Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Zak S]

Current activity (the wall is up)
Possible activity (the wall is down in one of many directions)
Impossible Without Magic activity (the wall is in mid air)

Rewritten this is "activity the DM will allow, activity they won't, and pointless for this discussion".

Your system- Johnny does odd jobs for Billy until Billy agrees to murder his family this is bad, and makes for a bad rule

If Billy considers these "odd jobs" to be significant AND if murdering his family is a possible thing for Billy, I don't see how this is a bad outcome. a lot of horror stories have basically this structure--the child comes to value and trust the helpful otherworldly creature more than his parents.

And you said everyone wasn't a whore!

Just as the GM decides (totally legit) a monster is a fire elemental or what its strength score is, the GM decides if Billy is a "whore" (i.e. will render service of x type in exchange for mundane services) or not. And whether Billy is a cobbler or not. And what color Billy's shoes are. And whether Billy is a wizard or not. And….

And the GM decides either before the game starts or decides randomly. So it's not some dumb situation where the GM is influenced by what s/he wants to happen once the players announce their actions.

By your system some of these odd jobs could be paying for Billy's daughters school, then telling Billy to kill her. It's stupid and crazy. But let's assume you'll disallow that (more exceptions) if Johnny dusts and vacuums and acts as Billy's maid for long enough, Billy is going to murder his family.

That is an acceptable outcome if the "murder his family/daughter" is a thing Billy could ever be persuaded to do (like a wall is knock-overable) and if those jobs are things Billy consider significant. These actions make the PCs a trusted advisor/supplier of useful things and then they recommend a course of action that is extreme (modifier to check/high dc) but still within the realm of possibility.

Also why don't you recoil against this obviously horrible idea of killing your family but freak out when sex is mentioned?

Because experience has taught me that people who want to have the kind of conversation you wanted to have (which is not mere;ly "mentioning sex" it was creepier than that) always turn out to be disturbing lunatics.

I accept you may not be one of them, but I don't want to talk to you about what you think the "real world algorithm" of girls deciding to have sex with guys is. Is that ok? Can we not do that? Because deciding we must do that to evaluate a mechanic is creepy.

"Why does the PC have a strength score at all if he can't possibly lift a ghost?"

A PC with ghost touch gauntlets can lift a ghost. Or if the ghost is manifested physically, or ….

"Why does the PC track gold if he can't buy peace of mind?"

If it's for sale he could. Heck, next campaign I run there will be a drug called peace of mind, that's the best idea out of you all thread!

Why are we tracking it? It's useful in about a billion situations other than trying to lift a ghost.

No it isn't. Either the DM lets it happen, or the DM won't. How would you feel if I gave your character a +5 to hit, and I only let you use it against enemies where's you hit on a 2+?

I don't follow this argument, could you restate it? Your example is of a bonus that never applies whereas mine are about bonuses that sometimes or often apply.

[Supergirl]

Also, fun fact, saying you can whore out anyone in your crappy system isn't actually an insult, it's pointing out how spectacularly your system fails.

thank you Scrivener. i would like Zak to acknowledge this and apologize for insulting me and many others

[Zak S]

Or, maybe, just maybe,

3. You didn't actually address it.

Did you comb through and check? If I do comb through and cut and paste will you acknowledge that I found it and admit you were wrong or will you dodge?

If you say you'll acknowledge it, then I will take the time to find it. Otherwise it's just running a pointless errand.

Yes, but you don't get to be the judge of it. If two other members of the board agree that you addressed the issue of DM fiat clearly I will gladly admit that you are right and I am a horrific shit stain of a human being. If not I would like you to apologize for being an offensive and rude person to everyone insulted in this thread.

The question "will you acknowledge it when I find it?" that's a question for Gnorman--who made no accusation against me, merely suggested that it was a possibility I did a bad thing.

