[Q] Mult. Walks through Arcadia

You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right?

In message <3b635c8d...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right? What else would you suggest doing with them? If, however, you mean playing multiple on one action, no. If you mean playing one on each of several actions, why wouldn't you be able to? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

> >You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right? > If, however, you mean playing multiple on one action, no. You can play multiples on the same action if you use Mask, correct? Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is unblockable. Yes? Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

Sorrow wrote: > > > >You can keep playing Walks as Action Modifiers, right? > > If, however, you mean playing multiple on one action, no. > > You can play multiples on the same action if you use > Mask, correct? > > Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood > Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood > Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is > unblockable. > > Yes? The restriction is "per minion", yes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <3B6484F4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >> You can play multiples on the same action if you use >> Mask, correct? >> >> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood >> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood >> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is >> unblockable. >> >> Yes? > >The restriction is "per minion", yes. How does : "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been spent.) [RTR 19980623] " interact with this? I couldn't have played both WtA, as minion C. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <3B6484F4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes > >> You can play multiples on the same action if you use > >> Mask, correct? > >> > >> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood > >> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood > >> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is > >> unblockable. > >> > >> Yes? > > > >The restriction is "per minion", yes. > > How does : > > "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not > capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been > played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking > vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already > been spent.) [RTR 19980623] " > > interact with this? I couldn't have played both WtA, as minion C. No, but there have been no action modifiers played that minion C would not have played. He could've played the first. He could've played the second (since he didn't actually play the first). And now he can play the third (since he hasn't actually played one yet). [ quoted text not captured ]

While it's keen that a player can play more than one (of the same) action modifier by using Mask of 1000 faces, doesn't it go against the spirit of section 6.2?? ____________________________________________ "Any ready untapped minion you control can take an action. The procedure for resolving an action is described in the following sections. Note that action modifiers and reaction cards can be played at any time in this process, as appropriate, subject to the restrictions on adding stealth and intercept listed below and the restrictions against the same minion playing the same action modifier or reaction card more than once (see Minion Cards, sec. 1.6.3) and following the same sequencing strictures of all effects (see General, sec. 1.6.1)." MASK OF 1000 FACES: Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting minion (who is capable of performing the action). Untap the acting minion and tap this vampire instead. Now this vampire is the acting minion. The action resumes where it left off. ____________________________________________ It would seem that this is simply a loophole that is being exploited. The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity, why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier? It's in truth the "same" minion, only the face has changed. By allowing a stacking loophole it breaks down the integrity of the game. Don't even get me started on minions being able to play action modifiers while tapped (ie. cloak). Them's my two pesos Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI.

In message <20010730121919...@ng-ck1.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity, >why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier? Card text and rulings. >It's in truth the "same" minion, only the face has changed. In V:TES truth, it's been X different minions, the balancing errata/ruling notwithstanding. [ quoted text not captured ]

BernieTime wrote: > > While it's keen that a player can play more than one > (of the same) action modifier by using Mask of 1000 faces, > doesn't it go against the spirit of section 6.2?? > [snip] > The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity, > why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier? For the same reason that you don't have the new acting vampire pay the blood costs of the previous acting minion's action modifiers and that you allow a minion to wear two pairs of IR goggles. Namely: it's a card game, not an RPG. > It's in truth the "same" minion, only the face has changed. By > allowing a stacking loophole it breaks down the integrity of the game. In (card game) truth, it's a different minion. By applying the rules precisely, the intergrity of the game is preserved. The game attempts to model the WoD backstory. But certain concessions are made to make/keep the game playable. The integrity of the game should not be confused with the integrity of the model. A minion playing Illusions of the Kindred was, briefly, in combat. Even though in the WoD "truth", it was just an illusion all along (maybe). > Don't even get me started on minions being able to play action > modifiers while tapped (ie. cloak). Or, say, Lost in Crowds? Most action modifiers become useless if you prohibit them from being played by a tapped minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9k42j2$btf$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>, Matt Latham <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> writes >On a related note, is this scenario legal? By card text, "combat occurs" as normal, following the resolution. That suggests that the card is played immediately prior to entering combat, after the phase for Mask has passed. >Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? This wouldn't be possible anyway. A block has been successful. Playing stealth now isn't possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

On a related note, is this scenario legal? Minion 1 announces Corruption Minion x blocks Minion 1 plays Venenation Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor Minion 2 plays Venenation Minion 3 plays Mask at minor Minion 3 plays Venenation Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor? Matt

Matt Latham wrote: > > On a related note, is this scenario legal? > > Minion 1 announces Corruption > Minion x blocks > Minion 1 plays Venenation > Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor > Minion 2 plays Venenation > Minion 3 plays Mask at minor > Minion 3 plays Venenation Yes. > Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? This play is legal, but won't cause the action to become unblocked. (See Venenation's card text). > Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor? The result is the same - minion 4 end up in combat with the blocker. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > On a related note, is this scenario legal? > > Minion 1 announces Corruption > > Minion x blocks > > Minion 1 plays Venenation > > Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor > > Minion 2 plays Venenation > > Minion 3 plays Mask at minor > > Minion 3 plays Venenation Side note, I built a deck that uses this combo and Change of Target. It's really nasty. Not only does the blocking minion now have a horde of Venenations on it, but it didn't even get into combat. > > Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor? > The result is the same - minion 4 end up in combat with > the blocker. Except, of course, in the case where there are enough Venenations on the blocker to allow you to gain control of the blocker thus bypassing combat (Venenation card text). Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

>Matt Latham wrote: >> >> On a related note, is this scenario legal? >> >> Minion 1 announces Corruption >> Minion x blocks >> Minion 1 plays Venenation >> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor >> Minion 2 plays Venenation >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor >> Minion 3 plays Venenation > >Yes. > >> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? > >This play is legal, but won't cause the action to >become unblocked. (See Venenation's card text). > >> Is the answer different if Minion 4 plays Mask at minor? > >The result is the same - minion 4 end up in combat with >the blocker. > >-- >LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) And at this point you play change of target leaving 4 corruption counters on the blocking minion. Plus, it would appear if you could build up enough corruption counters (via Mask & Ven.), you could end combat taking control of the target vampire. Bernie B. Sheriff of Lansing, MI.

BernieTime wrote: > >> Minion 1 announces Corruption > >> Minion x blocks > >> Minion 1 plays Venenation > >> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor > >> Minion 2 plays Venenation > >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor > >> Minion 3 plays Venenation [snip] > And at this point you play change of target leaving 4 corruption > counters on the blocking minion. Right. > Plus, it would appear if you could build up enough corruption > counters (via Mask & Ven.), you could end combat taking > control of the target vampire. Avoiding combat (instead of "ending" combat), yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B654C87...@white-wolf.com>... > James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B6484F4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > > wolf.com> writes > > >> You can play multiples on the same action if you use > > >> Mask, correct? > > >> > > >> Minion A: Play WtA, fails and burns a blood > > >> Minion B: Masks, plays WtA, fails and burns a blood > > >> Minion C: Masks, plays WtA, succeeds and action is > > >> unblockable. > > >> > > >> Yes? > > > > > >The restriction is "per minion", yes. > > > > How does : > > > > "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not > > capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been > > played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking > > vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already > > been spent.) [RTR 19980623] " > > > > interact with this? I couldn't have played both WtA, as minion C. > > No, but there have been no action modifiers played that minion C > would not have played. He could've played the first. He could've played > the second (since he didn't actually play the first). And now he can > play the third (since he hasn't actually played one yet). I bleed with Govern the unaligned. I play superior Command of the Beat. Mask it, second vampire plays superior CotB, third vampire masks it, plays superior CotB and Conditioning. Bleed for 7? I call a vote and play bewitching Oration, mask and play BO, mask again play another BO for(assuming all superior) 13 total votes? Seems Dangerously Cheezy. Aaron.

