Re: Were you a Roman, Nepenthe?

Re: Were you a Roman, Nepenthe?:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by The Angel Gabriel on August 27, 1999 at 23:00:06:

In Reply to: Re: Were you a Roman, Nepenthe? posted by BoltThrower on August 27, 1999 at 07:19:12:

First, the way it works now, its drawbacks, whatever, have no bearing on the proposed system as outlined in the first post of this thread. It did not compare/contrast to the existing, it started from scratch and gave a rationale for how it should work, and which types of spells should be affected in what ways, etc.

To respond as you and Nepenthe have, by addressing the writer rather than what was written, is disappointing.

You are correct that I, nor anyone else, spoke up about spellbane in the past couple years, and proposed what I did. So what? Does that make the idea any more or less valid? No.

People think about things when they come up. People get used to things they know, whether good or bad. There was a change to spellbane, and the rager powers. That sparked thought on them, and hence the post that started this thread which outlined a logical system for how spellbane should work, against which spells, and why.

There was no criticism of you or the others or the current system. It offered a new way, and obviously in the opinion of some, a better way, given its logic.

As for not revealing the drawbacks of spellbane now for the rager, I do that deliberately since in generaly revealing hidden parts of the game is bad form and ruins part of the fun, just as I do not reveal shrine locations, or other game mechanics that I have access to. Whether you wish accept it or not, I am aware of how spellbane works now. That had absolutely nothing to do with this thread, regardless of how much you try to turn the focus to it. This thread was started with a clear statement on spellbane and how it can work. You and Nepenthe attempted to turn it into something else, namele a personal attack upon me.

It is again a cultivation of the "Us versus Them" attitude that runs rampant among the immortals when dealing with players. And it reflects poorly upon you for doing it.

> Maybe he'll respond to the thread when you acknowledge the fact that you are only telling half the story. You haven't replied to any of my statements about the fact that what you believe to be true about spellbane is, in fact, not the case.

> Your feeling that spellbane needs to be revised stems from the fact that you believe that all ragers (you made a point of stating in a thread below that all ragers get spellbane and therefore all would be able to do this) deflect all area spells. Since this is not the case, I pointed out that the basis for your revision was not proper.

> The reason this is the basis for this is that spellbane has been as it was until last sunday for several years. I saw no cry for spellbane to be changed from you or anyone else (other than the usual 'spellbane sucks...make it do '.

> The simple fact is that you posted a tirade the other day (to borrow Nep's word) based on partial information at best. I have stated repeatedly that it was incorrect. You have never responded to this.

> Others are beginning to point out that they realize what the other half is, but no one has mentioned it specifically (thank you). It has apparently not been deemed important by you that you have the whole story. Instead, you take rumor mixed with probably a single instance where you saw a spell deflected, and pronounced ragers invulnerable and spellbane way too powerful.

> If you consider someone pointing out that you aren't even listening to the facts a personal attack, so be it.

>
> > You, like BoltThrower, chose to attack the messenger, and not address the message. Whatever you may think of my personal reasons for posting as I did, this thread began with a cogent, logical proposal for spellbane. Whether you think I am upset, angry, foolish, smart, tall, short, etc, nothing prevents you from commenting on the idea and its merits, on whether the rationale makes sense or not.

> > Instead, you choose to make personal attacks, as BT did, and that's bad form.

> > Why not simply respond to the thread, and not the maker of the thread, particularly when the content was completely focused on an idea, not on any people, or criticism of anyone.

> > Shame on you.

> > > You can hardly expect to propose a new system of spellbane resolution the day after an uninformed tirade about the current system of the same and not have the previous post(s) color the present one.

> > > My advice would be to take a deep breath and a week off and stop posting on this subject, while there is still some doubt in the public mind (if not mine) of precisely why you find this to be such a vital issue.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> First, the way it works now, its drawbacks, whatever, have no bearing on the proposed system as outlined in the first post of this thread. It did not compare/contrast to the existing, it started from scratch and gave a rationale for how it should work, and which types of spells should be affected in what ways, etc. > To respond as you and Nepenthe have, by addressing the writer rather than what was written, is disappointing. > You are correct that I, nor anyone else, spoke up about spellbane in the past couple years, and proposed what I did. So what? Does that make the idea any more or less valid? No. > People think about things when they come up. People get used to things they know, whether good or bad. There was a change to spellbane, and the rager powers. That sparked thought on them, and hence the post that started this thread which outlined a logical system for how spellbane should work, against which spells, and why. > There was no criticism of you or the others or the current system. It offered a new way, and obviously in the opinion of some, a better way, given its logic. > As for not revealing the drawbacks of spellbane now for the rager, I do that deliberately since in generaly revealing hidden parts of the game is bad form and ruins part of the fun, just as I do not reveal shrine locations, or other game mechanics that I have access to. Whether you wish accept it or not, I am aware of how spellbane works now. That had absolutely nothing to do with this thread, regardless of how much you try to turn the focus to it. This thread was started with a clear statement on spellbane and how it can work. You and Nepenthe attempted to turn it into something else, namele a personal attack upon me. > It is again a cultivation of the "Us versus Them" attitude that runs rampant among the immortals when dealing with players. And it reflects poorly upon you for doing it. > > Maybe he'll respond to the thread when you acknowledge the fact that you are only telling half the story. You haven't replied to any of my statements about the fact that what you believe to be true about spellbane is, in fact, not the case. > > Your feeling that spellbane needs to be revised stems from the fact that you believe that all ragers (you made a point of stating in a thread below that all ragers get spellbane and therefore all would be able to do this) deflect all area spells. Since this is not the case, I pointed out that the basis for your revision was not proper. > > The reason this is the basis for this is that spellbane has been as it was until last sunday for several years. I saw no cry for spellbane to be changed from you or anyone else (other than the usual 'spellbane sucks...make it do <insert whatever>'. > > The simple fact is that you posted a tirade the other day (to borrow Nep's word) based on partial information at best. I have stated repeatedly that it was incorrect. You have never responded to this. > > Others are beginning to point out that they realize what the other half is, but no one has mentioned it specifically (thank you). It has apparently not been deemed important by you that you have the whole story. Instead, you take rumor mixed with probably a single instance where you saw a spell deflected, and pronounced ragers invulnerable and spellbane way too powerful. > > > If you consider someone pointing out that you aren't even listening to the facts a personal attack, so be it. > > > > > You, like BoltThrower, chose to attack the messenger, and not address the message. Whatever you may think of my personal reasons for posting as I did, this thread began with a cogent, logical proposal for spellbane. Whether you think I am upset, angry, foolish, smart, tall, short, etc, nothing prevents you from commenting on the idea and its merits, on whether the rationale makes sense or not. > > > Instead, you choose to make personal attacks, as BT did, and that's bad form. > > > Why not simply respond to the thread, and not the maker of the thread, particularly when the content was completely focused on an idea, not on any people, or criticism of anyone. > > > Shame on you. > > > > You can hardly expect to propose a new system of spellbane resolution the day after an uninformed tirade about the current system of the same and not have the previous post(s) color the present one. > > > > My advice would be to take a deep breath and a week off and stop posting on this subject, while there is still some doubt in the public mind (if not mine) of precisely why you find this to be such a vital issue.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]