You, on the other hand, are much worse than him in this case: you made a false accusation--the disgusting accusation that I dodged a question about the mechanic. You're making an aggressive claim, you need to prove it.

[TheFlatline]

I can plug in the DC system expectations. If climbing a knotted rope is DC 5 and climbing a sheer wall is DC 30, then I know that climbing up the side of a house with handholds is going to be somewhere in between those two, probably mid-way or maybe slightly higher.

So: if you know +1 for a round is the least significant thing The King considers scary/helpful and +10 for lifetime (or your max in your system) is the MOST significant thing then you can calculate all rewards.

How ? Show me. Because there are at best 23 different numbers between DC 5 and DC 30, but even with your "max +10" houserule, there are still millions of numbers between "+1/1 round" and "+10/100 years". And unlike in the climb-rule, there are no examples AT ALL, so I am totally guessing what constitutes as least or most significant. Or what counts as compeding influence. Or if my definitions are the same as those of the GM. So I have the option of asking you a bucketload of question, thus bringing the game to a complete stop for at least a few minutes every time I want to interact with the system, or I will give my +3 magic-dagger as a gift to the king only to get nothing because you think he doesn't value the gift as anything significant.


So, again:
How is that "system" any different from you just not having a rule and making things up as you go along ? How is that different from a situation bonus to a charisma roll ?

It's worse than that actually. If I give an apple to a starving man and it saved his life I could easily hit the +10/100 year output. If that man had been pelted with apples earlier in the day I could easily trigger a flashback and get a negative modifier. If I give the apple to the king it may not matter at all, and it will almost certainly have an extremely short time span. If I give a man an apple after he was given an orchard of apples the day before and I don't know, my benefit will vary as well. If someone gives him a bushel of apples to sway his opinion to the contrary, my end result value changes *after* the fact. The truth is, I have *no clue* how my act will give me a return value.

A social currency system is hard, perhaps impossible, because of these very concepts. And that was the point. You're dealing with multi-variable math here, and you can't "solve" for anything until you're down to one variable: the result. Until then you can only say "the result is a factor of elements X, Y, and Z." And since only the DM knows what X, Y, and Z are, plus if there's any other variables, the solution is indistinguishable to DM Fiat. In fact, it probably would be faster and easier to just *go* with DM Fiat. In fact, repeated use of Zak's solution will almost certainly result in DM Fiat, as sooner or later the DM will inevitably get tired of doing mental multi-variable calculus for every single fucking NPC that has any significance and just start guesstimating it.

[Pixels]

Phonelobster specifically requested that the currency be transferable. The rule given did not include any methods of transferring it. No matter how "social currency" is interpreted in general, the rule given failed to meet the request.

If the target NPC believes the herald represents the PC with the deed/bonus, the herald has the deed/bonus for the purpose of talking to the target NPC.

The benefit of the deed/bonus has been "transferred" from PC to herald.

Whoa there. It is wise to sit down and think about how people will use your rules before you release them into the wild. For example, consider these two situations:

1. I have a reputation of generously feeding downtrodden and wayward souls. We think that necromancers might be kidnapping local hobos for use in dark magical experiments, but we need to go out and do some sleuthing to pinpoint the location of the cabal's hideout. My fellow party members have been seen all around the city with me and I instruct them to tell the hobos that they are asking questions on my behalf - do they gain my bonus to Gather Information checks when talking with the hobos? Do I keep my bonus while they do so, or do I lose the benefit when they use it?

2. DARK KING PHILLIPS is known across the land for all of the EVIL and BAD and TERRIBLE things he does to elves. A group of settlers wants the local village of elves off the sediment rich riverbanks so they can plant delicious delicious foodstuffs, and have hired our party to *cough* remove the problem. Can I pretend to be the herald of DARK KING PHILLIPS and gain his (quite large) bonus to intimidate the elves into moving? Does he lose his bonus when I do so?

[Zak S]

The truth is, I have *no clue* how my act will give me a return value.

