Author Topic: Fortresses (Read 2227 times)

Minister Polarius · « **on:** December 04, 2010, 10:50:55 PM »

I'm making the game-winning RA against Warrior and he's insisting that Fortresses have brigades. Can everyone please tell him how wrong he is so I can finally win?

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2010, 10:54:05 PM »

Polarius is correct.

Cpt.Jaeger · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2010, 10:54:52 PM »

i don't believe so, but there are good and evil fortresses

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2010, 10:57:36 PM »

He also says Damsel with a Ghost is Male.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2010, 10:59:59 PM »

they are good or evil yes but they are brigadeless

The Warrior · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:00:52 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 04, 2010, 10:57:36 PM

He also says Damsel with a Ghost is Male.

the fort part has been changed
but the REG's authority hasn't. damsel remains male according to the top document of redemption

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:07:29 PM »

I admire your sportsmanship in wasting my time with trying to pull a junk ruling (that's not even in the (outdated I may add) REG anymore), then obstinately insisting that if it's in the REG it's true even though vast chunks of it are obviously in error.

The Schaef · « **Reply #7 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:07:47 PM »

Can we not quadruple-post, please?

Fortresses have alignments but no brigades.

Damsel is female.

The Warrior · « **Reply #8 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:11:54 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 04, 2010, 11:07:29 PM

I admire your sportsmanship in wasting my time with trying to pull a junk ruling (that's not even in the (outdated I may add) REG anymore), then obstinately insisting that if it's in the REG it's true even though vast chunks of it are obviously in error.

Do I look All-Knowing? Before you call Junk Ruling maybe u should see HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE CORRECTED MYSELF! And Until the new REG comes out i see nothing saying the REG is not the ruling document! Thank you for insulting my intelligence.....NOT! Idiot......

Gabe · « **Reply #9 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:13:28 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on December 04, 2010, 11:07:47 PM

Can we not quadruple-post, please?

Fortresses have alignments but no brigades.

Damsel is female.

The Warrior · « **Reply #10 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:15:35 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on December 04, 2010, 11:13:28 PM

Quote from: The Schaef on December 04, 2010, 11:07:47 PM
Can we not quadruple-post, please?

Fortresses have alignments but no brigades.

Damsel is female.

if Damsel is male maybe someone should edit the REG.......

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #11 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:18:10 PM »

You were the one calling me an idiot for saying Damsel was male when I discovered it.

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:18:46 PM »

Quote from: The Warrior on December 04, 2010, 11:17:11 PM

What i Love (NOT) is that nobody cares about Pol Being Rude. really Impartial Administration.....

Warrior, you're out of control and making inappropriate comments. If I had moderator control of this part of the boards you'd already be warned.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #13 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:22:37 PM »

If I had administrator control on the boards, everyone who posts in a ruling question would have been permanently banned.

Gabe · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:30:05 PM »

Yes, you've found a mistake in the REG. The orginal entry for Damsel is the correct identifier.

Throwing a tantrum when you find a mistake does not improve things. Politely pointing out the problem and being a positive part of this community would go a long way towards making the points you're trying to make.

The Schaef · « **Reply #15 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:36:14 PM »

Pol started a thread asking someone to verify what is pretty obviously a correct observation by him in order to resolve an argument that was apparently going nowhere.

Not only did he never once call you a name but you made your sarcasm all the more obvious by announcing it, and the point of all this is that the matter could have been resolved a lot more quickly, simply and without the harsh words. Lashing out at people who volunteer their time to try and help maintain these boards when their time allows, doesn't really help either.

Continuing to point the figure at Daniel takes a lot of the wind out of your apology; you're still blaming someone else for your words.

The Warrior · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:40:38 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on December 04, 2010, 11:36:14 PM

Pol started a thread asking someone to verify what is pretty obviously a correct observation by him in order to resolve an argument that was apparently going nowhere.I Guess we can't tell tone of voice on the internet can we. but "So I can win" Suggests he is much better than me (Not saying hes,not its just Rude)

Not only did he never once call you a name but you made your sarcasm all the more obvious by announcing it, and the point of all this is that the matter could have been resolved a lot more quickly, simply and without the harsh words.I Do Not see my word as more obvious than pol's

Continuing to point the figure at Daniel takes a lot of the wind out of your apology; you're still blaming someone else for your words.Not to be rude but what apology?

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #17 on:** December 05, 2010, 12:59:46 AM »

The Schaef · « **Reply #18 on:** December 05, 2010, 01:07:15 AM »

Quote from: The Warrior on December 04, 2010, 11:40:38 PM

but "So I can win" Suggests he is much better than me (Not saying hes,not its just Rude)

What it suggested to me was that the outcome of the game depended on this ruling being made correctly.

Quote

I Do Not see my word as more obvious than pol's

So you don't think actually including the word "sarcasm" doesn't make it more obvious that you're being sarcastic.

Quote

Not to be rude but what apology?

Ok, I take it back. You said you were wrong to behave in this way but you didn't actually apologize. We can keep arguing about this if you really don't think the warning is going to motivate you to back off.

Cpt.Jaeger · « **Reply #19 on:** December 05, 2010, 01:12:50 AM »

erm, I obviously have not been part of this conversation, but since I do get myself into similar situations every once in awhile....

@Warrior- the questions regarding your game have been clearly answered and agreed on, right? I recommend taking this opportunity to recognize that you might

be upset (not wrong to be so) and thus may being saying things in ways that you wouldn't when you aren't upset (sometimes wrong). Regardless, the questions were answered, at this point you can be the bigger man and simply give in. You don't need to apologize or take back what you said (at least, if it were up to me), but just let it go. The path of anger only leads you to more anger.

The Warrior · « **Reply #20 on:** December 05, 2010, 11:15:30 AM »

Fear Leads To Anger,Anger Leads to Hate,Hate leads to Suffering!

yoda

The Warrior · « **Reply #21 on:** December 05, 2010, 11:18:20 AM »

Sorry

News:

Author Topic: Fortresses (Read 2227 times)

The Schaef

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

The Schaef

The Schaef