Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:20 am

Maxus wrote:What I find pitiable is Zak S has been posting in this argument, pretty much constantly, for over twelve hours now.

Seriously, the largest gap in his posting for the past day was two hours.

Acrylic paint has to dry. It's easy to keep tabs on you while I work and listen to David Mitchell on youtube.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:21 am

Maxus wrote:What I find pitiable is Zak S has been posting in this argument, pretty much constantly, for over twelve hours now.

Seriously, the largest gap in his posting for the past day was two hours.

Coke bender?

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:26 am

wotmaniac wrote:
Maxus wrote:What I find pitiable is Zak S has been posting in this argument, pretty much constantly, for over twelve hours now.

Seriously, the largest gap in his posting for the past day was two hours.
Coke bender?

Nah, working on illustrations for China Mieville.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:40 am

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:45 am

My degree is in Psychology and my primary area of study was clinical narcissism and Frank's guess is correct, the Narcissistic personality traits exist before any career in performance is established because narcissism develops very young. A key point of the narcissistic mind is desire for lots of attention available when they seek it and performance serves as a good avenue for that. An interesting thing about them is that they are introverts naturally and view interacting with people as a mathematical equation. The very process of interacting with humans requires them to output tremendous effort and they want that to be paid back by a certain quota of admiration or love to make that socialization "worth it".

Frank's point is one I wanted made. That Zak's behavior is so extreme and unusual that it would be too easy to call him one thing or the other. His behavior certainly exhibits many traits of clinical narcissism but to qualify him on that evidence alone would be irresponsible. Still the most convincing piece of evidence to me is his use of formal debate terminology. A really interesting and little known trait of narcissists is to gain a passing familiarity with the jargon of some fields they consider "intellectual" and then present themselves as experts in those areas through frequent use of that jargon. That describes Zak's strange use of phrases like "if-then" and "false argument" extremely well and is the most compelling piece of evidence in my opinion. FUN FACT: In college I wrote a paper that I submitted with both the head of my Psych department and the Philosophy department where I asserted that Frederich Nietzsche was a clinical narcissist based in no small part on his adoption and use of psychological and medical jargon in Ecce Homo that he simultaneously ascribed great value to and knew little about. It's a really neat little symptom of the illness.

To be clear none of these are a smoking gun and I don't want to be seen characterizing them as such. But if I was the mental health worker doing Zak's initial interview Narcissism is certainly a suggestion I would make for the incoming psychologist to look in to.

As a fun thing for anyone who wants to test themselves here's an internet version of the sort of questionnaire you might give someone if narcissistic personality disorder was something you thought was a possibility. It's quite short.
http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm

Zak S, feel free to give it a try. At the very least it might interest you to see how the test feels to you and as I said it's very short. If you get a number that seems high then feel free to PM me about it even as just a laugh. I would assure you in this particular area you can be certain my response would be utterly genteel.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:52 am

I love that someone thinks disagreeing with the Gaming Den is evidence of clinical narcissism.

So, basically: nearly every single person in gaming is a clinical narcissist except a bunch of rules-lawyer trolls on one forum who call any non-training-wheels RPG "magical tea party". That's awesome science.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:03 am

Zak S wrote:I love that someone thinks disagreeing with the Gaming Den is clinical narcissism.

No one with qualifications is making any formal commitment to that. Very sensibly.

But even aside from that you are wrong. It's not just disagreeing with the Gaming den that qualifies you. Not by a long shot.

Rather ironically, people are saying your case is special.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:24 am

Maxus wrote:What I find pitiable is Zak S has been posting in this argument, pretty much constantly, for over twelve hours now.

Seriously, the largest gap in his posting for the past day was two hours.

Oh, it's worse than that -- he's got almost 150 consecutive post on the same topic.
Seems a bit obsessive.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:26 am

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:
Zak S wrote: ...drivel...
The weird thing is you're clearly trolling (I don't believe anyone can actually be as stupid as you are, I really don't), but since you talk about your blog and shit and use your real name this is pretty public. Your internet reputation actually means something to you and yet you're arguing the most ridiculous positions possible.