> I bleed with Govern the unaligned. I play superior Command of the > Beat. Mask it, second vampire plays superior CotB, third vampire > masks it, plays superior CotB and Conditioning. Bleed for 7? This is possible. And now I finally have enough CotB to make it work. Horribly card intensive, but funny! :) > I call a vote and play bewitching Oration, mask and play BO, mask > again play another BO for(assuming all superior) 13 total votes? Nope, cannot work. The action is already successful (and past the time that Mask can be played) but the time that BO can be played. BO is only usable during the referrendum part of the action. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote: > Minion 1 announces Corruption > Minion x blocks > Minion 1 plays Venenation > Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor > Minion 2 plays Venenation > Minion 3 plays Mask at minor > Minion 3 plays Venenation > Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? *eyes widen in fear* Matt, you are a bad, bad man. Regards, Noal

In message <bb705c59.01073...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >> Minion 2 plays Venenation >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor >> Minion 3 plays Venenation >> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? > >*eyes widen in fear* >Matt, you are a bad, bad man. I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not "the rest of the block occurs as normal". The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > >> Minion 2 plays Venenation > >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor > >> Minion 3 plays Venenation > >> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? (snip) > I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not > "the rest of the block occurs as normal". > > The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and > "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is > played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started. I spent a long time meditating this, and i must admit that james coupe's logic is the best for Venenation. I simply don't think there is space between Venenation and "combat begins" to play another action modifier. A ruling should be wise on that, should'nt it ? could we have LSJ going backwards again ? reyda

In message <9k613m$3pr$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >I spent a long time meditating this, and i must admit that james coupe's >logic is the best for Venenation. I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck that basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I steal you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you. (Obviously, refining the deck for some defence, but you get the idea.) I am, shall we say, uncomfortable with the possibility of four or five Venenations per action, even if it is *very* card intensive, when the previous Corruption archetype allows one per action, maximum. It doesn't even have to be every action, of course. Just save a few up and then catch them unawares. "Oh well, I have 2 counters on this copy of Rake.... I think I can afford a block with this 2nd Tradition." *snatch* "Oops." [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not > "the rest of the block occurs as normal". > The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and > "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is > played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started. If this were the case, it would preclude the use of any other Action Mods that are used just before combat begins (ie, Change of Target). Since you can (and should be able to) use Change of Target after you play Venenation, it follows that you can use any other Action Mode (ie, Mask). [ quoted text not captured ]

> I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck that > basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I steal > you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you. Except if you have nothing but Mask and Venenation, you won't be bleeding for more than one. Plus, Venenation costs a blood so you'll have to be hunting pretty often. Finally, there aren't that many weenies that have Serpentis. And if you pack a whole bunch of Skill cards you'll still be hunting because the Path of Typhon only works with FoS. > I am, shall we say, uncomfortable with the possibility of four or five > Venenations per action, even if it is *very* card intensive, when the > previous Corruption archetype allows one per action, maximum. > It doesn't even have to be every action, of course. Just save a few up > and then catch them unawares. I've a deck that does this. And yes, it can be (and has been on a few occasions) very nasty. However, as you point out, it is *very* card intensive. I've prolly 20+ Venenations in the deck and I think 12 Masks. The most I've ever played in one action was 3. And the most minions I've ever stolen with this deck in one game: 4. And only cuz they were smallish. I played this deck on Sunday against a Lasombra prey and was only able to steal Cameron. Couldn't quite pull enough to steal either Alvaro or Lucita. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <bb705c59.01073...@posting.google.com>, Noal > McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes > >> Minion 2 plays Venenation > >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor > >> Minion 3 plays Venenation > >> Minion 4 plays Mask at Superior, action succeeds? > > > >*eyes widen in fear* > >Matt, you are a bad, bad man. > > I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not > "the rest of the block occurs as normal". The "as normal" is the key. > The implication of card text "Only usable..... before combat begins" and > "combat occurs as normal" or "combat is cancelled" is that the card is > played *immediately* prior to the block combat being started. I see the implication of "as normal" as just remining the player that the combat occurs as normal - at it's normal time and everything. Not that the combat is somehow shuffled forward. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > I bleed with Govern the unaligned. I play superior Command of the > > Beat. Mask it, second vampire plays superior CotB, third vampire > > masks it, plays superior CotB and Conditioning. Bleed for 7? > > This is possible. > And now I finally have enough CotB to make it work. Horribly card > intensive, but funny! :) Correct, except that the bleed is for 9 in the example (assuming Conditioning is played in superior as well). All you need is a bunch of vampires standing around with obf and DOM. Which is scary all by itself, without the 7-card combo. > > I call a vote and play bewitching Oration, mask and play BO, mask > > again play another BO for(assuming all superior) 13 total votes? > > Nope, cannot work. The action is already successful (and past the > time that Mask can be played) but the time that BO can be played. > BO is only usable during the referrendum part of the action. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B66AB4E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >> >*eyes widen in fear* >> >Matt, you are a bad, bad man. >> >> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not >> "the rest of the block occurs as normal". > >The "as normal" is the key. How is combat "canceled" [typo] then, if there is no combat to be cancelled? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes > >> >*eyes widen in fear* > >> >Matt, you are a bad, bad man. > >> > >> I'm still concerned that the card says "combat occurs as normal" not > >> "the rest of the block occurs as normal". > > > >The "as normal" is the key. > > How is combat "canceled" [typo] then, if there is no combat to be > cancelled? Canceled (one ell) is the preferred spelling, not a typo. Consulting m-w.com before issuing spelling corrections is a good way to save face. Combat occurs if a block succeeds. [6.2.3] [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B670392...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >Combat occurs if a block succeeds. [6.2.3] But we have established that the combat is not occurring nor is about to occur. There is, currently, no combat to cancel. I can cancel a card as it is played (DI), I can cancel an action in progress, I can cancel a Political Action that is in the referendum. How can I cancel a combat that does not exist? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B670392...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes > >Combat occurs if a block succeeds. [6.2.3] > > But we have established that the combat is not occurring nor is about to > occur. I do not concur. > There is, currently, no combat to cancel. The successful block says there is a combat. [6.2.3] > I can cancel a card as it is played (DI), I can cancel an action in > progress, I can cancel a Political Action that is in the referendum. > > How can I cancel a combat that does not exist? You cancel the combat that occurs as a result of the successful block. cf. Blood Brother Ambush, Canopic Jar, Change of Target, Clan Loyalty, Malleable Visage, Obedience, Red Herring, Set's Call, and Voice of Madness [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:f5VnjixS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck that > basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I steal > you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you. Don't block? :) > (Obviously, refining the deck for some defence, but you get the idea.) I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary. Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And then there's always deflection. Though a Sensory Dep/Venenation/Mask deck would invite lots of blocks. Of course, you probably couldn't do it with weenies. Xian

> > you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you. > Don't block? :) That has screwed me more times that I can count. Though, what I ended up doing was put in Social Charms and Enchant Kindred to provoke the block. However, that meant I had to cut down on the Venenations. > I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary. > Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and > you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And > then there's always deflection. That and pool gain. I'll post my deck later tonight when I get home for comment. Sorrow --- "Our fathers were our models for God. If they bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to be prepared for the possibility that God does not like you." - Tyler Durden

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:36:46 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >BernieTime wrote: >> >> While it's keen that a player can play more than one >> (of the same) action modifier by using Mask of 1000 faces, >> doesn't it go against the spirit of section 6.2?? >> [snip] >> The spirit of Mask of 1000 faces would be one of mistaken identity, >> why should you be able to stack multiples of an Action Modifier? It is not clear to me via your logic, so I must ask... Minion 1 announces Corruption Minion x blocks Minion 1 plays Venenation Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor Minion 2 plays Venenation Minion 1 plays Mask at minor Minion 1 plays Venenation ad nauseum... Legal?

