Kakureta Trap BoxXXX Artifact
Kakureta Trap Box enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
If a permanent you control would become the target of a spell your opponent's control, you may remove a charge counter from Kakureta Trap Box. If you do, change all targets of that spell to Kakureta Trap Box if able. If you can't, put that spell on the bottom of its owner's library.
Lore Card Look around you. It's very simple physics. Physical or spiritual; social-psychological; everything you see is an action, beckoning you to reaction. A presence or absence, that beckons you to resolve. A cause or an effect, which first beckons you towards positive or negative; then passive or aggressive. Projecting out towards another—or stirring inside—contained within yourself.
Kakureta Charm JackXXX Artifact Creature — Equipment Snake
Hexproof
Kakureta Charm Jack enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it. X can't be 0.
Remove a charge counter from Kakureta Charm Jack: Gain control of target spell or nonland permanent with a converted mana cost 2 or less. You may change the targets of that spell or untap that permanent. Active this ability only if Kakureta Charm Jack is attached to a creature and only once each turn.
Reconfigure 1
4/3
Lore Card
A snake once convinced a god to eat a poison apple. This one could probably get you to eat your heart out—then tell you that they were one in the same.
Besides a minor templating thing (It is "T, remove a counter" instead of "remove a counter, T"), and the fact that I believe Trap Box can be and ok card without the last bit of effect.
These are the more reasonable and interesting cards that I've see you post.
Kakureta Trap BoxXXX Artifact
Kakureta Trap Box enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
If you or a permanent you control would become the target of a spell your opponent's control, you may remove a charge counter from Kakureta Trap Box. If you do, change all the targets of that spell to Kakureta Trap Box if able. If you can't, exile that spell instead.
Kakureta Charm JackXXX Artifact
Kakureta Charm Jack enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
Remove a charge counter from Kakureta Charm Jack, : Gain control of target spell or permanent with a converted mana cost 2 or less. You may change the targets of that spell or untap that permanent.
Was thinking this could also be one of those artifact creature equipment—it would cost U more. Maybe hybrid red/blue.
So… three mana for a colorless stone rain that gives you their land permanently rather than destroying it… and you can pour more mana into it to repeat for several rounds.
Lands don't have mana costs. Cards have to have a mana cost in the corner (even if 0) when an effect references mana cost.
Wow, am I actually having to correct you guys on the rules?
At this point I am convinced you are a troll bot written to drive eyeballs to this dying forum. It is impossible for someone to be this consistently wrong unless they're doing it on purpose.
Lands have a converted mana cost (actually, mana value) of 0. This is derived from their mana cost, which is nonexistent. This is how the rules work.
You said "converted mana cost 2 or less," and lands, with a mana value of 0, indeed have a mana value 2 or less. You made a repeatable, colorless, strictly better Stone Rain. Congratulations.
There is a card ruling that states a card must have an actual mana cost. I was going by that for this, but since I don't remember exactly which card that is, I'll just add nonland.
Originally, Kakureta Trap Box only worked for spells that target permanents you control. It is intended to only target spells, and exclude abilities. I decided that it would probably be fine if I added "you or a permanent" you control. I'm still not really against it being that limited though.
There is a card ruling that states a card must have an actual mana cost. I was going by that for this, but since I don't remember exactly which card that is, I'll just add nonland.
Originally, Kakureta Trap Box only worked for spells that target permanents you control. It is intended to only target spells, and exclude abilities. I decided that it would probably be fine if I added "you or a permanent" you control. I'm still not really against it being that limited though.
Lands as well as almost all token (Copy tokens do have mana value)do have a mana value of 0. Remember that there is a slight difference between (Mana cost, of which only spells can have, and normally is calculated in the stack, and it differentiate between colored mana, generic mana and colorless mana) and mana value (Also known as converted mana cost before)which is the total amount of mana need to PLAY a card)
I honestly feel like they should have just bundled up the term mana cost, then used specifics to define the rest.
When referencing a spell on the stack, active mana cost, or something. When referencing specific color, a mana cost 2 red, or something
Mana value is the biggest mistake in MTG for a long time, coupled with mill, and changing the context of indestructible and unblockable, removing the force majeur they used to have with the unique descriptive composure that they used.