I am half believing, that "Zak S" the Blog poster and "Zak S" the Internet troll are two different People and the Internet troll tries to harm the blog poster (but apparently the blog is as insane as the Forum poster?)

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:27 am

I think this is as low as it can possibly get. At this point, Zak S is demanding the right to unilaterally decide what criticisms others are allowed to levy against him. That is very obviously arguing in bad faith, and it is impossible to imagine it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to set the conversation on fire and then declare himself a victor when everyone, predictably, walks away from his dishonest, self-important temper tantrum about how people can't argue things he doesn't want them to.

Zak S wrote:I love that someone thinks disagreeing with the Gaming Den is clinical narcissism.

There's a lot of assumptions in there that are kind of dumb. For example, virtually no one here agrees with silva and yet we don't say he's clinically narcissistic. And the Gaming Den is not a hivemind that thinks things. You're arguing with individuals; deanruel87, virgil, FrankTrollman, DSM, Kaelik, PhoneLobster, AncientHistory, whoever else I'm forgetting. You'll find plenty of disagreements between us, just not about whether or not you're an idiot.

No, people are talking about whether or not you're clinically narcissistic because you are genuinely so arrogant that you don't seem to recognize the plethora of fuckups you've made and seem to think people washing their hands of you is making concessions to your awesomeness. Now, I'm personally a little uncomfortable with that particular turn of the conversation. I think it'd be better to stop short of teling you you have narcissistic disorder and just tell you you're a narcissistic douche. The former is personal and none of our business to know or speculate on. The latter is painfully obvious, and absolutely our business to bitch about.

P.S. it's wildly inconsistent for someone who places such a heavy emphasis on acknowledging the validity of subjective experiences to deride a particular playstyle as "training-wheels RPG." Not that I particularly care, because your opinions are worth the nothing between jack and shit to me, but I want you to know that I caught that and it made me smile.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:28 am

Zak S wrote:I love that someone thinks disagreeing with the Gaming Den is evidence of clinical narcissism.

So, basically: nearly every single person in gaming is a clinical narcissist except a bunch of rules-lawyer trolls on one forum who call any non-training-wheels RPG "magical tea party". That's awesome science.

I would usually say that I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I mean there are huge arguments among Den members frequently enough to dispel that thought easily but I've seen people think that the Den is of one mind about everything before so that's not special. What IS special is that you are literally the only person to have been tagged with 'possible' clinical narcissism I have ever seen on this message board ever. Just like your "Internet Trolls aren't people!" rant before I have to applaud you for yet another hilarious achievement.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:46 am

Korwin wrote: I am half believing, that "Zak S" the Blog poster and "Zak S" the Internet troll are two different People and the Internet troll tries to harm the blog poster

Seems a bit extreme for that.

But that theory WOULD explain the picture he is using for an avatar here...

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:09 pm

Korwin wrote: I am half believing, that "Zak S" the Blog poster and "Zak S" the Internet troll are two different People and the Internet troll tries to harm the blog poster (but apparently the blog is as insane as the Forum poster?)

I'd really hope nobody is petty enough to stay up for 12 hours writing extremely long, meandering, and yet oddly consistent (but exceptionally bad) posts arguing on behalf of terrible rules just to hurt somebody's blog. It's not even that popular of a blog, he's not a C list celebrity or something, he's just some guy who blogs about his D&D game.

Oh and back to Zak S' argument about "there are swordfights in my game where people don't disarm each other so OBVIOUSLY my rule is not broken."

That's like saying people can pick Ganondorf in Brawl so obviously Metaknight isn't broken, or wizards don't start the wish economy the moment they can so obviously wish/planar binding/gate isn't broken. People not abusing your shitty rule != your rule not being shitty. Maybe they don't want to ruin the game by constantly disarming opponents and getting disarmed themselves. Since you play a modified 3.X/2e you should know a fighter without their magic weapon is practically worthless, so maybe your players don't want to ruin your game and are just being polite and not breaking it with your shitty rule?