> It is not clear to me via your logic, so I must ask... > Minion 1 announces Corruption > Minion x blocks > Minion 1 plays Venenation > Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor > Minion 2 plays Venenation > Minion 1 plays Mask at minor > Minion 1 plays Venenation > ad nauseum... > Legal? Yes, but each minion can play Mask and Venenation but once. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

> > I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary. > > Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and > > you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And > > then there's always deflection. > I'll post my deck later tonight when I get home for comment. Here's my deck. Comments welcome: Crypt: 1x Celine Chevalier 3 obf ser 1x Lalitha 2 ser 1x Qufur am-Heru 7 OBF SER PRE - burn-recycle 1x Khalil Anvari 3 ser pre 1x Count Ormonde 5 OBF ser pre 1x Sir Marriot D'Urban 5 obf ser PRE 2x Nepata 4 obf ser pre 2x Samat Ramal-Ra, Archon - OBF ser pre - Free Bloodhunt 2x Hesha Ruhadze 6 obf SER pre - Hunting +1 stealth +1 blood Library: 1x Powerbase: Montreal 1x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x Temple Hunting Ground 2x Visit from the Capuchin 3x Blood Doll 2x Khobar Towers, Al-Khubar 2x The Path of Typhon 2x Presence 2x Serpentis 3x Social Charm 7x Corruption (for when they stop blocking) 3x Enchant Kindred 16x Venenation 8x Change of Target 6x Aire of Elation 10x Mask of 1k Faces 7x Majesty 6x Catatonic Fear 6x Ecstacy 2x Delaying Tactics [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b679c72....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >It is not clear to me via your logic, so I must ask... > >Minion 1 announces Corruption >Minion x blocks >Minion 1 plays Venenation >Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor >Minion 2 plays Venenation >Minion 1 plays Mask at minor >Minion 1 plays Venenation >ad nauseum... > >Legal? Minion one has now played Venenation twice, which is illegal. [1.6.3.2] This is a *very* basic rule. I would suggest you put down the Java coding and *read the rules*. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<gsT97.354$5d.4...@newshog.newsread.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hehe, you're an evil man Sorrow >;-> I suspect you play that corruption card with a loosely veiled threat, of 'would you care to block that?' and an evil glint in your eye? >;-> Simidh --> Glad to be back on the newsgroup after much hassle with access to it via normal news servers (thanks google)

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:42:41 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Matt Latham wrote: >> >> On a related note, is this scenario legal? >> >> Minion 1 announces Corruption >> Minion x blocks >> Minion 1 plays Venenation >> Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor >> Minion 2 plays Venenation >> Minion 3 plays Mask at minor >> Minion 3 plays Venenation > >Yes. Wait a second. That makes NO sense. Time for a Mask rewrite then. So that the masking vamp cannot play action modifiers already played for that action. T

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:47:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Do not treat me like an idiot. I will ask what I like for my own reasons. Your answers are noted. I'm surprised that people continue to make the same comments "read the rules Jack" as if I didnt hear that the first 10 times.

In message <3b687ea3....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >>Minion one has now played Venenation twice, which is illegal. [1.6.3.2] >> >>This is a *very* basic rule. I would suggest you put down the Java >>coding and *read the rules*. > >Do not treat me like an idiot. You get treated in a manner consistent with your actions. Cause brings about effect, and all that. You very, very clearly don't understand the basic rules of the game. Your time would be better spent learning the game rather than typing Java commands. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:58:41 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3b687ea3....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow [ quoted text not captured ] And you are clearly wrong. Do not claim your opinion as fact, you know the difference.

In message <3b6889e0....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >And you are clearly wrong. Do not claim your opinion as fact, you know >the difference. If you understand the basic rules of the game, why are you wasting people's time with questions that you obviously already know the answer to because 1.6.3.3 makes it quite clear that the play you stated was completely illegal? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:18:56 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3b6889e0....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow [ quoted text not captured ] Since I'm a professional programmer, I obviously know nothing about logic or logical processes. Normal performs ArbitraryActionModifier Lucretia masks and performs AAM as she is not considered the acting vampire. She is considered a new minion with her own unique 'history'. Normal masks... There is no logical reason that Normal should not be able to perform the AAM. It is not automatically 'implied' that new Normal is the original acting minion Normal. The fact that VTES considers the new Normal as the same Normal who began, inheriting it's history so to speak, is a leap in logic. The 2 processes simply differ, as can be described in a number of ways. Email me. I can demonstrate the paradox of assuming the first Normal is the second Normal using a number of real world instances involving rudimentary physics, if you like. Just because it is something you take for granted, does not mean I agree or assume it without doubt. I ask to clarify. You need only answer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

In message <3b689624....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >There is no logical reason that Normal should not be able to perform >the AAM. It is not automatically 'implied' that new Normal is the >original acting minion Normal. Of course it is. It's the same copy of the same vampire. The rules is one named action modifier per minion per action. It's the same minion because, er, it's the same minion. How could it be anything else? Who started an action is irrelevant. A minion is a minion is a minion. A minion cannot play the same action modifier twice during the same action. Has Normal already played that action modifier before on this action? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:20:35 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:47:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: > >>Minion one has now played Venenation twice, which is illegal. [1.6.3.2] >> >>This is a *very* basic rule. I would suggest you put down the Java >>coding and *read the rules*. > >Do not treat me like an idiot. I will ask what I like for my own >reasons. Your answers are noted. I'm surprised that people continue to >make the same comments "read the rules Jack" as if I didnt hear that >the first 10 times. STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM I took exception to your recent _X_ post to ___r.g.t-c.jyhad___. (newsgroup) ___ email It was (check all that apply): ___ lame. _X_ stupid. _X_ boring. _X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable. Your attention is drawn to the fact that: _X_ what you posted/said has been done before. _X_ Not only that, it was also done better the last time. ___ your post/mail was a pathetic imitation of ___________________. (net.personality) ___ your post/mail was intended to be email/a post. _X_ your post was obviously flamebait. ___ your post referred to the newsgroup as a Board, BBoard, BBS, SIG or Notesfile. ___ your post contained commercial advertising. THE FINE FOR THIS IS $100. Please remit immediately to: Derek Ray 755 Hank Aaron Drive, SW Atlanta, GA 30316 or your posting privileges will be canceled. ___ your post/letter contained numerous spelling errors. ___ you deliberately misspelled 4 letter Anglo-Saxon words to slither the article past the moderators. ___ your post/letter contained "y"s substituted for random vowels. ___ which made it unintelligible. ___ your post/letter contained "q"s substituted for random "k"s, "c"s or "ck"s ___ you spell-checked but it obviously substituted incorrect word(s) with a similar sound/spelling for your misspelled word(s) rather than the correct spelling. ___ Feeble attempt at Dan Quayle humor. _X_ your post/letter contained multiple grammatical errors. ___ your post/letter served no purpose other than to correct spelling/grammatical errors of another article/letter. ___ YOUR POST CONTAINED EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION AND/OR PUNCTUATION!!!!! _X_ your post was a Garbage Post. ___ CRAP (just plain CRAP) ___ CRAP (deluxe mocha CRAP) _X_ 100% USDA CRAP _X_ (picture of trash can) ___ all of the above. ___ you created a new topic that should have been a followup to another article. ___ Deliberately. ___ You don't know the difference between "Post" and "Follow-up". ___ You were too lazy to look for the existing article. ___ and you asked the moderators to find the article and move it for you. ___ you created a new topic designed to generate replies and set followups to a different newsgroup. ___ You set followups to alt.test or misc.test. ___ You set followups to alt.sex.(anything). ___ You set followups to a group holding a completely opposite view, (ie, an article about Wicca and paganism with followups set to soc.religion.southern-baptist) hoping to generate a flame war. ___ and if my argument had as little substance as yours, I would too, in the hope that nobody would be able to show me up. ___ 'Hit and Run' posting: you cancelled your article after it generated several replies. ___ ...which was a good thing because you looked like a fool. ___ you quoted an article in followup and added no new text. ___ you quoted an article in followup and only added the line "Me, too!!!" _X_ you quoted _29_ lines of text in followup and only added _4_ lines. ___ you predicted the "Immanent Death of the Net[tm]" (sic). ___ *without* adding "<form of representation> at 11". ___ you asked for replies via email because you "don't read this group". _X_ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you. _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you. ___ your lines are 80 columns wide or wider... consistently. ___ you forgot which newsgroup this was. _X_ you have a lame login name. _X_ your machine has a stupid name. ___ your name signed at the end contains silly extraneous punctuation. ___ your article contains a PGP signature. ___ that exceeds the length of the article itself. ___ the PGP fingerprint was just random hex digits anyway. ___ and you assumed that anyone really cared if it was really you. ___ you included a USENET .sig . ___ your .sig is longer than four lines. ___ And your newsreader truncated it. ___ your .sig is wider than 80 columns. ___ your .sig is tabdamaged. ___ your .sig is longer than your included text. ___ your .sig is longer than the entire rest of your post. ___ your .sig is ridiculous because (check all that apply): ___ you listed ___ snail mail address(es). ___ you listed a nine-digit ZIP code. ___ you listed ___ phone numbers for people to use in prank calls. ___ you included a stupid disclaimer. ___ your pathetic attempt at being witty in it failed. ___ Miserably. ___ you included: ___ a stupid self-quote. ___ a stupid quote from a net.nobody. ___ a stupid quote from ___ Rush Limbaugh. ___ Dan Quayle. ___ Bill Gates. ___ a rock band member. ___ from Rush. ___ (one of) the U.S. Founding Father(s). ___ a reference to Beavis & Butthead. ___ lame ASCII fonts ___ lame ASCII graphic(s) (Choose all that apply): ___ USS Enterprise ___ Australia ___ The Amiga logo ___ Company logo ___ and you stated that you don't speak for your employer. ___ Bicycle ___ Bart Simpson ___ Sword ___ Dinosaur ___ Cat/Dog ___ plural ___ excessive misuse of punctuation marks, namely __________ ___ excessive whitespace Furthermore: _X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of _r.g.t-c.j__. (newsgroup) ___ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the net. _X_ You are a loser. _X_ You must have spent your entire life in a Skinner box to be this clueless. ___ *plonk* _X_ This has been pointed out to you before. _X_ It is recommended that you: ___ Go Away. Now. ___ stick to America Online and come back when you've grown up. _X_ find a volcano and throw yourself in. ___ get a gun and shoot yourself. _X_ stop reading USENET and get a life. ___ stop sending email and get a life. _X_ get a clue (hey, they're cheap!) _X_ consume excrement. ___ consume excrement and thus expire. Additional comments: -- Derek "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn

LSJ: this is not entirely a flame. see about halfway down with the bit about the Mask inconsistency; has this ever been looked at by the Rules Team? On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:56:21 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:18:56 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: > >>If you understand the basic rules of the game, why are you wasting >>people's time with questions that you obviously already know the answer >>to because 1.6.3.3 makes it quite clear that the play you stated was >>completely illegal? >> >Since I'm a professional programmer, I obviously know nothing about >logic or logical processes. This statement is definitely half true. >Normal performs ArbitraryActionModifier >Lucretia masks and performs AAM as she is not considered the acting >vampire. She is considered a new minion with her own unique 'history'. >Normal masks... There's no "considered" about it. Lucretia IS a different minion than Normal. Any attempts to claim otherwise fly in the face of common sense. There IS an inconsistency here, however - see below. Normal, on the other hand, is the same minion as Normal, something which is obvious on the face of it. >There is no logical reason that Normal should not be able to perform >the AAM. It is not automatically 'implied' that new Normal is the >original acting minion Normal. The fact that VTES considers the new >Normal as the same Normal who began, inheriting it's history so to >speak, is a leap in logic. This is possibly the most stupid statement I've seen in a long time. What "new" Normal? He's the same minion who played the original action card. Again, a simple case of common sense. >The 2 processes simply differ, as can be described in a number of >ways. Email me. I can demonstrate the paradox of assuming the first >Normal is the second Normal using a number of real world instances >involving rudimentary physics, if you like. This is not the real world, however, it is a card game. There is no paradox. Normal is the same card and the same minion at all times. He does not magically generate multiple instances of himself. >Just because it is something you take for granted, does not mean I >agree or assume it without doubt. I ask to clarify. You need only >answer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Jack, you are going out of your way to find contradictions where none actually exist in an attempt to make yourself seem erudite and wise, when anyone with an ounce of common sense could answer the question in thirty seconds. If you had any clue at all, you would be asking about the REAL inconsistency in Mask, illustrated by the following example: (LSJ: start here) Roland Bishop bleeds. Crowley attempts to block with 2nd Tradition. Roland plays Faceless Night for stealth. Agrippina takes over with Mask at superior, and now plays another Faceless Night - a total of +3 stealth on the action. Now, if Roland had played Conditioning, Agrippina could not have taken over the action. One of the current rulings on Mask states: "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been spent.) [RTR 19980623]" This is consistent with logic; Mask is clearly intended to simulate deception where one minion is appearing to be another, and it is not logical that a minion without Dominate could utilize the discipline. What is inconsistent is that Mask's text and the ruling above both clearly indicate that only ONE minion is actually involved with the action... yet the same action modifier can be played twice on the action. Logically, Agrippina should not be able to play Faceless Night above, because she has already played it while pretending to be Roland. I suspect that the ruling will not change, however, because it turns things into a logistical nuisance; if Roland plays Elder Impersonation prior to the Mask, the blood has to be deducted from Agrippina and restored to Roland when she Masks, adding yet another note of complexity to an already-complex game and an already-complex card. And god knows, with people like you playing, things obviously need to be spelled out in words of one syllable. Let me break it to you simply... You aren't as smart as you think you are. You aren't as good as you think you are. And you don't know as much as you think you do. Your prima-donna shit is not welcome here. If you want to write a client, DO SO,... but none of us are impressed by your ivory-tower pronouncements. Want real help? Stop trying to come off like some demigod who is deigning to help us mere mortals by creating this incredible work of art, and start acting like a real person. "professional", my ass. If you worked for me, I'd have fired you within three months of your hire date for this kind of attitude, and I wouldn't give a damn HOW good you were; you can easily be replaced. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote <snip> Well, despite asking people to be nicer to each other in another thread, this post reduced me to tears of laughter. This is a keeper :) Cheers, WES

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: > > STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM > > > I took exception to your recent _X_ post to ___r.g.t-c.jyhad___. > (newsgroup) > ___ email > > It was (check all that apply): > > ___ lame. > _X_ stupid. > _X_ boring. > _X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be > capable. _X_ funnier than much of your self-congratulatory viperism. > > Your attention is drawn to the fact that: > > _X_ what you posted/said has been done before. > _X_ Not only that, it was also done better the last time. > ___ your post/mail was a pathetic imitation of ___________________. > (net.personality) > ___ your post/mail was intended to be email/a post. > _X_ your post was obviously flamebait. _X_ as usual. [ quoted text not captured ] _X_ but i doubt pointing this out will phase you, as it's all about you, you, YOU! [ quoted text not captured ] _X_ or a lot worse ratio than that :) > ___ you predicted the "Immanent Death of the Net[tm]" (sic). > ___ *without* adding "<form of representation> at 11". > ___ you asked for replies via email because you "don't read > this group". > _X_ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you. _X_ and therefore has every right to treat you and everyone else like crap the second they burst from the soil onto this newsgroup, helping to discourage newbies from continuing in the game, promotion of which is the ostensible purpose of same newsgroup. > _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you. _X_ in his infallible opinion. [ quoted text not captured ] _X_ because jimi hendrix and jello biafra never had as great a thought as, say, foghorn leghorn. > ___ from Rush. > ___ (one of) the U.S. Founding Father(s). > ___ a reference to Beavis & Butthead. _X_ uhhhh. uhhh... HUH-HUH-HUH-HUH [ quoted text not captured ] _X_ and not expire so the intestinal flavor of your many witticisms will remain fresh in your own mouth and mind. > ___ consume excrement and thus expire. > > Additional comments: _X_ even i had lost interest in this fascinating form, and intelligently, ceased and desisted. > > > -- Derek > > "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn making a mockery is flattery, but mocking a mockery is just flat. - nonsensical self-quote, an unforgivable sin, for which my name should be expunged from all the pyramids where it is engraved. -- spinney