Mana value is so bland, and monotone, and polarizing it literally makes me sick. We used to have a vivid fantasy game at one time.
I honestly feel like they should have just bundled up the term mana cost, then used specifics to define the rest.
When referencing a spell on the stack, active mana cost, or something. When referencing specific color, a mana cost 2 red, or something
Mana value is the biggest mistake in MTG for a long time, coupled with mill, and changing the context of indestructible and unblockable, removing the force majeur they used to have with the unique descriptive composure that they used.
Mana value is so bland, and monotone, and polarizing it literally makes me sick. We used to have a vivid fantasy game at one time.
So, moving forwards, are you:
A. Going to use mana value vs. mana cost, mill, cannot be blocked (instead of unblockable), and the proper usage of indestructible as those are the real rules and real formatting that cards are actually used to create.
B. Use your own terms and language that you feel comfortable with, never clarify the changes in language that you use and your reasons for making the changes in your opening posts, and generally assume that nobody is reading your designs for the first time.
I honestly feel like they should have just bundled up the term mana cost, then used specifics to define the rest.
When referencing a spell on the stack, active mana cost, or something. When referencing specific color, a mana cost 2 red, or something
Mana value is the biggest mistake in MTG for a long time, coupled with mill, and changing the context of indestructible and unblockable, removing the force majeur they used to have with the unique descriptive composure that they used.
Mana value is so bland, and monotone, and polarizing it literally makes me sick. We used to have a vivid fantasy game at one time.
So, moving forwards, are you:
A. Going to use mana value vs. mana cost, mill, cannot be blocked (instead of unblockable), and the proper usage of indestructible as those are the real rules and real formatting that cards are actually used to create.
B. Use your own terms and language that you feel comfortable with, never clarify the changes in language that you use and your reasons for making the changes in your opening posts, and generally assume that nobody is reading your designs for the first time.
Repeating my previous question, as I think an answer would be quite telling.
The "changes in language" are simply the previous forms that should be well-familiarized here.
Mill was used and well familiarized way before the keyword was introduced but there you have a problem with it and for the others you use it as an excuse that it was better that way. There are reasons those things changed.
Mana Cost still exist for example they just changed the Converted mana cost to mana value to avoid confusion.
The Mana Cost of Dispellers Capule is W It's Mana Value is 1
The Mana Cost of Engineered Explosive is X It's Mana Value is 0 in any Zone Besides the Stack Where it is the Amount of mana Paid for it.
The Mana Cost of Everflowing Chalice is 0 It's mana Value is 0 (even If you Kicked it)
The Mana Cost of Darksteel Citadel is Nothing. Its Mana Value is 0.
Out of those 4 Cards only Everflowing Chalice can be searched for with Urza's Saga since it asks for mana cost and not mana value.
But all four can be search for by Artificer's Intuition since it asks for mana value instead of mana cost.
Indestructability barely changed in language due to it becoming an keyword ability rules wise (which it wasn'1t before).
(From is Indestructible to has Indestructible, it changed to reflect the change of it having the ability Indestructable like A creature with flying has Flying and not a creature with flying is flying)
"Unblockability" was never a keyword ability and to reflect that better they changed the text to every other thing with that kind of abilities (including Keyword ailities.
I know why you dislike that change in particular since wizards did with that what you always refuse to do. Standarization of rules text.
When they decided not to make it a keyword ability (like how they did with Indes) they used the standard wording for similar abilities.
Like all the Can't be blocked (except) by X.
By doing that they wanted (and IMO succeeded)to avoid people confusing it for a Keyword ability (which happened before the change for both Indes and Unblock)
These are the reasons they gave for the change. All for a purpose what is your purpose of changing them back.
If flavor and vague concepts of force majeur is all your reasoning then you fail as a game designer as ingame consitency is one of the core things of a well designed game.
I understand this, but they should have still combined the aspect into that single term, and then simply indexed the term mana cost by specifics.
Which they did before but the other way around which lead to the confusion problem which was the reason they changed it.
Before Single Term Mana cost and mana Value was indexed by specifics converted mana cost.
That is what we had and they expicitly made the change to remove/reduce the chance for confusion.
Undeniably, they changed it to cut corners and save text space.
