It's low-grade to quote someone and not fix their typos, just FYI.
It's also kind of dense to ask a question that reposes the statement just made.
There are other people who are not us.
Do you have any sort of evidence that people who are not us 1) pay attention to and remember your designs, 2) side with you over the people who post, and 3) use that to become a “better” designer.
Everyone speaks about the “silent majority” or “vocal minority” but do you have any concrete evidence (not conjectural or circumstantial) that your supporters… exist?
It's low-grade to quote someone and not fix their typos, just FYI.
It's also kind of dense to ask a question that reposes the statement just made.
It's actually pretty low class to fix somebody's typo, or even point it out. It makes the presumption that you know what they intended to type, and that you can change their words.
So you want to teach the people of the world how you think and design, but here I am asking you specifically about those things, and you snapped at me, and now are avoiding it entirely to be pedantic and weird about your own typo?
Why are you calling me dense? You're the one who is obviously immune to input and criticism. Stay in school, kid.
Peak Preparedness1W Enchantment
During your untap step, you may skip untapping up to three lands you control that could be untapped. If you do, draw a card if two or more lands are not untapped this way. If an odd number of lands are not untapped this way, you may also put a Clue, Treasure, Food, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token with flying onto the battlefield. Remember we have to always be stronger.
I don't want to get drawn off into the weeds of a conversation much like on the other thread, so I'll simply offer feedback on the card as designed, and things that could be done to improve it, because it's not a finished card.
First off, the text box is really clunky and wordy-- the focus is split between having to word this odd ability of holding your own lands down and trying to make it produce four different types of tokens. The wording with the lands is really ugly, and could be fixed with the School of Piranha ability that has been a defunct feature of blue aggro.
The split focus is such that you might not even realize this draws cards twice. It produces clue tokens, so there's no need in the world to bend the color pie to put the card draw ability in. It's already got an in-color draw ability.
So to produce a version of this card that is clean and printable, it would look something like this:
Peak Preparedness1W
Enchantment (U)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay 1W. If you do, create your choice of a Clue token, a Food token, or a 0/1 colorless artifact Thopter creature token with flying. (Reminder text for clue and food tokens.)
This preserves most of the function of the card, and is far easier to understand. I dropped treasures because four kinds of token on one card is really too many, and I think that's the one that makes least sense. The upkeep cost is quite painful to maintain, but it seems right for an uncommon that can theoretically give you endless advantage in three different ways. The cost to cast could maybe go down to one, but safer at 2.
Or if you want to retain the draw ability, you need it to be blue and drop the clues. A white enchantment doesn't get to draw cards every turn unless it has a very white drawback. Luckily, clues are an excellent drawback for white card draw. You could instead drop all the tokens, and just have it draw a card for the upkeep cost. It's taxing enough that it's not out of color. In fact, it's essentially the same as a clue you sac every turn.
I implore you, reap to look past the negativity in people's comments to the actual purpose, which is feedback on your cards. If you cannot accept feedback from others, and you simply insist that your card as designed is always correct-- with respect, that by definition is bad game design. It's the antithesis of the 'science' of game design you speak of. If you want to consider yourself somebody who is interested in designing well, that means truly considering the feedback of others without assuming you must be right. That doesn't mean everybody else is always right, but assuming you know better than others is a fool's move in any context.
I'll assume you don't actually mean it that any color should be able to do anything with flavor justification. That philosophy would literally unmake the game as we know it. Mechanical limitations of the color pie is one of the most fundamental principals of the game, and has been from the beginning. Bending somewhat for flavor is fine, but you must always acknowledge it and do it sparingly. The flavor justification here is not that even all that strong: there's no reason an effect called Peak Preparedness couldn't be blue, or red.
It's not really a vorthos card, and the story it's telling is mostly that being prepared for stuff gives you an advantage. That doesn't have all that much to do with producing a zillion different kinds of artifacts.
Okay, so the card is turning out a large variety of artifact tokens. So the flavorful story I see is a workshop on Kaladesh, like Edison's lab where they are turning out vast numbers of new products on an aggressive an industrial scale at the cost of overtaxing all their resources.
Odarien's Workshop2WW
Articact (R)
Sacrifice three artifacts: Draw a card
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay W. If you do create a colorless artifact token. It becomes your choice of the following:
- A Power Cell token (It has "T, Sacrifice this artifact: You get E, or you add one mana of any color.)