"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote [snip] > Just because it is something you take for granted, does not mean I > agree or assume it without doubt. I ask to clarify. You need only > answer, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Jack, Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no goodwill for you or your programming effort. - Jason Bell

[ quoted text not captured ] I've addressed this before recently (in this thread, I believe), with the blood-cost-modifier example. At some point, you have to draw the line and say, "it's just a card game". Perhaps the line was drawn too close. But the situation was examined. If the rule becomes a problem with the new card set, we'll reexamine it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 06:34:14 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> I suspect that the ruling will not change, however, because it turns >> things into a logistical nuisance; if Roland plays Elder Impersonation >> prior to the Mask, the blood has to be deducted from Agrippina and >> restored to Roland when she Masks, adding yet another note of complexity >> to an already-complex game and an already-complex card. > >I've addressed this before recently (in this thread, I believe), with >the blood-cost-modifier example. Hm. OK. I've been ignoring the thread, because people have been running around shrieking about how horrible it is that you could multiple-modify an action with mask/venenation, and my opinion is that anyone who wants to make that deck is perfectly welcome to; once you get enough Masks and Venenations in it, you'll probably run out of room for anything else, and will get bled out promptly while your prey refuses to block your bleeds of 1. :) >At some point, you have to draw the line and say, "it's just a card game". >Perhaps the line was drawn too close. But the situation was examined. >If the rule becomes a problem with the new card set, we'll reexamine it. well, that was the gist of my final-quoted paragraph above; the line had to be drawn somewhere, and i suspected "there" was where it's going to stay. As long as it got looked at at some point, fair enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:47:28 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >Well, despite asking people to be nicer to each other in another thread, >this post reduced me to tears of laughter. > >This is a keeper :) Heh. Lesson to be learned, kids: It's ok to be a Real Prick(tm) as long as you're funny about it! =) (I don't think this is the right lesson for kids to learn. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] >_X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you. Thanks for letting me know. I might not have figured it out otherwise. You're using a form to claim wittiness? I find your response rude in the extreme. Speaking as a professional computer programmer/analyst, I find it entirely usual to see a P/A asking for more detail and the (possible) end user not understanding why the questions are pointful. Common sense is not something that computers have. It (or an imitation) has to be programmed. That can mean asking many seemingly obvious questions. I have on occasion gotten a response to the tune of "But that hardly ever happens." (Its handling still has to be programmed.) or "Oh, yeah. I forgot about that." or worse. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

In message <Li7a7.55315$J37.12...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions >to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no >goodwill for you or your programming effort. Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics. He has an inappropriately low knowledge of the game to even consider a programming effort of the magnitude he is attempting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b698f40....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@shuswap.net> writes > I find your response rude in the extreme. Hint: Maybe that was the point. Jack is a complete, total and utter fuckwit. I will be direct in this. He has no knowledge of the game. He has no knowledge of even the most basic of rules. He is stupid and unable to apply even the most basic common sense before spouting garbage onto Usenet. Perhaps when he has graduated from kindergarten he can give it another go. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <Li7a7.55315$J37.12...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason >Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >>Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions >>to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no >>goodwill for you or your programming effort. > >Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to >build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics. > >He has an inappropriately low knowledge of the game to even consider a >programming effort of the magnitude he is attempting. Actually, I suspect that it's the other way around: that he has insufficient programming/analysis skill. The rules of the game in all their detail isn't as complicated as P/Aing in all its detail. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b6a0f43....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@shuswap.net> writes > The rules of the game in all >their detail isn't as complicated as P/Aing in all its detail. The basic rules aren't that complicated. That Jack is having problems with these is more telling than anything else he does. *Any* competent player can explain that you can't play more than one of the same action modifier with the same minion on the same action. This level of competence comes from reading the rulesbook and playing, say, 6 or 7 games. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:05:31 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3b6a0f43....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko [ quoted text not captured ] That wasnt the question.

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:33:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3b698f40....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko ><ge...@shuswap.net> writes >> I find your response rude in the extreme. > >Hint: Maybe that was the point. Bonus points, that man. Gene: with regards to common sense, it should be common sense to determine that the vampire card with "Normal" printed on it is, in fact, the vampire card "Normal" at all times, no matter how many cards get played inbetween changing the acting minion, parameters, etc. For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink" attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his position. As far as his programming effort... if he produces something, that's great. If it works, better yet. The capacity to produce something that works doesn't justify the cheering accolades and throngs of admirers he seems to be waiting for, however. Shame. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >Just killfile the wonder twins and refer your rules questions > >to the official netrep (LSJ). Those two apparently have no > >goodwill for you or your programming effort. > > Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to > build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics. What if you're wrong? Are your petty attempts to undermine him worth the chance that those attacks will dissuade him from attempting this task? > He has an inappropriately low knowledge of the game to even consider a > programming effort of the magnitude he is attempting. What if you're wrong? As well, Derek Ray wrote: > For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my sh*t doesn't stink" > attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and > aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his > position. It's laughable that you're so threatened by his project that you must snipe him at each opportunity, infer stupidity from his asking of questions, and criticize his defense of himself as snobbishness. Stop being such a child. Well there you go, Jack. It's all right there in front of you. The wonder twins resent your effort to write this program, are threatened by the idea that it will succeed and be useful, so they have made it their business to undermine you, by flaming your rules questions, insulting your intellect, programming capabilities (nice webpage, by the way), social skills, whatever it takes to dissuade you from using this resource to help your project. Why they would want to discourage your effort is beyond me, maybe they don't want this game played online. That you seem willing to do this without charging for it, I would have assumed that everyone on this forum would do whatever they could to try to help, not try to take your legs out. Killfile them, they are not here to help you. - Jason Bell

In message <jc6kmtc8moel001rk...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink" >attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, His flouncing and posturing would actually be tolerable if he wasn't such a know-nothing fuckwit. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ucqa7.60028$J37.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to >> build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics. > >What if you're wrong? I'm not. Every single shred of evidence on the newsgroup continually proves how little Jack knows about the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b6a1aa5....@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> writes >That wasnt the question. The question involved a minion playing the same action modifier twice, which is illegal by one of the most basic rules of the game: "Minion 1 plays Venenation Minion 2 plays Mask of 1000 faces at minor Minion 2 plays Venenation Minion 1 plays Mask at minor Minion 1 plays Venenation" Hope that helps. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > Killfile them, they are not here to help you. > I think I have to concur. Programing a game such as VTES is a lot of work, and will require a GOOD working knowledge of the game. Apparently Jack with all his newbie questions gets on some peoples nerves, but at least he is asking questions, even if he is not getting answers. Jack also needs to lighten up some though, questioning endlessly simple rules templates gets you know where. Raille and I hope you actually complete your project.