If I was responsible for this, I think that converted mana cost would just become mana cost. Converted mana cost could have always been reduced to mana cost from the very beginning. Specifics of color or otherwise are easily added to this to describe specifics; eg. red mana cost.
The term [active mana cost] for modular cost like X, or for other modifications to mana cost to describe it as it currently exists where necessary. Maybe the term [printed mana cost] or [base mana cost] to describe what's printed on the mana box line. Once again with specifics of color; eg. colored mana symbols in its printed mana cost; colored mana symbols in its base mana cost.
I don't really like the term base, even for power/toughness. I think it would have been better, although lengthier, to use the term original.
Same could be said here also, if not to use the term 'printed'.
Undeniably, they changed it to cut corners and save text space.
If I was responsible for this, I think that converted mana cost would just become mana cost. Converted mana cost could have always been reduced to mana cost from the very beginning. Specifics of color or otherwise are easily added to this to describe specifics; eg. red mana cost.
The term [active mana cost] for modular cost like X, or for other modifications to mana cost to describe it as it currently exists where necessary. Maybe the term [printed mana cost] or [base mana cost] to describe what's printed on the mana box line. Once again with specifics of color; eg. colored mana symbols in its printed mana cost; colored mana symbols in its base mana cost.
I don't really like the term base, even for power/toughness. I think it would have been better, although lengthier, to use the term original.
Same could be said here also, if not to use the term 'printed'.
So:
Base Mana Value
Active Mana Value
Printed Mana Value
Colored Mana Value
Green Mana Value
just shortening the term by 1 letter is not, REVOLUTIONARY or something
Undeniably, they changed it to cut corners and save text space.
If I was responsible for this, I think that converted mana cost would just become mana cost. Converted mana cost could have always been reduced to mana cost from the very beginning. Specifics of color or otherwise are easily added to this to describe specifics; eg. red mana cost.
The term [active mana cost] for modular cost like X, or for other modifications to mana cost to describe it as it currently exists where necessary. Maybe the term [printed mana cost] or [base mana cost] to describe what's printed on the mana box line. Once again with specifics of color; eg. colored mana symbols in its printed mana cost; colored mana symbols in its base mana cost.
I don't really like the term base, even for power/toughness. I think it would have been better, although lengthier, to use the term original.
Same could be said here also, if not to use the term 'printed'.
Then you have the same problem they have run into with converted mana cost and mana cost, the similar name that would't solve the issue that would only dress the issue up in fancy clothes. Before we had 2 closely related but different things names similarly CMC and Mana Cost One cares only about the amount the other about the specifics. They then renamed them so its easier to distinguish between those two. You suggest a solution that doesnt even cover the problem now we still have distinct but closely related and similarly named things in Active MANA COST, printed MANA COST.
I also think that there is a fundamental disconnect regarding your understanding of game design.
You seem to believe in "principle-based game design". In your mind, as long as you follow certain game design philosophies properly, you are creating a good game. Having a good game with this philosophy has no direct relation to how many people like or understand the end result, though the general underlying assumption is that your game will be understandable and well-liked if you follow the game design philosophies.
We believe in "player-based game design". MTG, like most games, uses a lot of focus group (or A-B testing) before it makes big changes in the game. They gather a lot of feedback from a wide array of people regarding the possible options to see which is more liked and which is most understood. Then, they typically go with what the people want more.
You propose ideas and all of your feedback has been negative. In your philosophy, you did your job properly so the critics must therefore be in the wrong. In our philosophy, a good idea is defined by one that attracts positive feedback and your lack of positive feedback means that your idea is not good.
If you feel that an idea that would (by reports from a large groups of players) increase legibility and accessibility (or increased the perceived fun of play) while actively going against your design principles would be a bad thing, that just looks like you care about the "sanctity of the game" more than you care about the players.
So, no, because I had said that mana value was bland and monotone and unnecessary adaptation on something there was nothing wrong with and simply needed better indexing.
I believe in democracy, that the voice of people should be heard and rule at times. But certainly, the nature of talent ensures that republic officials are necessary as pioneers, innovators, and advisors. Simply not everyone is going to have that keen sense and ability. It would be ideal, but it's never been reality and may never be so ever. It's not the fact of a [principal based game], it's the fact of the republic authority understanding the importance of certain principals, and understanding that they are core-essential to the foundation, integrity, dignity, functionality, and fantasy of the game.