- A 1/1 Servo creature token.
- A Vehicle token with "crew 2". It's a 3/2 while it's a creature.
So there you go. A wacky, flavor-build. But somebody on one of these forums might tell me my wordings were entirely wrong, and they'd probably be right.
It's actually pretty low class to fix somebody's typo, or even point it out.
And yet here we are quoting them in suggestion (to ourselves presumably) that it entirely discredits someone.
Funny how we mention to stay in school, but not to stay off drugs.
Obviously, just staying in school isn't enough.
There's also no need to modify the current version, although it is a bit wordy.
So lemme get this straight: your goal is to educate and enlighten people. I'm a person. I come to you to be educated and enlightened, and you are treating me with hostility?
Yes, I also think you should lay off the meth.
I don't actually think you should stay in the school you currently attend. I think you should find one that is has a comprehensive special education program, then stay in that one.
So lemme get this straight: your goal is to educate and enlighten people. I'm a person. I come to you to be educated and enlightened, and you are treating me with hostility?
Yes, I also think you should lay off the meth.
I don't actually think you should stay in the school you currently attend. I think you should find one that is has a comprehensive special education program, then stay in that one.
That's a great cope. [I know you are but what am I?]
For the ones who cannot form logical explanations, but always with [the majority rules] alibi for tyrants.
Who forget how the English language works.
Who now, pretend to be different people to for the defense of [neutrality is due].
Whom attack my flavor text skill when you cannot match it. Empty flavor text for ages. Never anything commanding or evocative. Boring, cheesy, lethargic, listless. You are still producing content for a fantasy role play game, on cards, yes? Imagine the pages if what you do were reconstituted as a book. Imagine the pages. Who would publish it even?
So lemme get this straight: your goal is to educate and enlighten people. I'm a person. I come to you to be educated and enlightened, and you are treating me with hostility?
Yes, I also think you should lay off the meth.
I don't actually think you should stay in the school you currently attend. I think you should find one that is has a comprehensive special education program, then stay in that one.
That's a great cope. [I know you are but what am I?]
For the ones who cannot form logical explanations, but always with [the majority rules] alibi for tyrants.
Who forget how the English language works.
Who now, pretend to be different people to for the defense of [neutrality is due].
Whom attack my flavor text skill when you cannot match it. Empty flavor text for ages. Never anything commanding or evocative. Boring, cheesy, lethargic, listless. You are still producing content for a fantasy role play game, on cards, yes? Imagine the pages if what you do were reconstituted as a book. Imagine the pages. Who would publish it even?
What the actual **** are you talking about?
Read your post outloud to a human being. Let me know if they think it sounds like an adult wrote it, or a meth addled psychopath.
You just ramble on and on using words that you think make you sound smart, never make any coherent points, and then blame everyone else for noticing. I guarantee you have never published any of your works, although I could see some works about you being published in a medical journal somewhere.
You just ramble on and on using words that you think make you sound smart, never make any coherent points, and then blame everyone else for noticing.
Care to show some examples of this? Never making coherent points?
You first claim to be new, and now you're making statements from retrospective of experience (as though you've followed my posts for long enough to fairly claim these things).
Which is it?
I've wrote many flavor texts about people like you. Although, it's not the nature of the beast to see the light.
There was that time we had to spend a week explaining to you that you weren’t using the term “force majeure” correctly.
Or how you keep talking about “domain influence” as though it wasn’t just two words you mashed together.
Or the number of Deus Ex Machina abilities that you’ve made up words for.
Or the times someone has given you a well explained list of reasons why a card you posted is badly written/doesn’t work/is broken and you’re response is “great cope” and a bit of blathering about how the fact that you don’t play magic makes you understand it better than the designers who’ve been working on it for the past 30 years and made it the most popular game in the world.
Or your new schitck now of sticking brackets in the middle of sentences so you can look [not] smart.
The business with Force Majeure is actually a great example of a larger problems.
In linguistics, usage of language is judged according to 1) syntax, 2) semantics, and 3) pragmatics.
Syntax makes sure that we are doing basic sentence structure instead of saying jumbled words like “Walk cat basketball the constantly”. You are good with syntax.