Do you know how a totally random gift to a totally random person you did no research on will be received in real life? Are you like "I'm gonna give the guy getting out of that car a free World of Warcraft account! I don't know him and haven't asked anyone but I am sure it will make him like me more and make him give me his car"

Is this just the rules-lawyery "If some locks can't be picked with my lock pick skill THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN LOCKPICK SKILL!!!!" ?

In fact, repeated use of Zak's solution will almost certainly result in DM Fiat, as sooner or later the DM will inevitably get tired of doing mental multi-variable calculus for every single fucking NPC that has any significance and just start guesstimating it.

1. That's a testable prediction. Are you proposing to test it?
2. Calculus? Guesstimate? No--I'd roll it randomly if I didn't have a value.

[Scrivener]

You, on the other hand, are much worse than him in this case: you made a false accusation--the disgusting accusation that I dodged a question about the mechanic. You're making an aggressive claim, you need to prove it.

How exactly am I to prove a negative? If just gnorman agrees I'll apologize. If two members are hesitant about who is right I will apologize. I cannot find a quote that "fails to explain" because no such quote exists.

I will gladly change my forum picture to whatever you choose, apologize in whatever way you choose. If 2 members of this board (other than you) or gnorman feel that there is a possibility that you addressed the question sufficiently that I was without cause. Otherwise apologize, individually, to everyone you insulted in this thread (and there needs to be more effort than just "sorry").

Or will you choose to back down from your own challenge?

[Gnorman]

If you say you'll acknowledge it, then I will take the time to find it. Otherwise it's just running a pointless errand.

To be clear - are you finding evidence that you "addressed" it (as in, you spoke to the subject), or you "addressed" it (as in, you spoke to the subject and "solved" it). Because the two are very different.

EDIT: And, just for the record, I'm not directly accusing you of doing so. You said there were literally only two possibilities - I was positing a third.

[Zak S]

My fellow party members have been seen all around the city with me and I instruct them to tell the hobos that they are asking questions on my behalf - do they gain my bonus to Gather Information checks when talking with the hobos?

The hobos persuading people they are who they say they are (or aren't) are already covered in the social interaction rules.

Do I keep my bonus while they do so, or do I lose the benefit when they use it?

You both have it (assuming those they question have been done a service they recognize by you). Thanks for asking--that was a good question if you didn't already know. The definition of "transfer" in the original request in the OP implied this (I suspect that when you sent your herald to intimidate your enemy and he had your Intimidate bonus, if that enemy turned out to be lurking in your castle you wouldn't be like "DAMMIT I GAVE MY CHARISMA BONUS AWAY) so I interpreted the meaning of "transfer" to be that, since PhoneLobster already used the word that way.

2. DARK KING PHILLIPS is known across the land for all of the EVIL and BAD and TERRIBLE things he does to elves. A group of settlers wants the local village of elves off the sediment rich riverbanks so they can plant delicious delicious foodstuffs, and have hired our party to *cough* remove the problem. Can I pretend to be the herald of DARK KING PHILLIPS and gain his (quite large) bonus to intimidate the elves into moving? Does he lose his bonus when I do so?

You can pretend with successful normal everyday D&D social interaction checks (not sure but I believe y'all might call that Bluff) (and that's awesome and should happen) and he does not lose his bonus.

It is wise to sit down and thing about how people will use your rules before you release them into the wild.

For like the 12th time:

Phonelobster: "You can't make rulings! They'll bite you on the ass!"
Zak: "Ask me for a rule"
PL: (challenge)

So, no, I did not make a rule that could never be abused by anybody. I would never try to do that for free. Writing that kind of rule for free is….Gaming Den stuff.

I wrote a rule to be used by me and anybody who wanted to use the rule. So long as it doesn't bite me on the ass, my rule is doing its job.

[Zak S]

You, on the other hand, are much worse than him in this case: you made a false accusation--the disgusting accusation that I dodged a question about the mechanic. You're making an aggressive claim, you need to prove it.