If anyone ever really wants to win a fight against a character who relies on weapons in your game they will disarm them and continue doing so unless they can kill them immediately instead. It's just the best tactic with your "lol disarm is attack bonus vs dex" rule. The only real problem is dual wielders and quick drawers who are bristling with weapons, and the former is beaten by disarming them twice. In your game world every optimized swordmaster takes quickdraw, walks around with a bunch of fucking sheathes, and is a master of Iaijutsu because that is the only way they can win a swordfight.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:40 pm

Zak S wrote:
Ancient History wrote:I'm on the East Coast and I've been getting like six hours of sleep a night this week with my job and all, so I'm going to pack it in. Zak, if you want to keep playing Socrates we can continue on, just post your questions and I'll get to them sometime in the morning.
You mistake me: A Socratic question is so you can learn things. Your education is not the goal here. My goal is that I figure out what the fuck you're thinking. This is simple investigation.

The last question is above keep track of this page. The dorks will probably try their best to turn it into alphabet soup before you wake up.

The last question I saw was 9, which was answered. Haven't seen a 10 yet.

Also: China Mieville? Ugh. Money's money, I suppose.

Scrivener · Post by **Scrivener** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:48 pm

After reading this brilliant thread I've been thinking about the original "rule" and I think I know what it actually functions like.

To be clear I'm goon to go step by step through my understanding of the rule

not an actual quote wrote: 1. You do something nice and someone like you more (you walked my dog for me, have a +1 to charisma checks)

2. You cannot gain a benefit from the same nice thing more than once, or the bonus does not stack (you walked my dog again, go fuck yourself, or have a second +1 dog walking bonus to charisma checks)

3. These may or may not expire (you haven't walked my dog for 3 days, go fuck yourself)

4. You can't trade small favors for valuable things. (You walked my dog, you cannot have my house)

This is Zelda social system!
Link rolls into a town, people say "Hey Link, eat a dick, you can't have our ITEM!"

Link does shit jobs for everyone in town and acts like a courier, townspeople say "Hey Link, you've collected enough kindness points have ITEM."

Link returns to the town later townspeople say "Hey Link, eat a dick, you can't have our ITEM2!" Repeat!

This happens in dragon quest games, ni no kuni, and others. So I guess in a heavily railroaded setting, where people recite the same tidbit every time you talk to them, this is a functioning social currency system!

Also fun aside from this social system, it turns everyone into a whore! She won't put out? Give presents until your charisma bonus has her all over your junk! It really is like deBeers tag line "give her diamonds and she kinda has to."

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:14 pm

Zak S wrote:But that isn't true. What you actually do is come up with rules that are going to be cumbersome for a lot of people because they're so long and nitpicky. The cost of using the Much Better Rule rule ends up being higher than the cost of making something up could ever be.

No we don't. We frequently try to make short rules that aren't burdensome; but we also try to make sure there aren't abuses or unintended consequences and rewrite them.

Zak S wrote:D&D does not equal the D20 SRD. If dipshit doesn't know about autofails I'm not gonna go and dig up which book they come from. He can go find it.

Autofails don't happen on a 1 with Charisma checks if it's 2nd edition or earlier. Autofails don't happen at all with ability checks if it's 3rd edition or later.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:58 pm

Ancient History wrote:Tags, Zak.

Zak S. wrote:6. So do you agree to never ever reiterate the obvious-to-everyone idea that my group (like all others) is unrepresentative? Because it slows the conversation down.
What are you on about? I already said that your group is not representative of gaming groups in general.

10. This is simply asking whether you agree to a code of behavior going forward. It is a simple yes/no question: Do you agree to never ever reiterate the obvious-to-everyone idea that my group (like all others) is unrepresentative? Yes or no?

Zak S. wrote:7. Do you accept that a rule (no necessarily mine) could be intentionally meant for people who have a certain capability and another rule could be intentionally meant for people who do not have that capability?
I'm not sure of your exact meaning here, so I'll answer this two ways.

A rule can be written with one audience in mind, and can be written in such a way as to assume things about that audience that are not true for all audiences. For example, a rule for Traveller might have more complicated math in it than, say, Amber Diceless Roleplaying; and a rule aimed at introductory gamers might use simpler language and terminology than for more experienced gamers, like how Magic: the Gathering had the Basic sets.