Semantics makes sure that a syntactically correct sentence has discernible meaning. “Colorless green clouds sleep furiously” is a famous sentence that is syntactically perfect but that has no semantic meaning. You are generally good with semantics.
Pragmatics goes one step further and asks whether the language is accomplishing the intended function within the surrounding cultural and linguistic context. Pragmatics tells us not to call honeyed ham “sweetmeat” because sweetmeat is already another thing (a type of candy). Pragmatics tells us not to make a black reanimation card called habeus corpus (outside of a silver-bordered joke card), even though the literal meaning is “produce the body”, because the language has become intimately tied to its legal definition. pragmatics should have stopped the usage of Force Majeure for the same reason. Pragmatics is highly visible in determining whether computer codes allow programs to function as intended. Pragmatics govern what language is used in the description of abilities. You have shown little to no ability to communicate pragmatically (for this definition of pragmatics).
While pragmatics depends on context (such as who you are talking to), Violation of pragmatics is no less a violation of the English language than a grammar violation would be, whether you like it or not. Of course, that is just coming from someone who has studied linguistics. If you want to say that the field of linguistics is wrong, feel free. It would be entirely on brand for you at this point.
Rowan, none of those are examples of not being able to (or failing to on demand) make a coherent point on a matter.
In fact, many many coherent points were made on all those subjects. They were explained thoroughly.
Fun Fact: Most of the Deus Ex Machina keywords come from types of Extra Sensory Perception (of which I am an adept performer).
Great cope describes attempts to make excuses, blindly refuse, or cheaply redirect from the point of interest.
Rosy, I'm afraid the reality of language is that there are no "legal definitions", but definitions are decided based on acceptance (of which slang and Urban Dictionary proves). Thus, language and definition is simply archaic at its worst.
You just ramble on and on using words that you think make you sound smart, never make any coherent points, and then blame everyone else for noticing.
Care to show some examples of this? Never making coherent points?
You first claim to be new, and now you're making statements from retrospective of experience (as though you've followed my posts for long enough to fairly claim these things).
Which is it?
I've wrote many flavor texts about people like you. Although, it's not the nature of the beast to see the light.
Alright so do you know how to check your post history, because I know how to check your post history. And you never make any coherent points. Feel free to verify this on your own and show me a coherent point you've made before.
Can't I be new and capable of reading the posts you've chosen to make public, that do not have an expiry date?
What does it even mean to say "I've written many flacor texts about people like you"? Are you putting them on cards? What are people "like me"? Who is a beast and what light are they not seeing?
Again, your replies are just word salad, full of some New-Age buzzwords and terms that you probably saw a fake smart person using on a Nickelodeon cartoon. If you go back and finish that episode of CatDog, you will learn that the guy using those words was also a fraud.
In fact, many many coherent points were made on all those subjects. They were explained thoroughly.
Explained “thoroughly”? Debatable.
Explained “to point of reader comprehension”? Definitely not.
You repeatedly cope that we are not your intended argument and that you are writing to other people who read this forum, agree with you over everyone else who posts, and who miraculously improve their skills as a result thereof.
I ask you again. Is there any distinct proof that you have supporters? Not “that supporters may exist” but examples of specific people explicitly supporting your work and taking your side in this argument in a way that we can all observe?
Do you have any posting supporters on this forum? Have you seen definitive evidence of anyone looking at your threads and doing anything other than laughing at you or facepalming?
I say that because I can point to supporters. I can point to posts where people have appreciated my designs. Being able to do so should not be a giant hurdle.
Rosy, I'm afraid the reality of language is that there are no "legal definitions", but definitions are decided based on acceptance (of which slang and Urban Dictionary proves). Thus, language and definition is simply archaic at its worst.
You're right, it is archaic at worst! Which means it's perfectly valid. Now, if it was archaic at best...
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The burden of proof lies upon the person making the assertion, not on the challenger. You are the one who asserted that people support your positions, but currently you have presented no evidence to support this claim in the face of all the threads where you are repeatedly told by the sum total of all those posting that your ideas, designs and/or use of language are wrong.
The Zenger trial litigated that they knew Zenger's press claims were libelous, but could the prosecution prove they were false?
Silencing the press in this way was an alibi for tyrants, the next step makes men slaves.
Andrew Hamilton, who represented Zenger, walked out of the courtroom victorious with cannons firing in his honor.
