Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Satan is no longer OUR king but he is king over the unsaved. Do we have to go through basic doctrines now?

I don't know; do we?  That seems like a lot of work to make a demon equivalent to a king.

Since when does "king" mean "king over me." The king of england can tell me to do something and I don't have to listen.

So when you're not in England, you are not subject to the laws of England?  I would be interested to see what happens when you go over there and drive on the right side of the road.  Since you don't have to do anything they say in their own country.

Putting aside the hidden agenda thing, you did indicate in that quote that you thought people who did not see it your way must have ulterior motives, such as wanting to fit something into their deck.

What I said, and this would be a lot easier if you just focus on what I said instead of inventing things you think I "indicate", is that I think people are using semantic arguments to equate two non-equal things.  That is becaues I think people are using semantic arguments to equate two non-equal things.  I don't know what's so difficult about that.

Even if we just misunderstood, the correct response is "oh sorry, what I meant was..." not "i never said that."

You seem more eager to pile more accusations on top of me than to apologize for any misunderstandings that exist here.  As long as you are going to continue approaching me in an accusatory fashion, I am going to continue saying that I am not doing the things you are falsely accusing me of.

Let's just say, everyone who has posted so far except you.

Probably because most of the other hundreds of members either didn't read this thread, or like me, they don't care.  The difference is, no one has accused them of arrogance or decided to read all kinds of "indications" into their words just because they didn't feel like being forced to say something they did not believe.

I really wish you would respond to the important aspects of things I post instead of nitpicking.

That's an interesting statement considering the last several pages of my posts have been defending myself against people nitpicking practically every word I've posted.

What exactly do you consider the "important aspects of things you post"?  Because from where I sit, the things you post seem to consist entirely of accusations against me just for having the gall to state my opinion.

"hey, it kinda seems like you are just trying to win an argument and not be helpful."

Well, since no one has said that to me, I didn't feel the need to respond to a phantom argument.

I would love to have you look me in my proverbial eye (internet and all) and tell me your posts here have really been to try to help us understand and not at all because you just love to be an argumentative know-it-all.

I'll do one better than that.  I'll look you in the proverbial eye and tell you that my posts have been really trying to help you understand that all I did was state my opinion on this, and ever since then, been fielding accusations of being arrogant, illogical, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with me of hidden agendas, arguing just because I like to argue (which if you could see my face right now, you'd never dare level that accusation at me again), and so on.

Now, compared to that, I have asked people in response to their posts "well, if this is true, then does that mean you would rule this as well?"  Can you tell me how asking these questions to explore people's logic is such awful behavior, and the accusations I have had to defend against are better somehow?  And what have I said that is offensive to anyone, other than things you think I have "indicated" in my posts?

I've got no choice but to take your word for it. I think your heart really is in the right place. I certainly don't want you to get all bent out of shape over a card game. I'm certainly not.

The point is, all accusations aside, to me (and others), you have come across poorly. I don't think you mean to. So let me see if I can help.

People will respond better if you say things in a different way.

When someone, like me, says "can we get something added to the REG?" you could say "sure, that's fine by me" right away instead of "it doesn't need it"

When someone says "it seems like he should be considered a king, it says king in the title" say "well, the card was intended to mean earthly king. I can see how that would be confusing though."

When someone says "i think you are just being argumentative" say "wow, I'm sorry about that. It was not my intention at all."

Are you getting the picture? Being nice does not have to compromise your point. Everyone who sees it differently is not dumber than you. I can only speak for myself here, but there's not a thing you have said to me in this thread that hasn't come across as condescending. Based on what I know of you personally, I would hope this is not the case. But it comes across that way. Even if that is a problem of my perception and you aren't doing anything wrong, the loving response (as well as the one that will eliminate a 5 page flame war) is to be the bigger man and apologize anyway.

I realize saying that carries some risk of hypocrisy. So I want to apologize for any uncivilty I showed you. I am sorry.

Quote from: Colin Michael on August 03, 2009, 06:14:42 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on August 03, 2009, 05:37:24 PM

Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.

No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.

I'm waiting for a thread where you won't bring up something about Lucifer being someone. I thought you said Lucifer is God... so God's Neb?

He's actually correct, but thats a whole other argument.

Quote from: Colin Michael on August 03, 2009, 06:14:42 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on August 03, 2009, 05:37:24 PM

Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.

No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.

I'm waiting for a thread where you won't bring up something about Lucifer being someone. I thought you said Lucifer is God... so God's Neb?

No, I'm not going to take the time to explain in detail things that you didn't take the time to pay attention to the first time.

People will respond better if you say things in a different way.

I am responding to what is being given to me.  Observe.

When someone, like me, says "can we get something added to the REG?" you could say "sure, that's fine by me" right away instead of "it doesn't need it"

The one time this was asked of me, you saw my response.  It was indifferent to the outcome and not at all confrontational.  What "someone like you" said, was "you have to admit X" when I'm not going to admit anything I don't believe is true.  And that's exactly what I said.  That's all.

When someone says "it seems like he should be considered a king, it says king in the title" say "well, the card was intended to mean earthly king. I can see how that would be confusing though."

I don't see the problem in calling someone's logic into question as a means of moving a discussion forward.  That's how you arrive at conclusions, you test the methods and see if they hold up under scrutiny.  I would expect no less of people testing my logic to see if it's airtight or needs to be adjusted.

Everyone who sees it differently is not dumber than you. I can only speak for myself here, but there's not a thing you have said to me in this thread that hasn't come across as condescending.

Well, then I guess you'll have to forgive me, because I'm just about at the end of my patience for having to defend myself every time I come onto the boards.  All I did was come here and try to defend Gabe against unfair treatment, and then give my opinion when asked for it.  And somehow that's turned into a giant study on the quality of my character and basically about everything else except just the simple things that I said.

I don't have a lot of time to monitor the boards these days; despite the old meme that I'm a hammer around here, the majority of police work is done by the moderation staff assigned by Rob or myself.  Several members have that power specifically because, in addition to their qualifications to handle the job well, they have the means to edit and/or delete my posts if they don't like something that I said.  I'm just as prone to outbursts as anybody and I am not above the standards that I am trying to enforce.  But I work a full-time job, I'm taking five accelerated college courses in a four-month period, I have two infant sons at home and I just finished packing and moving all of our stuff with almost no help outside the family.

So when I manage to get back over here and every post addressing me is an accusation, and half of them are things that I never even said or did, I'm sorry, but it's not going to be all sunshine and rainbows.  If that's on me, then that's on me, I'll own that.  But for the life of me, I can't see what could possible be worth all this nonsense.

I was actually testing the new feature I installed where I could delete threads without even logging in, so that I can blame all the other mods and act innocent.

I was actually testing the new feature I installed where I could delete threads without even logging in, so that I can blame all the other mods and act innocent.

Who are you kidding?  We all know that you've been using that feature for years already

No fake spoilage allowed

Disease, by definition, is based on the card having "disease" somewhere on it (name/SA).  King isn't.

I'm just hoping they decide on a definition...

None that Breathed discards one king from each opponent's territory or set aside

Eaten by Worms decreases and Evil King by 0/4 each turn until discarded

Interesting how both of those cards have been out since kings and it wasn't even discussed til now.

I just edited my post