But certainly, the nature of talent ensures that republic officials are necessary as pioneers, innovators, and advisors. Simply not everyone is going to have that keen sense and ability. It would be ideal, but it's never been reality and may never be so ever.
In every single situation I can think of, the way that things work for pioneers/innovators/advisors goes like.
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 2: Because idea is good, people express their support for the idea.
Step 3: Because people support the idea, it is widely adopted and becomes the norm.
What you are doing is:
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 1.25: People do not express their support for the idea.
Step 1.5: Because the idea is built on common sense, I do not need support at this time to show that I am a good designer. Instead, I can claim to be a visionary who is ahead of the times and assume that step 2 and 3 will come later if people are rational and maintain my self-perception of myself as a visionary. I can even claim that a lot of people DO support me but simply do not express their views on this board. Nobody can prove that a silent majority doesn't support me so I am a genius.
Most of us only consider people to be good designers if they can at least reach step 2. If you believe you have reached step 2, you are delusional.
You're missing the fact that "people oppose the idea because it contradicts their sense of possession or control".
There are arguably selfish reasons afoot.
Especially when you can't form a logical argument, without perceptive error, or perceptive fallacy; and resort to reporting my posts for false infractions, to fabricate the legitimacy of your standing, and arguments, and authority.
The things you suggest are biased, subjective, and conditional. They are not true or pure. If they were, it would be plain to see, but it's not; and that's actually plain to see if you would consider this for a moment. I don't want to look like an ass. I make silly mistakes from time to time, like accidentally marking a sorcery an instant; and that's bad enough. However, what we don't see is anyone else admitting to anything; no matter how sound, unbiased, unconditional, and unsubjective the points of interest are against them. You'd rather something cruel and inhumane than admit you're wrong; or that a mistake was made. This belongs in Capenna, because this is a very dark, shameful police trope.
The things you suggest are biased, subjective, and conditional. They are not true or pure. If they were, it would be plain to see
Everyone but Reap: "Its fairly obvious that Reap's design has multiple issues based on facts and logic. Lets get them working or throw them out based on the intended function."
Reap: "But if you use my logic then there is nothing wrong. So obviously I'm right and since your logic is wrong you can't possibly prove otherwise."
Yes, it's plain to see! It's true and clear now! One side is far too biased, subjective, and conditional.
Artifact
Kakureta Trap Box enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
If a permanent you control would become the target of a spell your opponent's control, you may remove a charge counter from Kakureta Trap Box. If you do, change all targets of that spell to Kakureta Trap Box if able. If you can't, put that spell on the bottom of its owner's library.
Lore Card
Look around you. It's very simple physics. Physical or spiritual; social-psychological; everything you see is an action, beckoning you to reaction. A presence or absence, that beckons you to resolve. A cause or an effect, which first beckons you towards positive or negative; then passive or aggressive. Projecting out towards another—or stirring inside—contained within yourself.
Kakureta Charm Jack XXX
Artifact Creature — Equipment Snake
Hexproof
Kakureta Charm Jack enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it. X can't be 0.
Remove a charge counter from Kakureta Charm Jack: Gain control of target spell or nonland permanent with a converted mana cost 2 or less. You may change the targets of that spell or untap that permanent. Active this ability only if Kakureta Charm Jack is attached to a creature and only once each turn.
Reconfigure 1
4/3
Lore Card
A snake once convinced a god to eat a poison apple. This one could probably get you to eat your heart out—then tell you that they were one in the same.
These are the more reasonable and interesting cards that I've see you post.
So… three mana for a colorless stone rain that gives you their land permanently rather than destroying it… and you can pour more mana into it to repeat for several rounds.
Wow, am I actually having to correct you guys on the rules?
At this point I am convinced you are a troll bot written to drive eyeballs to this dying forum. It is impossible for someone to be this consistently wrong unless they're doing it on purpose.
Lands have a converted mana cost (actually, mana value) of 0. This is derived from their mana cost, which is nonexistent. This is how the rules work.
You said "converted mana cost 2 or less," and lands, with a mana value of 0, indeed have a mana value 2 or less. You made a repeatable, colorless, strictly better Stone Rain. Congratulations.