Zenger’s trial is unrelated.
Zenger’s was accused of libel, which did not mean printing FALSE information about a government at that time (18th century Germany). It meant publishing NEGATIVE news about the government, true or otherwise. Zenger was never even asked to prove that his statements were true because his crime was merely printing the article whether or not it was true.
His trial turned in his favor not because Zenger showed that the government had to prove their side but because the general populace in the jury agreed that government should not be protected from true stories about its failings and corruption.
This is a very different situation.
If I was to make scandalous accusations of that a politician ate babies (or something equally negative) and was taken to court for libel, “Prove that you have never eaten a baby” is not any form of argument. Unless someone’s entire life has been recorded or they have solid alibis for every hour of every single day, such a statement cannot be proven. In those cases, the person who made the original statement would be asked to provide their evidence for making the original claim, as such evidence is theoretically possible to provide.
If I was making the claim that a famous person was eating babies, it would be my job to show my evidence. I would not be able to play a reverse uno card and walk free unless the politician proves that they have never eaten a baby in their life.
If you make a statement that you have supporters, it is likewise your burden of proof to show that those people exist, not ours to show that they do not.
The entire litigation was decided on that the information couldn't be proven as false.
Mind you, this won't matter in other cases, such as Menacing.
The fact should stand that you set a bad example for posters with your ambiguous disrespect mongering and incessant harassment tailgating.
Even the question of if there are OTHER PEOPLE in the world besides yourselves should be ground enough to respect that. And not to question it.
There might be other people in the world that don't like my designs. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Likewise, it doesn't mean you're right.
You can never prove the points you all make on these matters because they're always biased and subjective. And they even neglect crucial factors for the sake of bias, such as the difference in domain influence between a sorcery speed spell and an instant speed spell. How can you even? This is a fundamental principal of an effect's power. If you don't know this, that's like trying to practice law or medicine without a degree. If you're going to neglect this, that's like malpractice, and the game (and its fundamental principals and dynamics) are being misrepresented (who would be contractually obligated to acknowledge these things).
Even the question of if there are OTHER PEOPLE in the world besides yourselves should be ground enough to respect that. And not to question it.
There might be other people in the world that don't like my designs. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Likewise, it doesn't mean you're right.
You didn’t make the claim that that there MIGHT BE people who are fans of your design. That is a statement that neither side could meaningfully argue. If that is your statement, I will concede that there is a chance that you do and that there is a chance that you have no supporters.
You made the statement that there ARE people who are fans of your design. That is a provable statement and you have the burden of proof.
Do you have proof for your statement to show that you definitely have supporters? If not, the possibility opens up that you have no supporters.
I cannot prove you have no supporters. That is not my aim. If you wish to maintain that there is no possibility that you have zero supporters, however, that is a statement that needs to be defended.
The statement was, there are other people who read these threads (other people who may be inspired—but don't voice the opinion).
And that is definite based on the thread views.
Nothing else needs to be proven. One should respect that there are other people in the world other than themselves and not think to disturb them with one's own devotion to dictatorship. That is exactly what you do when you enter my threads, and don't agree to disagree, but insist that I agree.
The statement was, there are other people who read these threads (other people who may be inspired—but don't voice the opinion).
And that is definite based on the thread views.
Nothing else needs to be proven. One should respect that there are other people in the world other than themselves and not think to disturb them with one's own devotion to dictatorship. That is exactly what you do when you enter my threads, and don't agree to disagree, but insist that I agree.
People like you are why slavery will always be a black eye upon civilization.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's low-grade to quote someone and not fix their typos, just FYI.
It's also kind of dense to ask a question that reposes the statement just made.
There are other people who are not us.
Do you have any sort of evidence that people who are not us 1) pay attention to and remember your designs, 2) side with you over the people who post, and 3) use that to become a “better” designer.
Everyone speaks about the “silent majority” or “vocal minority” but do you have any concrete evidence (not conjectural or circumstantial) that your supporters… exist?
It's actually pretty low class to fix somebody's typo, or even point it out. It makes the presumption that you know what they intended to type, and that you can change their words.
So you want to teach the people of the world how you think and design, but here I am asking you specifically about those things, and you snapped at me, and now are avoiding it entirely to be pedantic and weird about your own typo?