How exactly am I to prove a negative?

Find the first time the question you say I dodged was raised in the thread--link it. Then summarize every comment by me after that with page numbers (should be easy, since your claim requires that you've already read all the way through my comments to check if it's been addressed). Then we check your work.

A lot of work, I know, but you made an extreme and weird claim: I do a lot of things here in this thread, and a lot of them are mean--but I do not dodge questions about the rule I wrote and like. I am here to explain shit. It would be counter to my purpose to not explain shit. Even if I made the worst rule in the world and am completely deluded--it wouldn't aid my own deluded purpose to dodge a question about it that I have an easy answer for.

I suspect that question was raised many times and you didn't notice my response because it was in reply to a different person who asked it than the one you assumed I'd respond to.

[Scrivener]

Zak S's challenge:

The first claim that your rule fails against DM fiat, in the broadest sense of the accusation is:

[Your rule] requires a good amount of adjudication even when it works

Every post made by Zak S in this thread summed up

Nuh-uh!

I'm being a little unfair, but this is the first time I have been unfair to you. If anyone would like to find fault in my summation let me know.

EDIT- come to think of it, I did not make a wierd and extreme accusations, the exact accusation I made is the point if this thread.

[Zak S]

Zak S's challenge:

The first claim that your rule fails against DM fiat, in the broadest sense of the accusation is:

[Your rule] requires a good amount of adjudication even when it works

Every post made by Zak S in this thread summed up

Nuh-uh!

I'm being a little unfair, but this is the first time I have been unfair to you. If anyone would like to find fault in my summation let me know.

EDIT- come to think of it, I did not make a wierd and extreme accusations, the exact accusation I made is the point if this thread.

No no no. The accusation "Your rule requires a good amount of adjudication even when it works" is not an accusation I'd deny. That's like accusing my rule of being written with words in English or being a rule for D&D.

Your lie/negligent mistake was that I never responded to this whole other question:

"why his rules isn't just DM fiat with needless numbers time and again. "

That's a different claim.

Requiring " a good amount of DM adjudication" is cool and lots of good rules do that.

Saying "Why it isn't just DM fiat with needless numbers" attaches bullshit
1. It is no different than GM fiat (of course it is, the numbers precede the desire on the PC's part to test them or are adjudicated by dice)
and
2. the numbers are "needless" (of course they aren't--you want your cha modifier so you can make the test)

Do you see that?

[Scrivener]

I anticipated your strategy of claiming a broader question encompassed mine, but let's let others be the judge.

I'm still willing to admit I'm wrong if 2 people think you might be right, even with my halfassed effort. Should be a slam dunk for you.

It is worth mentioning that at this point either everyone else is wrong, lieing to spite you, or just want you to be sad or you are wrong. Which sounds more likely?

[Kaelik]

A lot of work, I know, but you made an extreme and weird claim: I do a lot of things here in this thread, and a lot of them are mean--but I do not dodge questions about the rule I wrote and like.

Absolutely bullshit. He is accusing you of something you have already done several fucking times. He is alleging that you fail to address criticisms of your rule. I have presented numerous criticisms of your rule that have all been ignored except one. You have therefore empirically dodged criticisms of your rule.

The accusation that you also dodged other people's criticism in that light is not extreme or weird (hell, it wouldn't even be weird if we couldn't point to several obvious examples). It is clearly something you have done many times in this thread, therefore the accusation that you did it to some other person is eminently plausible, and because of the nature of how easy it would be for you to link one post the burden clearly falls on you.

Claiming someone should go back and catalog and summarize literally hundreds of posts by you (Even though you throw a shit fit every time someone summarizing anything you said) is just you arguing in bad faith.

[Zak S]

It is worth mentioning that at this point either everyone else is wrong, lieing to spite you, or just want you to be sad or you are wrong. Which sounds more likely?

