Battlefield spell + retreating?

[Tifone]

Really, people, behave. Think about the other as a PERSON and not as MERE WORDS, ok? It is more difficult to act mean to people than to words.

I don't agree with K, and IMHO it is evident now he's using low-level logical flaws and the politicians' ways of talking to bring the right to his side. I may be wrong of course.

But really, there is no Orwellian psychocrime here. He can say and think whatever he wants, like everybody else can until hurting someone.

[triqui]

If the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof, or the defendant can show that the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof(by disproving even one element of their argument, for example), then the court will rule against the plaintiff and the defense wins. It works that way in every court in the land (USA).

That's how they proved O.J. Simpson cristal-clear innocence

[K]

triqui said:

That's how they proved O.J. Simpson cristal-clear innocence

Yes, it is.

[JimMorrison]

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.

[K]

JimMorrison said:
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.

How about the seven other players of DarkParadise who are explicitly playing a game that allows it (because I wrote the rules)? By the way, they happen to be playing on llamabeast's server.

Seriously. You've lost on the factual plane and the court of opinion. Accept that the vast majority of people could play the way you want them to, but only 7 out of 37 games care enough to spend twenty seconds to write those rules in. The fact that four or five people can't let go of this thread is only proof that four or five people agree with you.

I'm only in this because I don't like bullies or people who change the rules of a game when they start losing. Considering how quickly this devolved to personal attacks on me, it is no wonder that more people don't stand up to you guys.

The burden of proof was on you, and you've failed.

The end.

[Zeldor]

I think someone should close that thread. Deleting it would be more appropriate.

[calmon]

So you suggest we've to write all the exploits in our game rules, ban them seperatly to prevent discussions during game?

The lazier and easier and the standard way is just to trust everyone not doing cheesy actions!

[llamabeast]

It has become rather silly. K is immune to argument so it's probably best left here. I won't lock it though.

[triqui]

llamabeast said:
It has become rather silly. K is immune to argument so it's probably best left here. I won't lock it though.

But he won. Or at least, he thinks he won.

[Gandalf Parker]

I have not seen anything which I would consider to fall into "exploit" or a "rule". I agree that some things in the game might be declared off limits but if they are not so declared by the person running the game, or the host, then calling a "violation" would seem to be on shaky ground.