Why are you calling me dense? You're the one who is obviously immune to input and criticism. Stay in school, kid.
I don't want to get drawn off into the weeds of a conversation much like on the other thread, so I'll simply offer feedback on the card as designed, and things that could be done to improve it, because it's not a finished card.
First off, the text box is really clunky and wordy-- the focus is split between having to word this odd ability of holding your own lands down and trying to make it produce four different types of tokens. The wording with the lands is really ugly, and could be fixed with the School of Piranha ability that has been a defunct feature of blue aggro.
The split focus is such that you might not even realize this draws cards twice. It produces clue tokens, so there's no need in the world to bend the color pie to put the card draw ability in. It's already got an in-color draw ability.
So to produce a version of this card that is clean and printable, it would look something like this:
Peak Preparedness 1W
Enchantment (U)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay 1W. If you do, create your choice of a Clue token, a Food token, or a 0/1 colorless artifact Thopter creature token with flying. (Reminder text for clue and food tokens.)
This preserves most of the function of the card, and is far easier to understand. I dropped treasures because four kinds of token on one card is really too many, and I think that's the one that makes least sense. The upkeep cost is quite painful to maintain, but it seems right for an uncommon that can theoretically give you endless advantage in three different ways. The cost to cast could maybe go down to one, but safer at 2.
Or if you want to retain the draw ability, you need it to be blue and drop the clues. A white enchantment doesn't get to draw cards every turn unless it has a very white drawback. Luckily, clues are an excellent drawback for white card draw. You could instead drop all the tokens, and just have it draw a card for the upkeep cost. It's taxing enough that it's not out of color. In fact, it's essentially the same as a clue you sac every turn.
I implore you, reap to look past the negativity in people's comments to the actual purpose, which is feedback on your cards. If you cannot accept feedback from others, and you simply insist that your card as designed is always correct-- with respect, that by definition is bad game design. It's the antithesis of the 'science' of game design you speak of. If you want to consider yourself somebody who is interested in designing well, that means truly considering the feedback of others without assuming you must be right. That doesn't mean everybody else is always right, but assuming you know better than others is a fool's move in any context.
I'll assume you don't actually mean it that any color should be able to do anything with flavor justification. That philosophy would literally unmake the game as we know it. Mechanical limitations of the color pie is one of the most fundamental principals of the game, and has been from the beginning. Bending somewhat for flavor is fine, but you must always acknowledge it and do it sparingly. The flavor justification here is not that even all that strong: there's no reason an effect called Peak Preparedness couldn't be blue, or red.
It's not really a vorthos card, and the story it's telling is mostly that being prepared for stuff gives you an advantage. That doesn't have all that much to do with producing a zillion different kinds of artifacts.
Okay, so the card is turning out a large variety of artifact tokens. So the flavorful story I see is a workshop on Kaladesh, like Edison's lab where they are turning out vast numbers of new products on an aggressive an industrial scale at the cost of overtaxing all their resources.
Odarien's Workshop 2WW
Articact (R)
Sacrifice three artifacts: Draw a card
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay W. If you do create a colorless artifact token. It becomes your choice of the following:
- A Power Cell token (It has "T, Sacrifice this artifact: You get E, or you add one mana of any color.)
- A 1/1 Servo creature token.
- A Vehicle token with "crew 2". It's a 3/2 while it's a creature.
So there you go. A wacky, flavor-build. But somebody on one of these forums might tell me my wordings were entirely wrong, and they'd probably be right.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
And yet here we are quoting them in suggestion (to ourselves presumably) that it entirely discredits someone.
Funny how we mention to stay in school, but not to stay off drugs.
Obviously, just staying in school isn't enough.
There's also no need to modify the current version, although it is a bit wordy.
So lemme get this straight: your goal is to educate and enlighten people. I'm a person. I come to you to be educated and enlightened, and you are treating me with hostility?
Yes, I also think you should lay off the meth.
I don't actually think you should stay in the school you currently attend. I think you should find one that is has a comprehensive special education program, then stay in that one.
That's a great cope. [I know you are but what am I?]
For the ones who cannot form logical explanations, but always with [the majority rules] alibi for tyrants.
Who forget how the English language works.
Who now, pretend to be different people to for the defense of [neutrality is due].