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > Killfile them, they are not here to help you. > > > I think I have to concur. > > Programing a game such as VTES is a lot of work, and will require a GOOD > working knowledge of the game. > > Apparently Jack with all his newbie questions gets on some peoples > nerves, but at least he is asking questions, even if he is not getting > answers. > > Jack also needs to lighten up some though, questioning endlessly simple > rules templates gets you know where. Careful about "simple rules templates." It's a pretty simple rules template that the same action cannot be modified twice by the acting minion using the same action modifier. Mask violates that by switching around who the acting minion is. His question, in addition to causing a bunch of flames, fleshed out the extent to which Mask violates that template. It's a pretty simple rules template that combat cards are not limited by any no repeat limitation, but I'm only allowed to attempt to play one Form of Mist at superior per action (whether or not it is successful). Look a little more closely at the rules questions he's asking about, he's not asking about basic rules, he's asking how and to what extent certain cards bend or break those rules. > Raille > and I hope you actually complete your project. Same here. - Jason Bell

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > It's a pretty simple rules template that the same action cannot be > modified twice by the acting minion using the same action modifier. Well, sort of. The actual template is "The same action cannot be modified twice by a minion using the same action modifier." Whether or not the minion is the acting minion is irrelevant. The template you describe above would allow Agrippina to drop 5 Cloak the Gatherings at superior on the same action, which isn't allowed. The current operation of Mask doesn't violate this template at all, as several people have explained. Marc G.

Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Jason Bell wrote: >> Killfile them, they are not here to help you. >I think I have to concur. > >Programing a game such as VTES is a lot of work, and will require a GOOD >working knowledge of the game. Not only that, it will involve digging into corner cases. If the program is to work, it has to deal with EVERY corner case. >Apparently Jack with all his newbie questions gets on some peoples >nerves, but at least he is asking questions, even if he is not getting >answers. > >Jack also needs to lighten up some though, questioning endlessly simple >rules templates gets you know where. ^^^^^^^^^^ Interesting typo. It also changes the meaning to about the opposite. I agree with your sentiment that Jack should lighten up. Jack, I suggest that you get the latest set of rules and ask your questions by referring to specific wording. Do try to work it out ahead of time though. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <ucqa7.60028$J37.13...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason >Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >>> Programming effort, fine. However, Jack is effectively attempting to >>> build an atomic bomb whilst still learning high school physics. >> >>What if you're wrong? > >I'm not. Every single shred of evidence on the newsgroup continually >proves how little Jack knows about the game. OK, then you're insulting us by inferring that we haven't the intelligence to see all of this evidence for what it is. Either way it is, cool it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:33:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: > >>In message <3b698f40....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko >><ge...@shuswap.net> writes >>> I find your response rude in the extreme. >> >>Hint: Maybe that was the point. > >Bonus points, that man. > >Gene: with regards to common sense, it should be common sense to >determine that the vampire card with "Normal" printed on it is, in fact, >the vampire card "Normal" at all times, no matter how many cards get >played inbetween changing the acting minion, parameters, etc. As a professional computer programmer/analyst, there is no faster way to get me to question specifications than to use the term "common sense" or others like it. All too often, they mean that the person has unexamined assumptions. I make very sure to clear up these potential bombs before I continue. The question seems to be about a corner case. >For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink" >attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and >aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his >position. True. As Raille said, Jack should lighten up some. >As far as his programming effort... if he produces something, that's >great. If it works, better yet. The capacity to produce something that >works doesn't justify the cheering accolades and throngs of admirers he >seems to be waiting for, however. Shame. True. Based on his posts, I think he probably has bitten off more than he can chew. It's an important lesson in programming. If he does back off or give up on his project, cut him some slack, please. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <jc6kmtc8moel001rk...@4ax.com>, lor...@yahoo.com says... > For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink" > attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and > aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his > position. As someone who works in the IT field in a quality assurance and testing role, let me say this: I have to deal every day with developers that *don't* ask questions. They scare me. The ones that just rush on ahead and code without a second thought because "it's understood" are the ones that are a danger to the project. Jack is doing this of his own free will. He's attempting a task that should probably be done by a few more people, but he's doing it. I say bully for him. He should be getting support, not the vile treatment that some people have given him. Just because someone thinks that a game rule or situation is clearly understood doesn't mean that everyone gets it. Yes, reading the rulebook helps. However, tax forms are in English, but that doesn't stop people from being confused by them, does it? As for his attitude, I really don't see any evidence of *him* having an attitude. I *do* see evidence of people like Derek Ray and James Coupe having huge attitudes. Do you guys treat new players in your playgroups like this - anger, denigration and insults? Probably not, but how come? Maybe because if you spoke to someone the same way in real life, they'd (if you were lucky) leave and never come back. If you weren't lucky, your mom would come visit you in the hospital while your injuries healed. > As far as his programming effort... if he produces something, that's > great. If it works, better yet. The capacity to produce something that > works doesn't justify the cheering accolades and throngs of admirers he > seems to be waiting for, however. Shame. If his programming effort works, it will be in spite of, not because of all the nastiness here. I think all his attackers and detractors should shut up and apologize to him for being such immature pricks. If you don't like his questions, ignore them already.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 04:06:12 GMT, ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Gene: with regards to common sense, it should be common sense to >>determine that the vampire card with "Normal" printed on it is, in fact, >>the vampire card "Normal" at all times, no matter how many cards get >>played inbetween changing the acting minion, parameters, etc. > > As a professional computer programmer/analyst, there is no faster >way to get me to question specifications than to use the term "common >sense" or others like it. All too often, they mean that the person >has unexamined assumptions. I make very sure to clear up these >potential bombs before I continue. Often, this is the case. But it's the work of a moment to verify that yes, Normal is Normal and always will be. I suppose this falls under "common sense" for me, to always check the basic assumptions being made before continuing on. Of course, I've also got a bit of a literal turn of thought myself; playing this game for long enough will teach you to read things word-by-word. > The question seems to be about a corner case. It is, but the corner case is also directly prevented elsewhere within the rules. After locating THAT section, the only question left is "Is this Normal the same Normal?", which takes all of five seconds to resolve. > True. As Raille said, Jack should lighten up some. I'll settle for his dropping the prima-donna shit. He can ask as many dumb questions as he likes, because someone inexperienced producing something is better than nobody producing anything... but he's had the -worst- "I am God" attitude in here, and I've had to deal with that from technicians/others before. EVERYONE is replaceable. > Based on his posts, I think he probably has bitten off more than >he can chew. It's an important lesson in programming. If he does >back off or give up on his project, cut him some slack, please. Contrary to what Jason Bell believes, I do not, in fact, want him to give up/stop, nor am I somehow "threatened" by his writing this; can't figure that one out, myself. My #1 priority outside of work is pool. And my work isn't programming. So hell, why should I care? If what he produces comes out good, that's great. If not, then there's a base to be improved on. But I -am- concerned that what he turns out at least be usable in some fashion, and that it accurately simulate the "feel" of an in-person game. Fully mapping out and coding each individual card's action is not the way I'd do it, myself, but I'm not a programmer for a living; what do I know? ;) To that point, every time he asks a question demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge, I wonder "what ones DIDN'T he ask about?" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 13:06:15 GMT, sha...@magma.ca (Sean Harvey) wrote: > I *do* see evidence of people like Derek Ray and James Coupe >having huge attitudes. Do you guys treat new players in your playgroups >like this - anger, denigration and insults? Probably not, but how come? >Maybe because if you spoke to someone the same way in real life, they'd >(if you were lucky) leave and never come back. If you weren't lucky, your >mom would come visit you in the hospital while your injuries healed. An excellent observation.. T