Again: if you want to vote on who is right, then there's a lot of people not on the gaming den who we can ask, many of whom have aready been quoted by me on the forum saying y'all are wrong. "The Gaming Den disagrees with you" is not a good argument--Entire Forum A disagrees with Entire Forum B on many issues.[/i]

[Supergirl]

is there a reason why you are not addressing my grievance zak?

[fectin]

I agree with the notes on currency, but adding them to the definition says e.g. that Weimar Republic Deutschmarks aren't currency.

Okay. "Social." Here are some high level characteristics:
- social includes everyone/thing with a charisma score. However,
- non-sentient critters do not need to accumulate or spend this stuff.
- the currency operates as a resource, so "buying" things with it requires negotiation as though buying with regular money
- minimize apple stacking
- generation methods
- extensible
- may require some larger social system (if so, sketch it)
- here are some things you should be able to buy:
- short term assistance
- loans of magic items
- Social status
...plus whatever else you can convince someone to trade for it.

This list is a lot looser and more speculative than the last one, so please feel free to rip it apart. I consider this requirements generation, not design work, so there is really no pride at this point.

[TheFlatline]

The truth is, I have *no clue* how my act will give me a return value.

Do you know how a totally random gift to a totally random person you did no research on will be received in real life? Are you like "I'm gonna give the guy getting out of that car a free World of Warcraft account! I don't know him and haven't asked anyone but I am sure it will make him like me more and make him give me his car"

Is this just the rules-lawyery "If some locks can't be picked with my lock pick skill THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN LOCKPICK SKILL!!!!" ?

In fact, repeated use of Zak's solution will almost certainly result in DM Fiat, as sooner or later the DM will inevitably get tired of doing mental multi-variable calculus for every single fucking NPC that has any significance and just start guesstimating it.

1. That's a testable prediction. Are you proposing to test it?
2. Calculus? Guesstimate? No--I'd roll it randomly if I didn't have a value.

Well, aside from the player/character separation of knowledge that is intrinsic to every RPG in existence... generally people don't go around trying to extract favors from other people using a convoluted barter system. That usually happens at a higher level and is basically negotiation which is absolutely not covered by the proposed solution. In day to day life it's a symptom of Narcissism.

Your own arguments about how you don't know how something is going to resolve illustrate how flawed the underlying concept of your solution actually is, because it fails utterly the common-sense test. So thank you for illustrating yet another way you failed the challenge.

As far as your two points...

1. It's literally untestable by anyone but you. You've already stated as much because the majority of your solution resides solely within your head. But if you want to implement your "solution" for the next, say, 5 years and journal down every single social interaction and if you go through your "system" every single time or if you abridge it, then please go ahead. We'll discuss this in 5 years.
2. Wow. Seriously? I'd actually prefer DM Fiat in this situation. At least in that case a mind at least tangentially connected to reality will be washing things through a common sense filter. I'm not arguing that DM Fiat and MTP is a *bad* thing, just that your system isn't an improvement on those options, which as has been stated repeatedly is a game we learn to play at 5 years old.

[Zak S]

The truth is, I have *no clue* how my act will give me a return value.

Do you know how a totally random gift to a totally random person you did no research on will be received in real life? Are you like "I'm gonna give the guy getting out of that car a free World of Warcraft account! I don't know him and haven't asked anyone but I am sure it will make him like me more and make him give me his car"

Is this just the rules-lawyery "If some locks can't be picked with my lock pick skill THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN LOCKPICK SKILL!!!!" ?

In fact, repeated use of Zak's solution will almost certainly result in DM Fiat, as sooner or later the DM will inevitably get tired of doing mental multi-variable calculus for every single fucking NPC that has any significance and just start guesstimating it.

1. That's a testable prediction. Are you proposing to test it?
2. Calculus? Guesstimate? No--I'd roll it randomly if I didn't have a value.