Whom attack my flavor text skill when you cannot match it. Empty flavor text for ages. Never anything commanding or evocative. Boring, cheesy, lethargic, listless. You are still producing content for a fantasy role play game, on cards, yes? Imagine the pages if what you do were reconstituted as a book. Imagine the pages. Who would publish it even?
What the actual **** are you talking about?
Read your post outloud to a human being. Let me know if they think it sounds like an adult wrote it, or a meth addled psychopath.
You just ramble on and on using words that you think make you sound smart, never make any coherent points, and then blame everyone else for noticing. I guarantee you have never published any of your works, although I could see some works about you being published in a medical journal somewhere.
Have you ever provided value?
Care to show some examples of this? Never making coherent points?
You first claim to be new, and now you're making statements from retrospective of experience (as though you've followed my posts for long enough to fairly claim these things).
Which is it?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThere was that time we had to spend a week explaining to you that you weren’t using the term “force majeure” correctly.
Or how you keep talking about “domain influence” as though it wasn’t just two words you mashed together.
Or the number of Deus Ex Machina abilities that you’ve made up words for.
Or the times someone has given you a well explained list of reasons why a card you posted is badly written/doesn’t work/is broken and you’re response is “great cope” and a bit of blathering about how the fact that you don’t play magic makes you understand it better than the designers who’ve been working on it for the past 30 years and made it the most popular game in the world.
Or your new schitck now of sticking brackets in the middle of sentences so you can look [not] smart.
… Oh, sorry, did you only want one example?
In linguistics, usage of language is judged according to 1) syntax, 2) semantics, and 3) pragmatics.
Syntax makes sure that we are doing basic sentence structure instead of saying jumbled words like “Walk cat basketball the constantly”. You are good with syntax.
Semantics makes sure that a syntactically correct sentence has discernible meaning. “Colorless green clouds sleep furiously” is a famous sentence that is syntactically perfect but that has no semantic meaning. You are generally good with semantics.
Pragmatics goes one step further and asks whether the language is accomplishing the intended function within the surrounding cultural and linguistic context. Pragmatics tells us not to call honeyed ham “sweetmeat” because sweetmeat is already another thing (a type of candy). Pragmatics tells us not to make a black reanimation card called habeus corpus (outside of a silver-bordered joke card), even though the literal meaning is “produce the body”, because the language has become intimately tied to its legal definition. pragmatics should have stopped the usage of Force Majeure for the same reason. Pragmatics is highly visible in determining whether computer codes allow programs to function as intended. Pragmatics govern what language is used in the description of abilities. You have shown little to no ability to communicate pragmatically (for this definition of pragmatics).
While pragmatics depends on context (such as who you are talking to), Violation of pragmatics is no less a violation of the English language than a grammar violation would be, whether you like it or not. Of course, that is just coming from someone who has studied linguistics. If you want to say that the field of linguistics is wrong, feel free. It would be entirely on brand for you at this point.
In fact, many many coherent points were made on all those subjects. They were explained thoroughly.
Fun Fact: Most of the Deus Ex Machina keywords come from types of Extra Sensory Perception (of which I am an adept performer).
Great cope describes attempts to make excuses, blindly refuse, or cheaply redirect from the point of interest.
Rosy, I'm afraid the reality of language is that there are no "legal definitions", but definitions are decided based on acceptance (of which slang and Urban Dictionary proves). Thus, language and definition is simply archaic at its worst.
Alright so do you know how to check your post history, because I know how to check your post history. And you never make any coherent points. Feel free to verify this on your own and show me a coherent point you've made before.
Can't I be new and capable of reading the posts you've chosen to make public, that do not have an expiry date?
What does it even mean to say "I've written many flacor texts about people like you"? Are you putting them on cards? What are people "like me"? Who is a beast and what light are they not seeing?
Again, your replies are just word salad, full of some New-Age buzzwords and terms that you probably saw a fake smart person using on a Nickelodeon cartoon. If you go back and finish that episode of CatDog, you will learn that the guy using those words was also a fraud.
Did you just claim to be able to use ESP? Lmao
So unprofessional.
We can't even begin to have this conversation obviously.
This will not be a childish argument. I am not doing your work for you.
Please check the post above yours here for an example of coherent points made.
Explained “thoroughly”? Debatable.
Explained “to point of reader comprehension”? Definitely not.