Originally, Kakureta Trap Box only worked for spells that target permanents you control. It is intended to only target spells, and exclude abilities. I decided that it would probably be fine if I added "you or a permanent" you control. I'm still not really against it being that limited though.
Lands as well as almost all token (Copy tokens do have mana value)do have a mana value of 0. Remember that there is a slight difference between (Mana cost, of which only spells can have, and normally is calculated in the stack, and it differentiate between colored mana, generic mana and colorless mana) and mana value (Also known as converted mana cost before)which is the total amount of mana need to PLAY a card)
When referencing a spell on the stack, active mana cost, or something. When referencing specific color, a mana cost 2 red, or something
Mana value is the biggest mistake in MTG for a long time, coupled with mill, and changing the context of indestructible and unblockable, removing the force majeur they used to have with the unique descriptive composure that they used.
Mana value is so bland, and monotone, and polarizing it literally makes me sick. We used to have a vivid fantasy game at one time.
So, moving forwards, are you:
A. Going to use mana value vs. mana cost, mill, cannot be blocked (instead of unblockable), and the proper usage of indestructible as those are the real rules and real formatting that cards are actually used to create.
B. Use your own terms and language that you feel comfortable with, never clarify the changes in language that you use and your reasons for making the changes in your opening posts, and generally assume that nobody is reading your designs for the first time.
But first strike and powerhouses can certainly head-to-head with that without it being evasive otherwise.
Awkward in this age of Menace abuse that a Hexproof would ever be considered a lesser issue.
Repeating my previous question, as I think an answer would be quite telling.
Only traumatize vaguely fits your descript, but it was elaborated on before in several posts prior.
I also have an edit for Kakureta Trap Box. It is too toxic as is, I've decided, and needs to be limited to just a permanent.
Would be cool if it had Silhouette (the one mana version of morph—that creates a face-down enchantment instead of a creature).
Mill was used and well familiarized way before the keyword was introduced but there you have a problem with it and for the others you use it as an excuse that it was better that way. There are reasons those things changed.
Mana Cost still exist for example they just changed the Converted mana cost to mana value to avoid confusion.
The Mana Cost of Dispellers Capule is W It's Mana Value is 1
The Mana Cost of Engineered Explosive is X It's Mana Value is 0 in any Zone Besides the Stack Where it is the Amount of mana Paid for it.
The Mana Cost of Everflowing Chalice is 0 It's mana Value is 0 (even If you Kicked it)
The Mana Cost of Darksteel Citadel is Nothing. Its Mana Value is 0.
Out of those 4 Cards only Everflowing Chalice can be searched for with Urza's Saga since it asks for mana cost and not mana value.
But all four can be search for by Artificer's Intuition since it asks for mana value instead of mana cost.
Indestructability barely changed in language due to it becoming an keyword ability rules wise (which it wasn'1t before).
(From is Indestructible to has Indestructible, it changed to reflect the change of it having the ability Indestructable like A creature with flying has Flying and not a creature with flying is flying)
"Unblockability" was never a keyword ability and to reflect that better they changed the text to every other thing with that kind of abilities (including Keyword ailities.
I know why you dislike that change in particular since wizards did with that what you always refuse to do. Standarization of rules text.
When they decided not to make it a keyword ability (like how they did with Indes) they used the standard wording for similar abilities.
Like all the Can't be blocked (except) by X.
By doing that they wanted (and IMO succeeded)to avoid people confusing it for a Keyword ability (which happened before the change for both Indes and Unblock)
These are the reasons they gave for the change. All for a purpose what is your purpose of changing them back.
If flavor and vague concepts of force majeur is all your reasoning then you fail as a game designer as ingame consitency is one of the core things of a well designed game.
Before Single Term Mana cost and mana Value was indexed by specifics converted mana cost.
That is what we had and they expicitly made the change to remove/reduce the chance for confusion.
What is your idea to get rid of that confusion?
If I was responsible for this, I think that converted mana cost would just become mana cost. Converted mana cost could have always been reduced to mana cost from the very beginning. Specifics of color or otherwise are easily added to this to describe specifics; eg. red mana cost.