Well, aside from the player/character separation of knowledge that is intrinsic to every RPG in existence... generally people don't go around trying to extract favors from other people using a convoluted barter system. That usually happens at a higher level and is basically negotiation which is absolutely not covered by the proposed solution. In day to day life it's a symptom of Narcissism.

Your own arguments about how you don't know how something is going to resolve illustrate how flawed the underlying concept of your solution actually is, because it fails utterly the common-sense test. So thank you for illustrating yet another way you failed the challenge.

What does that have to do with the example or anything?

Your problem is you don't know how much value an apple has for a given NPC--that's a problem that the PCs should have until they gather info on that NPC.

Just like they don't know what's behind the next door unless they investigate.


As far as your two points…

1. It's literally untestable by anyone but you. You've already stated as much because the majority of your solution resides solely within your head. But if you want to implement your "solution" for the next, say, 5 years and journal down every single social interaction and if you go through your "system" every single time or if you abridge it, then please go ahead. We'll discuss this in 5 years.

No, what you'd do is, when the campaign ends (or any time before) ask me or the players questions or investigate the documents of the game. You are making the claim there's a problem.

Or that of anyone else using the system.

2. Wow. Seriously? I'd actually prefer DM Fiat in this situation. At least in that case a mind at least tangentially connected to reality will be washing things through a common sense filter.

If you don't have any prior established reason to suspect an NPC has a given strength score, you roll 3d6. 3d6 plus a bonus if they're a half-orc.
If you don't have any prior established basis to establish what other NPCs have a claim on a given target's favors, you randomize across the possible range and roll. If you do have a pre-established basis (like you have established the NPC a busy king or administrator) you randomize across a basis with a higher range.

Again super obviously: if I had been asked for a system that was more than a minute's worth of typing long, there'd be examples of the kinds of ranges for different kinds of characters. Like a petty king would likely have several intimidation claims on him of various sizes from his neighbors.

[Zak S]

If you say you'll acknowledge it, then I will take the time to find it. Otherwise it's just running a pointless errand.

To be clear - are you finding evidence that you "addressed" it (as in, you spoke to the subject), or you "addressed" it (as in, you spoke to the subject and "solved" it). Because the two are very different.

EDIT: And, just for the record, I'm not directly accusing you of doing so. You said there were literally only two possibilities - I was positing a third.

I understand and appreciate your attempt to clarify.

I am claiming I addressed it in a way which:

-To someone who agrees with me and possesses only the information I have access to would seem like I solved it
and
-To a skeptic would be missing some important point unknown to me until they express it

(as is always the case when 2 parties have honestly not yet come to agreement in a reasonable argument)

The thing for the skeptic to do is to then not claim I "haven't addressed it" to all and sundry like an accusation and also not to re-ask the same question (if it's possible to reframe what they're saying in any way) but to ask a question or make a point based on my new answer that encompasses both that answer and their skepticism.

Wrong:
I have a pie
No you don't
It's here in my fridge and can provide photos
You haven't addressed my point about how you don't have pie

Wrong
I have pie
No you don't have pie
It's here in my fridge and can provide photos
No you don't have pie

Right
I have pie
No you don't
It's here in my fridge and can provide photos
Those photos don't prove you have pie because (and then a reason)

[Scrivener]

I'm done.

I tried abiding by Zak S's rules, in not assuming anything, not attacking or insulting him even though he began by attacking me, assuming his rule could work in some circumstance, and accepting the challenge he issued, I even allowed for a ridiculously easy standard to be met (two neutral parties to have doubts if I was right).

Zak S has tried to change what the original challenge was about more than once, refused to address issues, insult others with zero provocation, attempted to entrap someone by having them agree to statements as opposed to being honest and laying out his reasoning, and now not only is he backing down from his own challenge but he is trying to change the goalposts he set.

Zak S is a hypocrite and a coward.

