Jump to content

InquisitorM

Members
  • Content count

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About InquisitorM

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

507 profile views
  1. InquisitorM

    Renegade Refit and Servomotor S-Foils bugged ?

    [Emphasis added] FTFY. Please take your concern trolling elsewhere.
  2. InquisitorM

    What a smack in the face...

    Nnnnnnnope.
  3. InquisitorM

    Tycho and PTL

    Did someone say bacon?
  4. InquisitorM

    Looking at Dials During Activation

    This is not specific to the planning phase. You may check your own dials at any time.
  5. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    It's not a matter of logic. It turns out that British English and American English have different definitions – even if I could only find a single source that even mentions it (both Oxford and Mirram-Webster have only 1 definition) To a British speaker, collusion requires secrecy for the purpose of deception or fraud. For the apparent American-English-use-I-can-only-find-in-one-place, it can technically extend to absolutely any agreement, just especially to agreements made in secret to deceive or defraud. So the way I see it, you have two choices: either every agreement made by any two players anywhere is technically collusion, even if it's just deciding who wants which board edge, or it isn't collusion unless it's in secret and for the purpose of deception (which your example isn't). Feel free to pick one, but I think the vast majority of people everywhere use that standard English definition.
  6. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    Neither are, so it's still a double standard.
  7. InquisitorM

    Ten Numb vs Countdown

    Is Countdown's ability a defence die? Nope, so it can cancel it just fine. Though I should point out that Countdown doesn't cancel hits: he cancels all dice results.
  8. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    Reeeeeeeally. Fine. You want to play? Let's play. If/then statement. IF X is true then Y is true. Not stated as an opinion. This is a statement of fact. If X, then opinion. If Y, then suggested [snarky] course of action. Yeah, you could read it that way because that's how it's written. Funny what happens when people react to what you actually write.
  9. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    Bull. That's just an opinion. Many people disagree. I happen to think all the sane people agree, but that's just me. In essence, please don't state that as if it is factual.
  10. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    And this is basically what is being discussed here. Those saying the game ought to be stripped from the players are like playground bullies trying to shame people just for holding different (and perfectly legitimate) thoughts, perceptions, and ideals. I do not and will not tolerate this in any game.
  11. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    Shifting the burden of proof. Yours is the claim they are the same. I'm not at liberty to explain your point for you. The validity of the statements is totally irrelevant to whether they are related in any way. They could both be totally valid (or just equally valid) and still not be in any way related.
  12. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    No, they're not. That's nonsense.
  13. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    By what logic? I don't see a connection.
  14. Clearly, you don't actually understand the concept of devil's advocate. Of course you can be wrong if your argument is invalid. But it's not a possible mechanic. It's something you invented whole cloth that has no supporting evidence. No, there doesn't. It looks like you've conflated 'devil's advocate' for 'suggesting alternatives'. This is not playing devil's advocate. The thing you're talking about does not exist in the rules and therefore asserting it as an argument makes you expressly wrong. Suggesting it as an alternative is irrelevant as this is a rules forum about discussing how thing are. No. 1. This is the rules forum. Feel free to discuss that stuff elsewhere, but this isn't the place. 2. At no point have you actually said that that's what you're doing until now. You have provided misinformation to confuse other players and all posts regarding this insanity should be deleted. No, it isn't, because you're mishandled it horribly, used the wrong words, and utterly failed to explain yourself at every turn. You said that people were ignoring what you were trying to do but that's because you never told anyone what you were trying to do. I'm not sure what result you expected, but this is clearly a giant failure to communicate, the fault of which I am unequivocally laying at your feet. To be clear, playing Devil's Advocate involves arguing a point that is not one that you personally hold. It does not remove the need for an argument to be valid. If you make an argument and it is shown to be incorrect, then it is justifiably dismissed.
  15. InquisitorM

    Final Table and players won't play

    As long as they earned those places fair and square, I'd let them have it and level an unsportsmanlike conduct charge at anyone who complained. If you want to be in the final, stop losing.
×