A rule can also be written with the purpose of applying to certain characters with capabilities that other characters lack - certain feats in d20 for example, are based on class features or abilities normally restricted to a few classes/races/etc. Of course, that doesn't mean said rule/feat/whatever will always be applied only to that race/class/character, because any character that meets the prerequisites could have to deal with it.

The intent of a person writing a rule necessarily matters to the degree you appear to think it does; while it is nice to abide by the spirit of the rules, the whole concept of "rules-lawyering" in gaming (and, well, real life) is about strict adherence to the letter of the rules.

11. Let's use an example: Could you imagine the best possible rule for someone who can read would be different than the best possible rule on the same subject for someone who can't read? Or that the best possible rule for someone who is 12 would be different than the best possible rule on the same subject for someone who is 18-50?

Zak S. wrote:8. Do you accept that a rule designed for a low-capability GM could be perceived by one with a high-capability as containing more detail than would be optimal on the page?
The optimal detail of a rule is the amount necessary to fully express (and in some cases, illustrate) the rule. I've seen this taken to the point of parody in rare cases - Hackmaster 4th springs to mind - and many gamemasters are arrogant or not very good at game design, so yes I accept that some GMs could perceive a rule as having too much detail, though I don't personally think that's a major issue from a game design standpoint so long as the text of the rule is clear. Better too much detail than too little.

12. Since "The optimal detail of a rule is the amount necessary to fully express (and in some cases, illustrate) the rule." do you feel that every single player or GM is going to understand the rule at exactly the same point in the text and they are all going to need exactly the same number of examples ? Yes or no?

13. I suspect you are not saying a rule could never have too much detail, so at what point exactly do you know it has too much?

Zak S. wrote:9. Where is the line between "taste" and "not fitting your requirements of the group"? Can you describe it? Like someone described two swordsmen grappling as a bad outcome. I don't see that as a bad outcome. Is that a taste difference or mutually exclusive requirements?
As I said, I hold "requirements" to be pretty much physical - players, play area, character sheets, etc. Taste and style are based on the personalities in the group, which can be a mix of age, gender, maturity, experience, etc. A group of under-12s with someone's Dad acting as the Dungeonmaster is probably not going to lean the game heavily on the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but (local laws aside) that doesn't mean they're required to play He-Man the RPG or Pee-Wee Dungeons; by the same token a tight-knit group of Dr. Pepper-guzzling neckbeardy male grognards might have quite a lot of fun playing Princess: the Hopeful. There are groups that don't have compatible styles, and there are games that might not be suitable for all groups and styles of play - FATAL and Racial Holy War, for example, aren't suitable for pretty much anyone. Ever.

The grappling bit is a difference of taste driven by mechanics; in that specific instance the argument consists of preferred playstyle (two swordsmen get ready for an epic duel and immediately set to throwing aside the swords they've painfully mastered over years to pull each other's hair like little girls is just not everyone's cup of tea), driven by a mechanical issue - if you make disarming a swordsman too easy, then you invite this sort of scene in your game. It's been an issue in games like D&D3 and Exalted where a particular attack/charm is obviously and blatantly more effective than other attacks/charms and so tends to dominate play.

14. "two swordsmen get *ready for an epic duel* and immediately set to throwing aside the swords they've painfully mastered over years to Do you grasp that the desire for an "epic duel" is a taste issue?

15. Do you grasp that calling a round where someone grapples someone else as "pull each other's hair like little girls" is simply a rhetorical tactic meant to contrast the desired "epic duel" with another kind of fighting that the person writing it considers less desirable to have in a game than an all-swording swordfight?

16. Do you accept that different people have different expectations, aesthetically?

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:06 pm

Scrivener wrote: Also fun aside from this social system, it turns everyone into a whore! She won't put out? Give presents until your charisma bonus has her all over your junk! It really is like deBeers tag line "give her diamonds and she kinda has to."

You're assuming there's nobody else on the planet with competing claims on her time. You're assuming, literally, you're the last boy on earth.

And that she cares about diamonds--which is pretty much loading the question.