The term [active mana cost] for modular cost like X, or for other modifications to mana cost to describe it as it currently exists where necessary. Maybe the term [printed mana cost] or [base mana cost] to describe what's printed on the mana box line. Once again with specifics of color; eg. colored mana symbols in its printed mana cost; colored mana symbols in its base mana cost.
I don't really like the term base, even for power/toughness. I think it would have been better, although lengthier, to use the term original.
Same could be said here also, if not to use the term 'printed'.
So:
Base Mana Value
Active Mana Value
Printed Mana Value
Colored Mana Value
Green Mana Value
just shortening the term by 1 letter is not, REVOLUTIONARY or something
Then you have the same problem they have run into with converted mana cost and mana cost, the similar name that would't solve the issue that would only dress the issue up in fancy clothes. Before we had 2 closely related but different things names similarly CMC and Mana Cost One cares only about the amount the other about the specifics. They then renamed them so its easier to distinguish between those two. You suggest a solution that doesnt even cover the problem now we still have distinct but closely related and similarly named things in Active MANA COST, printed MANA COST.
You seem to believe in "principle-based game design". In your mind, as long as you follow certain game design philosophies properly, you are creating a good game. Having a good game with this philosophy has no direct relation to how many people like or understand the end result, though the general underlying assumption is that your game will be understandable and well-liked if you follow the game design philosophies.
We believe in "player-based game design". MTG, like most games, uses a lot of focus group (or A-B testing) before it makes big changes in the game. They gather a lot of feedback from a wide array of people regarding the possible options to see which is more liked and which is most understood. Then, they typically go with what the people want more.
You propose ideas and all of your feedback has been negative. In your philosophy, you did your job properly so the critics must therefore be in the wrong. In our philosophy, a good idea is defined by one that attracts positive feedback and your lack of positive feedback means that your idea is not good.
If you feel that an idea that would (by reports from a large groups of players) increase legibility and accessibility (or increased the perceived fun of play) while actively going against your design principles would be a bad thing, that just looks like you care about the "sanctity of the game" more than you care about the players.
I believe in democracy, that the voice of people should be heard and rule at times. But certainly, the nature of talent ensures that republic officials are necessary as pioneers, innovators, and advisors. Simply not everyone is going to have that keen sense and ability. It would be ideal, but it's never been reality and may never be so ever. It's not the fact of a [principal based game], it's the fact of the republic authority understanding the importance of certain principals, and understanding that they are core-essential to the foundation, integrity, dignity, functionality, and fantasy of the game.
In every single situation I can think of, the way that things work for pioneers/innovators/advisors goes like.
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 2: Because idea is good, people express their support for the idea.
Step 3: Because people support the idea, it is widely adopted and becomes the norm.
What you are doing is:
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 1.25: People do not express their support for the idea.
Step 1.5: Because the idea is built on common sense, I do not need support at this time to show that I am a good designer. Instead, I can claim to be a visionary who is ahead of the times and assume that step 2 and 3 will come later if people are rational and maintain my self-perception of myself as a visionary. I can even claim that a lot of people DO support me but simply do not express their views on this board. Nobody can prove that a silent majority doesn't support me so I am a genius.
Most of us only consider people to be good designers if they can at least reach step 2. If you believe you have reached step 2, you are delusional.
There are arguably selfish reasons afoot.
Especially when you can't form a logical argument, without perceptive error, or perceptive fallacy; and resort to reporting my posts for false infractions, to fabricate the legitimacy of your standing, and arguments, and authority.
The things you suggest are biased, subjective, and conditional. They are not true or pure. If they were, it would be plain to see, but it's not; and that's actually plain to see if you would consider this for a moment. I don't want to look like an ass. I make silly mistakes from time to time, like accidentally marking a sorcery an instant; and that's bad enough. However, what we don't see is anyone else admitting to anything; no matter how sound, unbiased, unconditional, and unsubjective the points of interest are against them. You'd rather something cruel and inhumane than admit you're wrong; or that a mistake was made. This belongs in Capenna, because this is a very dark, shameful police trope.
Reap: "But if you use my logic then there is nothing wrong. So obviously I'm right and since your logic is wrong you can't possibly prove otherwise."
Yes, it's plain to see! It's true and clear now! One side is far too biased, subjective, and conditional.
You know, just for example.
So you like to fix things that are not broken because?