sha...@magma.ca (Sean Harvey) wrote: >In article <jc6kmtc8moel001rk...@4ax.com>, >lor...@yahoo.com says... >> For someone who cops such a prima-donna, "my shit doesn't stink" >> attitude as Jack does, he sure doesn't seem to know much, and >> aggressively making flubs such as the above really doesn't improve his >> position. > >As someone who works in the IT field in a quality assurance and testing >role, let me say this: I have to deal every day with developers that >*don't* ask questions. They scare me. The ones that just rush on ahead >and code without a second thought because "it's understood" are the ones >that are a danger to the project. Scared? I practically write off that there will be any useful result when I run into that ilk. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <MPG.15d5bdd66...@usenet.magma.ca>, Sean Harvey <sha...@magma.ca> writes >As for his attitude, I really don't see any evidence of *him* having an >attitude. I *do* see evidence of people like Derek Ray and James Coupe >having huge attitudes. Caveat: regarding specific people and their actions, rather than all people in general. Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise for the interested student. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip] > Well there you go, Jack. It's all right there in front of you. > > The wonder twins resent your effort to write this program, are > threatened by the idea that it will succeed and be useful, so > they have made it their business to undermine you, by flaming > your rules questions, insulting your intellect, programming > capabilities (nice webpage, by the way), social skills, whatever > it takes to dissuade you from using this resource to help your > project. > > Why they would want to discourage your effort is beyond me, Apt conclusion; there's no motive to be found. I would think you'd see yourself that it's ridiculous to be "threatened" by a program being released. You may assume their insanity, if you wish, but you'd miss the fact that they both are capable of excellent, experienced analyses (which often disagree with your own views, so you might miss this). > maybe they don't want this game played online. That you seem > willing to do this without charging for it, I would have assumed > that everyone on this forum would do whatever they could to > try to help, not try to take your legs out. Well, "help" in the form of constructive criticisms ("Jack, I think you should go read the rulebook and play some more; it looks like you're missing a lot of the basics" or "don't make people also get an IRC client, integrate a chat client into the program") has met with high-and-mighty replies ("I'll ask questions as I see fit. If you don't like it, don't answer it." or "I only really care to make this for my friends and me, and if you don't like it, don't use it.") To a certain degree, he's brought this on himself. Even the request for help for an ASCII file was fine until the tagline "People have asked what they can do to help. This is what I need," which turned off *several* people. If you get on a high-horse on USENET, you get pushed off. It's the same behavior between much of the newsgroup and Andrew Davidson, pushing at each other, jousting without lances, just pushing. Nothing new, but it does mess up the signal/noise. =\ > Killfile them, they are not here to help you. Better still to actually READ what they have to say, and simply FAIL to reply. If they're not killfile'ing YOU, you force ignorance upon yourself, and their replies will still happen, no matter how much you plug your ears. I could have killfile'd Andrew Davidson a long time ago, but why? I just "didn't say anything at all" if I didn't have anything "nice to say." He's had some very interesting "against the grain" posts recently that I'm very glad I read. A killfile serves no purpose but as a bandaid on a temper you can't control. I know, I know, sometimes it's hard not to reply, (look at this post, after all =) but I'd highly discourage ANYONE from killfile'ing ANYONE. What you want is a gag, but it only looks that way to *you*; what you've used your strip of cloth for is actually a blindfold for yourself. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

>> I *do* see evidence of people like Derek Ray and James Coupe >> having huge attitudes. Do you guys treat new players in your playgroups >> like this - anger, denigration and insults? Well, of course not. >> Probably not, but how come? Well, when they don't understand the rules, and we hand them a rulebook and recommend they read it, they say "Thanks! Can I keep this?" not "I'll ask my questions as I please; if you don't like it, don't answer it." If we had a new player in our group who acted like THAT, I don't know that they'd be treated with anger and insults...just not invited back. >> Maybe because if you spoke to someone the same way in real life, they'd >> (if you were lucky) leave and never come back. If you weren't lucky, your >> mom would come visit you in the hospital while your injuries healed. > > An excellent observation.. > > T Have you see the pictures of this guy (on his unprotected /files directory he keeps the screenshots in)? I'd put my money 2 to 1 on a KO in the 3rd round on James or Derek. =) Ok, enough noise...off to make some signal... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I wondered why there were so many requests for that specific picture of me ;-p

On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:11:10 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Have you see the pictures of this guy (on his unprotected /files >directory he keeps the screenshots in)? I'd put my money 2 to 1 on a KO in >the 3rd round on James or Derek. =) > > Ok, enough noise...off to make some signal... If you're gonna be dumb and presume those guys would throw down on the street...I sure I'm the only one who's actually gone to county for commiting assault. Santa Clara County Jail aka: The Farm, had me for 6 months. I invite anyone to go down there and check to see if Jeff Crane was interred in 1999 People who insult others are daft to think they will have any input on a project. I do what I do, WELL, because I dont need to respond this "you insulted me","you dont listen to US" nonsense. 'High Horse'? I havent asked or said anything that I would not ask or say to an employer, much less a colleague. That's where I'm coming from. I come here looking for impartial experts (who incidentally would be the first to complain about rule misinterpretations if I was not to consult with them before finishing the beta). You want to act like high schooler's again, that's fine. Some people want to go off and make more of posts than there is because it makes them feel good about themselves. Attitudes have nothing to do with the direction or the project or the facts relating to the rules. I have never implied or said anything directly contradicting my intention to have a completely accrate interpretation and explanation of the rules. (I was bored so I revisited the thread)

On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 22:19:02 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:11:10 -0500, Pat Ricochet ><sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> Have you see the pictures of this guy (on his unprotected /files >>directory he keeps the screenshots in)? I'd put my money 2 to 1 on a KO in >>the 3rd round on James or Derek. =) >> >> Ok, enough noise...off to make some signal... > >If you're gonna be dumb and presume those guys would throw down on the >street...I sure I'm the only one who's actually gone to county for >commiting assault. Santa Clara County Jail aka: The Farm, had me for 6 >months. I invite anyone to go down there and check to see if Jeff >Crane was interred in 1999 And you want fucking brownie points for being caught? You think somehow this makes you more of a man, that you went to jail for six months? Holy shit, no wonder you talk like you're on crack... you ARE. I retract my earlier statement. THIS is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. Bragging about going to jail. Wow. How fucking stupid is THAT? Jail sucks, dude. Enough said. >"you insulted me","you dont listen to US" nonsense. 'High Horse'? I >havent asked or said anything that I would not ask or say to an >employer, much less a colleague. That's where I'm coming from. I come And I repeat: I would have FIRED YOUR ASS for it if you worked for me and didn't change this attitude within three months. I don't give a shit how good you are; YOU ARE REPLACEABLE. Especially right now, when I can get someone who's out of work, who'll take HALF what you make, do a job 90% as good, and not cop an attitude like their shit doesn't stink. I can (and WILL) give them a raise later. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > > To a certain degree, he's brought this on himself. Even the request for > help for an ASCII file was fine until the tagline "People have asked what > they can do to help. This is what I need," which turned off *several* > people. Consider the exact same sort of request by the host of a dinner party: "For those of you who asked if they could bring anything, we need ice, soda, and maybe an appetizer." Seriously, though, how should he have worded his request? How should the dinner party host have? Should anyone really take offense at either? Why? - Jason Bell