So that pretty much tells us all we need to know about you, Scrivener, you're either too stupid or too disingenuous for anything you say here to matter.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:17 pm

Just realized I'm deviating from the original point; which is that you failed the criteria.

PhoneLobster's Theory wrote:I mean the actual competency level to even BEGIN to run a game in that manner with even MARGINAL success requires someone with sufficient intelligence to actually honestly admit that fuck it, sometimes their spur of the moment rulings are not in fact fucking perfect.

I mean holy fuck man, the first step towards wisdom and all that.

Any GM who actually believes they make perfect rulings in that manner is an exceptionally incompetent one. So incompetent that I actually don't think you ARE that bad, if for no other reason than that level of stupidity being statistically unlikely to encounter in real life. You're just blowing far too hard on an internet forum and making a fool of yourself because you don't want to admit you are wrong and maybe even rather confused.

Next is your immediate response.

Zak S wrote:Let's test your theory, lobster.

Ask me for a rule.

His theory repeatedly states that you're claiming to make a perfect rule. Your challenge was to his theory. You did not make a perfect rule. You failed.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:25 pm

virgil wrote:
Zak S wrote:But that isn't true. What you actually do is come up with rules that are going to be cumbersome for a lot of people because they're so long and nitpicky. The cost of using the Much Better Rule rule ends up being higher than the cost of making something up could ever be.
No we don't. We frequently try to make short rules that aren't burdensome; but we also try to make sure there aren't abuses or unintended consequences and rewrite them.

"We here do things that are good instead of bad". Sure you do. Give me your rule for stuff burning.

Zak S wrote:D&D does not equal the D20 SRD. If dipshit doesn't know about autofails I'm not gonna go and dig up which book they come from. He can go find it.
Autofails don't happen on a 1 with Charisma checks if it's 2nd edition or earlier. Autofails don't happen at all with ability checks if it's 3rd edition or later.

Is there a point here? Are you suggesting we play R.A.W. ? LOL. I mean, seriously, I thought you were claiming to be a grown-up.

If I say "there's autofails when you roll the minimum on a d20 on an ability check" then you either:
[]Think that's the rule I use
or
[]Don't believe me and ask my players and GMs if there's autofails
…that's it. The argument ends. These are people who are alleging they have read my blog.

A) If goofus was asking me to write a rule incompatible with my own house rules then that shoulda been in the request.

B) If goofus didn't know I use house rules and is this far into this conversation, his ignorance is a good reason for him to suffer.

C) Am I allowed to make fun of someone ragging on me for not knowing those houserules? Yeah, if they didn't even ask before assuming I wrote a rule that involved a house rule I don't have.

Going "There's no autofail" when I refer to an autofail as if the obvious response isn't going to be "I use a house rule where there is, duh, and my rule assumes my other rules are in effect--otherwise it's totally useless to me" is just slowing down the conversation.

Edited to fix tags -fbmf

Scrivener · Post by **Scrivener** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:32 pm

Zak S wrote:
Scrivener wrote: Also fun aside from this social system, it turns everyone into a whore! She won't put out? Give presents until your charisma bonus has her all over your junk! It really is like deBeers tag line "give her diamonds and she kinda has to."
You're assuming there's nobody else on the planet with competing claims on her time. You're assuming, literally, you're the last boy on earth.

I don't see how that follows. Albert the adventurer and Franz the farmer want to get with Suzy. Franz does normal things like talk to Suzy, and be pleasant to be around, like a person dating someone. Albert gives Suzy a horse +1, takes out her trash +1, saves her village from a dragon +3, repeat until Albert has collected enough kindness coupons to exchange for sex.

Even if Franz was an Adonis built for Suzy, Albert could just earn enough bonuses to make him too charming to resist.

And that she cares about diamonds--which is pretty much loading the question.

Or that in a society where diamonds are valuable, and money is used to acquire goods and/or services, then someone who cares about any good and/or service would care about diamonds. Also if you didn't notice I was poking fun at the marketing campaigns that all but explicitly state that in exchange for valuable goods women will reward you with sex, which your system allows for.

