Quote from: Mr. GC;591198"A basket weaver is someone that goes on irrelevant tangents with little to no warning and who latches onto any idea that seems appealing without stopping to consider it or what it means at all."

Examples: Almost all the RPGSite population, much of the Den population, many others.

You know, because you needed some help getting back on subject.

So "basketweaver" has ceased to have the original definitions you offered and now is just anyone who disagrees with you. Gotcha.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591198"A basket weaver is someone that goes on irrelevant tangents with little to no warning and who latches onto any idea that seems appealing without stopping to consider it or what it means at all."

Examples: Almost all the RPGSite population, much of the Den population, many others.

You know, because you needed some help getting back on subject.

The ultimate expression of meta-irony.

Quote from: TristramEvans;591209So "basketweaver" has ceased to have the original definitions you offered and now is just anyone who disagrees with you. Gotcha.

No, basket weavers are many things. Dodging the point and objectivity have always numbered among them. This is just a different variation of their standard behavior.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591215No, basket weavers are many things.

...rendering any definitions meaningless. I get it, it just undermines any argument you might have had. "Basketweaver" is just your version of Pundit's "Swine" or that crazy Republican blogger's "Chuds".

Grown ups generally just call people we don't like assholes and then get on with our lives. Obsession isn't healthy.

BTW, still waiting for the "traps" in the aforementioned game systems...

Quote from: Mr. GC;591215No, basket weavers are many things. Dodging the point and objectivity have always numbered among them. This is just a different variation of their standard behavior.

What does 'objectivity' have to do with this?  It means considering facts dispassionately, which is usually seen as a good trait.  Are you saying 'basketweavers' are strong minded clear thinkers now?  Or, because you didn't capitalize 'objectivity', it can mean anything you want it to, right?

Quote from: StormBringer;591219What does 'objectivity' have to do with this?  It means considering facts dispassionately, which is usually seen as a good trait.  Are you saying 'basketweavers' are strong minded clear thinkers now?  Or, because you didn't capitalize 'objectivity', it can mean anything you want it to, right?

Yes, and that's precisely why dodging it is not regarded as a good trait.

As in "dodging the point and objectivity".

I know, reading is hard.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591230Yes, and that's precisely why dodging it is not regarded as a good trait.

As in "dodging the point and objectivity".

I know, reading is hard.

It appears writing is even harder.

"Dodging both the point and objectivity"

Because what your sentence actually says is:
'Dodging the point' and 'objectivity' have always numbered among them.

Conjunction Junction should have taught you that already.

Because what this thread really needed was more sperglord bullshit.

I think you got that rainman shit right but chose the wrong targets.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591233Because what this thread really needed was more sperglord bullshit. I think you got that rainman shit right but chose the wrong targets.

Oh, good, now you've just descended into pathetic NT prejudice.

Quote from: TristramEvans;591234Oh, good, now you've just descended into pathetic NT prejudice.

A wellspring of entertainment.  

'Objectivity' is the standard defence for people who haven't ventured out in the world very much.  While that can mean 'not leaving mom's basement', it also applies to people who don't engage with others in good faith.  Typically, they see conversation or interaction as a kind of asynchronous data exchange; I will wait until the other person is done transmitting, then I will begin transmitting.  At no point should the data streams be 'corrupted' by intermixing or re-consideration, however.  The data is pure and inviolable, and any attempt to question that is an error on the other person's part.

Quote from: StormBringer;591240'Objectivity' is the standard defence for people who haven't ventured out in the world very much.  While that can mean 'not leaving mom's basement', it also applies to people who don't engage with others in good faith.  Typically, they see conversation or interaction as a kind of asynchronous data exchange; I will wait until the other person is done transmitting, then I will begin transmitting.  At no point should the data streams be 'corrupted' by intermixing or re-consideration, however.  The data is pure and inviolable, and any attempt to question that is an error on the other person's part.

lol, sounds like several ex-girlfriends.

Quote from: StormBringer;591240A wellspring of entertainment.  

'Objectivity' is the standard defence for people who haven't ventured out in the world very much.  While that can mean 'not leaving mom's basement', it also applies to people who don't engage with others in good faith.  Typically, they see conversation or interaction as a kind of asynchronous data exchange; I will wait until the other person is done transmitting, then I will begin transmitting.  At no point should the data streams be 'corrupted' by intermixing or re-consideration, however.  The data is pure and inviolable, and any attempt to question that is an error on the other person's part.

"Objectivity is for socially maladaptive losers!"

No sorry, that's just more basket weaver bullshit. Can you at least start fucking up in a more interesting or original manner?

Here, let me even give you some ideas...

"Rogues are a good class, honest!"
"Monks are a good class, honest!"
"Fighters are a good class, honest!" (yes, as much as this is overdone, it's STILL less tiresome and nonsensical than what you are doing now)
"AC 25 at level 10 is a good number."
"30 damage a round at level 20 is a good number."
"Fireball is a good spell in 3.5, honest!"

Alternately, you could simply attempt to discuss facts, numbers, or anything concrete, at which point you will inevitably fuck it up.

Even better yet you could actually contribute to the thread but I believe in holding realistic standards, and it is not realistic to expect you to amount to anything other than a source of mild amusement.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591398Alternately, you could simply attempt to discuss facts, numbers, or anything concrete, at which point you will inevitably fuck it up.

You haven't yet, provided anything concrete about any other game than 3.5, and the little you have provided shows 3.5 as a shit piece of design. You have to try better.

Quote from: Imperator;591445You haven't yet, provided anything concrete about any other game than 3.5, and the little you have provided shows 3.5 as a shit piece of design. You have to try better.

Yes, tabletop games are poorly designed and 3.5, despite its many flaws is actually the best one out there. Not sure if that says something about it, those other games, or both.

As is though, if you wanted actual talent from designers or players with any degree of regularity you'd look elsewhere, as nowhere else will you find such animosity towards competence. Not a single other place.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591446Yes, tabletop games are poorly designed and 3.5, despite its many flaws is actually the best one out there. Not sure if that says something about it, those other games, or both.

You're not qualified to make that judgement, having no knowledge of other games.

Case in point: still waiting for the "traps" in any other game system besides D&D post-2nd Edition..

QuoteAs is though, if you wanted actual talent from designers or players with any degree of regularity you'd look elsewhere, as nowhere else will you find such animosity towards competence. Not a single other place.

So maybe you should find a new hobby?