MTG Salvation

No, the reason I did was because
a) I did not realize the first point was infracted for trolling. I thought it was infracted for spamming, not trolling. It did not even begin to dawn on me that the first one was considered a troll, so I added more content... To make it unspammy. Regardless, neither of them are trolling/flaming. Provocing discussion is not trolling, I was not attempting to get flamed, I was stating my opinion, and if anyone wanted to argue with me, I would have been more than willing to engage in that argumentation.

b) I posted in his mod help desk.

Bears, the whole point of the post was to make my opinion known. I made a comment, posted reasoning, and then made a conclusion. It was an arguemnt. As I have already stated, people were perfectly capable and encouraged to argue back. I didn't say "LOL U R ALL GAI NOOBS FOR PLAYING THIS DECK." I said "This deck is not competitive, and these are the reasons I think that."

There is a huge difference. The first is an insult, the second is an argument.

I did state evidence. I has not performed well in any significant tournaments. If an arch-type is bad, theres really nothing that can be said as to how it can be better. Really, all you can do is point out that it is bad, and cite evidence. This is what I did.

The first infraction was stupid as well.

That's wrong as well. The first one was an INFRACTION, not a warning. And I made the second post before I recieved the first infraction.

Quote from Danny

It was trolling worthy of an infraction. There was no point in posting it. You don't think the deck is good, ignore the thread, or better, describe how it can be improved.

So wait. Let me get this straight. The purpose of threads is just for people with positive opinions to post that they think something is good? What is the point of asking a question, then, if all you are going to get is positive responses? A question invites me to respond in any way that I think is actually answering the question. or so I thought...I guess I'm wrong.

PMed opponent.

I disagree. You can tell by the theory positions people take what side they're on some times. SInce people may want to legitimize something they might want to do as scum, theory positions which may make it easier to play as scum might be espoused more by scum.

*sigh*

ZeDork: I would stop discussing mafia theory, if people did not keep attacking the theory points I bring up.

Um... Your argument goes like this.

A) Claim that something is not a legitimate strategy.
b) Discussion about why lurking is hard for the town to deal with that does not at all warrant your original claim.
c) Then you conclude by saying why LAL is good...

You need to go back to argument101. I'll help you. An argument consists of three things:

1) a claim. You have that. Kudos.
2) a warrant. Nope, I'm not seeing how your babble about how lurking is hard to deal with warrants your point.
3) an impact. Your impace is there, but it's not related to the claim at all...

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=1992716&postcount=15

Go ahead! BAN ME FOR GIVING MY OPINION ON A DECK, backing it up with relevant fact, and then making a conclusion that was relevent to the thread. GO AHEAD.

I am SICK. And ****ING tired of the BULL**** Moderation on this site. ABSOLUTE bull****. I will save you the trouble of banning me. I'm done.

I will finish out the two mafia games I am in, which was the REASON I came to the site in the first place, and then I will leave. GOOD ****ING RIDANCE.

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=1992716&postcount=15


... WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH THE MODERATION OF THIS FORUM.

That's not how I mod. Lurking is a legitimate strategy. If a lurking player picks up his prod, I am not going to say anything about it, and I am going to let him keep playing the game.

You don't like me wuffles? I like you.

Be less of a virgin.