There is no use in continuing any discussion until he demonstrates any proof that he will argue in good faith.

[Zak S]

I'm done.

I tried abiding by Zak S's rules, in not assuming anything, not attacking or insulting him

"Your rule makes everyone a whore"?

even though he began by attacking me,

You said that--why woudn't I attack you?

I even allowed for a ridiculously easy standard to be met (two neutral parties to have doubts if I was right).

Incorrect: 2 members of the opposition are not neutral

Zak S has tried to change what the original challenge was about more than once,

Not once.

PhoneLobster: "If you make a ruling your game it'll bit you on the ass"
Zak: "Ask me for a rule"
PhonelLobster: (request in the OP)

refused to address issues

Quote one time I did that.

insult others with zero provocation,

"Your rule makes everyone a whore"?

attempted to entrap someone by having them agree to statements as opposed to being honest and laying out his reasoning,

Where The Fuck Is That?

and now not only is he backing down from his own challenge but he is trying to change the goalposts he set.

Where The Fuck Is That?

Zak S is a hypocrite and a coward.

Then:
1. What principle do I claim but not hold to (support with quotes)
2. What am I afraid of? (Support with facts)

There is no use in continuing any discussion until he demonstrates any proof that he will argue in good faith.

What would constitute proof? Going "Oh wait I was wrong about everything"?

"Good faith" does not mean "I agree with everything you said despite the fact that when I as you honest questions about it you don't answer" like…

"Why does the PC have a strength score at all if he can't possibly lift a ghost?"

A PC with ghost touch gauntlets can lift a ghost. Or if the ghost is manifested physically, or ….

"Why does the PC track gold if he can't buy peace of mind?"

If it's for sale he could. Heck, next campaign I run there will be a drug called peace of mind, that's the best idea out of you all thread!

Why are we tracking it? It's useful in about a billion situations other than trying to lift a ghost.

No it isn't. Either the DM lets it happen, or the DM won't. How would you feel if I gave your character a +5 to hit, and I only let you use it against enemies where's you hit on a 2+?

I don't follow this argument, could you restate it? Your example is of a bonus that never applies whereas mine are about bonuses that sometimes or often apply.

So fuck off with that.

[Kaelik]

(as is always the case when 2 parties have honestly not yet come to agreement in a reasonable argument)

Wrong. That isn't how it works when one of those parties is a jagoff.

Hint: You are the Jagoff.

attempted to entrap someone by having them agree to statements as opposed to being honest and laying out his reasoning,

Where The Fuck Is That?

Do you honestly not see how your entire stupid bullshit series of leading questions where we all saw where you were trying to go doesn't count as bad faith? I mean, that is literally the fucking tactic that they teach to evangelical preachers going to college campuses to prey on kids.

But whenever you tried the stupid bait and switch where you hide the premises to your logic by slightly rewording something or being intentionally vague AH called you on it, so you went 60+ questions without falling for your fucking bad faith bullshit evangelical switch tactics.

[TheFlatline]

Yeah I pretty much quit. At this point Zak is splitting split hairs to argue for what I can only assume is the sake of arguing.

He's already admitted that his "solution" only works when he's running it because it's mostly in his head and that he only would imagine applying it to his own group that he runs and that it shouldn't be held up to any other standard because reasons (I guess it's because his group is the only one that ever matters.)

He's even admitted repeatedly he doesn't know fuck-all about D&D rules and just kind of wings it anyway.

He claims that means he made a fantastic "solution". Every time I reply the ripple on my "give a fuck" meter gets lower and lower. It's basically non-existent now. Zak's going back on ignore because he reminds me of the absolute worst aspects of my ex: moving goalposts, the Gish Gallop (of which Zak is an excellent example), changing the subject, circular logic, and splitting split hairs.

If I wanted this in my life I could go back to my ex and at least have really fantastic sex to show for that kind of headache.

[Wiseman]

So is Zak S like a Shadzar 2.0?