You repeatedly cope that we are not your intended argument and that you are writing to other people who read this forum, agree with you over everyone else who posts, and who miraculously improve their skills as a result thereof.
I ask you again. Is there any distinct proof that you have supporters? Not “that supporters may exist” but examples of specific people explicitly supporting your work and taking your side in this argument in a way that we can all observe?
Do you have any posting supporters on this forum? Have you seen definitive evidence of anyone looking at your threads and doing anything other than laughing at you or facepalming?
I say that because I can point to supporters. I can point to posts where people have appreciated my designs. Being able to do so should not be a giant hurdle.
Stop looking for desperate alibis.
There is fault on your part simply in that you cannot agree to disagree, but incessantly insist that I must agree.
You can't come into someone else's thread doing this. I have never done this in any else's thread—and I never would.
I set a good example to say my piece and then step out without any incessant arguments.
You're right, it is archaic at worst! Which means it's perfectly valid. Now, if it was archaic at best...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThe burden of proof lies upon the person making the assertion, not on the challenger. You are the one who asserted that people support your positions, but currently you have presented no evidence to support this claim in the face of all the threads where you are repeatedly told by the sum total of all those posting that your ideas, designs and/or use of language are wrong.
The Zenger trial litigated that they knew Zenger's press claims were libelous, but could the prosecution prove they were false?
Silencing the press in this way was an alibi for tyrants, the next step makes men slaves.
Andrew Hamilton, who represented Zenger, walked out of the courtroom victorious with cannons firing in his honor.
Zenger’s trial is unrelated.
Zenger’s was accused of libel, which did not mean printing FALSE information about a government at that time (18th century Germany). It meant publishing NEGATIVE news about the government, true or otherwise. Zenger was never even asked to prove that his statements were true because his crime was merely printing the article whether or not it was true.
His trial turned in his favor not because Zenger showed that the government had to prove their side but because the general populace in the jury agreed that government should not be protected from true stories about its failings and corruption.
This is a very different situation.
If I was to make scandalous accusations of that a politician ate babies (or something equally negative) and was taken to court for libel, “Prove that you have never eaten a baby” is not any form of argument. Unless someone’s entire life has been recorded or they have solid alibis for every hour of every single day, such a statement cannot be proven. In those cases, the person who made the original statement would be asked to provide their evidence for making the original claim, as such evidence is theoretically possible to provide.
If I was making the claim that a famous person was eating babies, it would be my job to show my evidence. I would not be able to play a reverse uno card and walk free unless the politician proves that they have never eaten a baby in their life.
If you make a statement that you have supporters, it is likewise your burden of proof to show that those people exist, not ours to show that they do not.
Mind you, this won't matter in other cases, such as Menacing.
The fact should stand that you set a bad example for posters with your ambiguous disrespect mongering and incessant harassment tailgating.
Even the question of if there are OTHER PEOPLE in the world besides yourselves should be ground enough to respect that. And not to question it.
There might be other people in the world that don't like my designs. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Likewise, it doesn't mean you're right.
You can never prove the points you all make on these matters because they're always biased and subjective. And they even neglect crucial factors for the sake of bias, such as the difference in domain influence between a sorcery speed spell and an instant speed spell. How can you even? This is a fundamental principal of an effect's power. If you don't know this, that's like trying to practice law or medicine without a degree. If you're going to neglect this, that's like malpractice, and the game (and its fundamental principals and dynamics) are being misrepresented (who would be contractually obligated to acknowledge these things).
You didn’t make the claim that that there MIGHT BE people who are fans of your design. That is a statement that neither side could meaningfully argue. If that is your statement, I will concede that there is a chance that you do and that there is a chance that you have no supporters.
You made the statement that there ARE people who are fans of your design. That is a provable statement and you have the burden of proof.
Do you have proof for your statement to show that you definitely have supporters? If not, the possibility opens up that you have no supporters.
I cannot prove you have no supporters. That is not my aim. If you wish to maintain that there is no possibility that you have zero supporters, however, that is a statement that needs to be defended.
And that is definite based on the thread views.
Nothing else needs to be proven. One should respect that there are other people in the world other than themselves and not think to disturb them with one's own devotion to dictatorship. That is exactly what you do when you enter my threads, and don't agree to disagree, but insist that I agree.
People like you are why slavery will always be a black eye upon civilization.