I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.
You have not interpreted it that way. You have instead made up something that is directly contradicted by the text. You do this in a lot of rules threads just to start drama with people who are correct. I'm not sure if you're trolling or earnestly incorrect.
I interpreted it that way. Don't tell me what I did or didn't do. Disagreeing with people is not starting drama, and you're not the arbiter of which positions are correct.
I'll tell you exactly what you didn't do; you didn't
interpret it. An interpretation doesn't contradict the text. Instead, what you said doesn't line up with what is in the book, and I provided the quote proving so. Your misunderstanding about the text preventing what you wrote from being an interpretation.
Disagreeing with people is not inherently starting drama, you're correct about that. But like, separate from that point, you'd agree you do start drama in threads, right?
Also, as far as "not being the arbiter", I mean, anyone is the arbiter of stuff when they are correct. Like me in this case. I can definitely judge a position incorrect if it doesn't line up with the text. What we can't do is come to a conclusion about which of the "subtract the constant and add the new die" or the "roll everything each time" position is correct, based on the text. That was the premise of the blogpost. Within that scenario, I'd generally argue for the progressive thing instead of the reroll. I'd say something like, the reroll itself would be notable enough to include in the text. Or, the reroll isn't obvious enough to count as implication. I'd point out that you can reach the conclusion in the example by a method wherein you add dice and subtract constants, and that this is probably what was being done, as the charts already have other things that don't stick around at each level.
But for all that, the new hypothesis isn't contradicted by the text; it's a valid interpretation, even if I don't think it's the best one.
Something that does contradict the text, however, isn't an interpretation, it's a misunderstanding.