So that pretty much tells us all we need to know about you, Scrivener, you're either too stupid or too disingenuous for anything you say here to matter.

Really? That seems harsh, especially since I'm the first person (other than you) in this thread to say your system would work in any way.

I do wonder how you feel about your system working well for Zelda style games, is that a good description of your games? Do you feel that I misunderstood any steps in your system? I'm not trying to say that a Zelda style would be inherently bad, I want to know if this is the behavior from NPCs that is intended by you and your system.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:43 pm

PhoneLobster's Theory wrote:I mean the actual competency level to even BEGIN to run a game in that manner with even MARGINAL success requires someone with sufficient intelligence to actually honestly admit that fuck it, sometimes their spur of the moment rulings are not in fact fucking perfect.

I mean holy fuck man, the first step towards wisdom and all that.

Any GM who actually believes they make perfect rulings in that manner is an exceptionally incompetent one. So incompetent that I actually don't think you ARE that bad, if for no other reason than that level of stupidity being statistically unlikely to encounter in real life. You're just blowing far too hard on an internet forum and making a fool of yourself because you don't want to admit you are wrong and maybe even rather confused.

His theory repeatedly states that you're claiming to make a perfect rule. Your challenge was to his theory. You did not make a perfect rule. You failed.

Oh, I'm sorry, you made a dumb assumption because you were too stupid to ask what theory I was talking about before assuming I did that.

If you read that paragraph you quoted then you'll see that nowhere in it does he type a statement proposing the theory "Zak can't make perfect rules" (which would be a theory I wouldn't argue with, "perfect rules" being an untestable idea). The only statements he made were about how someone should admit they can't make perfect rules--which are perfectly plausible things to say.

If those were your goal posts (i.e. a theory you yourself interpolated by reading between the lines of phonelobster's hyperbole) then I have to inform you that they were never and could never be where you thought they were. You really really should have asked "Zak, to what theory do you refer" first and saved yourself all this headache.)

Here is the theory to which I was referring, from lobster's previous comment where he actually isn't just rambling about his fantasy world:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54 ... &start=200

"Spontaneously generated precedent based rulings is an unstable and stupid way to do things that is in every way bad for your goal of "avoiding burdensome bad rules". "

That's a theory because that's testable because I can test (or at least gather a lot of data on) whether a rule is burdensome and bad for the group and campaign it's generated for.

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:45 pm

Zak S wrote:Give me your rule for stuff burning.

Nobody even needs to make a rule for burning stuff in 3.5 because it already includes rules for being on fire in the DMG and damaging objects with fire in the PHB. Object have hit points, take damage, and never take actions to extinguish themselves, so they take 1d6/2 damage per round less their hardness until their hit points are exhausted.

As for the stuff about auto-failing, people keep pointing it out because it's a sign your game is so heavily modified that your rules have no basis in the original system. You keep attempting to dodge criticism to your rule with "obvious" base assumptions that nobody else shares. I almost jumped in with everyone else earlier about the "max bonus is +10" bit because it's obviously not true in unmodified 3.5. There are at least two spells - jump and glibness that can give +30 to skill checks, and the bonus to Hide for being invisible is much larger than +10. Off the top of my head I know three examples where larger bonuses are given, so why should we have assumed there was a maximum bonus in your rule if you didn't say there was?

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:49 pm

Zak S wrote:"Spontaneously generated precedent based rulings is an unstable and stupid way to do things that is in every way bad for your goal of "avoiding burdensome bad rules".

We'll your rules got you into a months long argument with the Den, that seems pretty burdensome.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:02 pm

Lord Mistborn wrote:
Zak S wrote:"Spontaneously generated precedent based rulings is an unstable and stupid way to do things that is in every way bad for your goal of "avoiding burdensome bad rules".
We'll your rules got you into a months long argument with the Den, that seems pretty burdensome.

You apparently still don't understand Zak. This months-long argument is a feature, not a bug. If it wasn't, Zak would not have gone out of his way to deliberately fail to communicate his thoughts and ideas, choosing instead to be mysterious and then claim pages/hours/days later that "you should have asked".

EDIT: someone kindly unfuck your tags.