromanagement since you suggest that the player would be happy to directly modify tax rates. I don't see why it's unfair to point this out. I'm certainly not going to go back and edit my post to change it, as that would be incredibly dishonest.

[Frostmourne27]

Graeme Dice said:

Your original post does call for a massive increase in micromanagement since you suggest that the player would be happy to directly modify tax rates. I don't see why it's unfair to point this out. I'm certainly not going to go back and edit my post to change it, as that would be incredibly dishonest.

I would say that his suggestion calls for the oppertunity for more micromanagememnt, but isn't that like saying that the dom3 tax system will require tons of micromanagement? It COULD, but unless you don't want to use it, it won't. And as to him changing his oppinions, it has been said: 'When the circumstances change, I change my view. What do you do?'
I have to disagree with you, I think it's better to be inconsistant than to be wrong.

[BigJMoney]

Graeme, I was not asking you to edit your post. I was asking you to "update your [personal position on the matter]". Besides, the post in question was one you posted after I made my clarification; not your original post. Yes, there was a contradiction in my OP, but thanks to your pointing it out, it's been corrected. Should you continue to use old information in my OP, it's your own neck.

Anyway, I'm content with what I've said in this thread. My final words to anyone who reads this thread for the first time will be a request to, as always, read it in its entirety if one wishes to be informed.

Graeme, Arrelen, and everyone else, have a good week, and I hope everyone had a good 9/11.

=$=