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:55:39 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>If you're gonna be dumb and presume those guys would throw down on the >>street...I sure I'm the only one who's actually gone to county for >>commiting assault. Santa Clara County Jail aka: The Farm, had me for 6 >>months. I invite anyone to go down there and check to see if Jeff >>Crane was interred in 1999 > >And you want fucking brownie points for being caught? You think somehow >this makes you more of a man, that you went to jail for six months? >Holy shit, no wonder you talk like you're on crack... you ARE. > >I retract my earlier statement. THIS is the dumbest thing I've ever >seen you post. Bragging about going to jail. Wow. How fucking stupid >is THAT? > >Jail sucks, dude. Enough said. There's a difference between posturing and doing. It's a serious matter. If you think fights happen in some deserted parking lot where bystanders hurry away rather than be near a fight...come on. You pick up a brick (I've gotten bricked before), pipe, switchblade, whatever. Face to face. You run or do you get hurt? You dont know what you're talking about, treating real violence as some game, "oooh, then I'll runaway and it will be like Cyberpunk where they never catch my group for shooting up those hitmen". You have no experience and you barely have a right to judge, knowing nothing about the circumstances. I state the facts (in this matter). I dont see how your opinions have a bearing on the subject. >>"you insulted me","you dont listen to US" nonsense. 'High Horse'? I >>havent asked or said anything that I would not ask or say to an >>employer, much less a colleague. That's where I'm coming from. I come > >And I repeat: I would have FIRED YOUR ASS for it if you worked for me >and didn't change this attitude within three months. I don't give a >shit how good you are; YOU ARE REPLACEABLE. Especially right now, when >I can get someone who's out of work, who'll take HALF what you make, do >a job 90% as good, and not cop an attitude like their shit doesn't >stink. I can (and WILL) give them a raise later. Saying what you would and would not do means you have relative experience in a similar or actual situation? You are not qualified to make the aforementioned decisions and your criticisms, at this point, are showing a great deal of ignorance on many levels. My 'shit' doesnt stink. There is no shit and there is no stink. I'm not saying "I am right, you are wrong", I'm trying to convey a simple concept. I have not made any partisan comments, nor have I insulted anyone (although I'm sure you'll take the 'ignorance' comment as a personal attack *sigh*). I do not try to do anything other than state fact and pose questions. I may not be perfect in this respect, but I dont question motive or validity as you do. It has been a long while since you made any comment in this thread that did not make an issue of how I affronted someone else. A lack of consideration is not an offensive stance.

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:12:34 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >There's a difference between posturing and doing. It's a serious >matter. If you think fights happen in some deserted parking lot where >bystanders hurry away rather than be near a fight...come on. You pick >up a brick (I've gotten bricked before), pipe, switchblade, whatever. >Face to face. You run or do you get hurt? You dont know what you're >talking about, treating real violence as some game, "oooh, then I'll >runaway and it will be like Cyberpunk where they never catch my group >for shooting up those hitmen". You have no experience and you barely >have a right to judge, knowing nothing about the circumstances. I >state the facts (in this matter). I dont see how your opinions have a >bearing on the subject. You are incorrect, AGAIN, in your facts. Specifically, you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about my experiences, because I haven't said a SINGLE THING about them. I have, actually, deliberately chosen to NOT say a single thing about them, because the kind of stupid posturing you're doing does nothing more than make one look like a fool. On USENET nobody knows you're a dog... and more importantly, nobody cares. I'm not the one who posted his criminal history in public to somehow "prove" he was a badass. >Saying what you would and would not do means you have relative >experience in a similar or actual situation? You are not qualified to >make the aforementioned decisions and your criticisms, at this point, >are showing a great deal of ignorance on many levels. My 'shit' doesnt >stink. There is no shit and there is no stink. I'm not saying "I am And here you misunderstand a very common colloquialism, which is intended to convey that you obviously think you're better than everyone else here for reasons of your own. You're wrong, as is anyone else who believes they're "better" than anyone just because they can do something that others can't. If I got you gambling on a pool table, I feel confident I could empty your bank account. This means I can do something you can't. Does this make me better than you? No. Does it make me better than everyone else here, because I can do something THEY can't? No. It is this attitude of yours that I and others take issue with. When you can understand THAT, come back and talk. >right, you are wrong", I'm trying to convey a simple concept. I have >not made any partisan comments, nor have I insulted anyone (although >I'm sure you'll take the 'ignorance' comment as a personal attack >*sigh*). I do not try to do anything other than state fact and pose >questions. I may not be perfect in this respect, but I dont question Whatever you may be TRYING to do, you seem to be getting an unexpected result -- and not from just me. Perhaps it's time to look at your source, as opposed to assuming there are bugs in OUR programs. >motive or validity as you do. It has been a long while since you made >any comment in this thread that did not make an issue of how I >affronted someone else. A lack of consideration is not an offensive >stance. Your last sentence says it all, and really explains a lot about you. A lack of consideration for others is not an offensive (as in 'attacking') stance, no. But it sure as hell can be offensive (as in 'offended'), and has been. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:57:56 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: ><stuff> So far you have failed to contact me privately, demonstrated little to no knowledge of physics (but you spelled atomic right), have no real world experience with the law (but remain judgemental), pretended you were an VP of engineering, formed a plethora of broken, repetitive, statements revolving around an obsession to remind me that you think I am retarded. Nothing I have ever read in this group (much less outside this newsgroup *shudder*) has indicated that you are anything more than person who likes to hear himself talk. Since you treat me like you are more "badass" than me, in every respect every time you post, I give up...you're a badass. I'm obviously a thoughtless 18 year old who is striving to become a piss-poor criminal. I would be able to grasp basic english if it weren't for my extraordinary crack habit. *I clean a copious amount of drool off my shirt* I apologize for lacking control of the muscles of my mouth. I was born this way. Happy now?

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 13:04:45 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: >So far you have failed to contact me privately, demonstrated little to I have seen no need to contact you privately, and since you've twice claimed to have put me in your killfile, I would have considered it a waste of time. I know that if I received private email from someone I found the need to killfile, I would simply add a filter to my email as well to auto-delete messages from that address. >no knowledge of physics (but you spelled atomic right), have no real How has physics been relevant to, or INVOLVED WITH, any conversation we have had? It's certainly not relevant to the group, which is why I am somewhat puzzled... however, considering how off-topic stuff in this group can get, I wouldn't be TOO surprised. >world experience with the law (but remain judgemental), pretended you You are incorrect. Anyone who has been in jail understands how MUCH jail totally and absolutely sucks. It amazes me that anyone would voluntarily hold it up as an example to demonstrate ANYTHING about themselves, other than to reinforce the statement "It sucks, you don't want to go there." >were an VP of engineering, formed a plethora of broken, repetitive, Please quote a post where I claimed to be a VP of engineering. >statements revolving around an obsession to remind me that you think I >am retarded. Nothing I have ever read in this group (much less outside No, I think you're arrogant and foolish. There's a difference. You could get better, if you tried. >this newsgroup *shudder*) has indicated that you are anything more Oh, the lurkers support you in e-mail, right? That's nice. There are a few non-lurkers who've supported you in PUBLIC too; do you think it worries me? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <sBMb7.82241$J37.19...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote >> To a certain degree, he's brought this on himself. Even the request >for >> help for an ASCII file was fine until the tagline "People have asked what >> they can do to help. This is what I need," which turned off *several* >> people. >Consider the exact same sort of request by the host of a dinner >party: "For those of you who asked if they could bring anything, >we need ice, soda, and maybe an appetizer." That's different from, say, 'Some of you people have asked what they can do to help. I need ice.' One is peremptory and arrogant. The other is not. It's all in the tonality and phrasing. >Seriously, though, how should he have worded his request? Seriously, polite gracenotes like 'I'd appreciate it if...' or 'thanks in advance...' or 'this would really help me out' would have gotten me to do it. His whole 'bitches, fetch me this' attitude made it so I wouldn't pee on him if he were on fire. >Should anyone really take offense at either? I don't know about 'should', but I certainly took offence. I was already well on the way to putting Jack in the 'cretin doodoohead' category (Jason Bell, for example, lives in the 'passionate, occasionally misguided, but non-stupid and probably worth listening to at least occasionally' neighborhood), but I was going to give him another shot until he blew it with the 'Fly, my monkeys, fly!' routine. >Why? No-one likes being commanded by people they have a low opinion of, especially when the would-be commander has no real authority to command. Example: If you and I are playing a quiet game of V:tES, and you get up to head fridgewards, I might ask: "Jason, while you're up, would you mind getting me a Coke?", and that request might have some result. Or I could, without even looking up from my cards, snap my fingers and bark out "Bell! Coke me!". And that is likely to have a very different sort of (non-)result, especially if you don't think I'm kidding. gomi -- There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with morons. -- M. Lorton

Derek Ray wrote: > Anyone who has been in jail understands how MUCH jail totally and > absolutely sucks. It amazes me that anyone would voluntarily hold it up > as an example to demonstrate ANYTHING about themselves, other than to > reinforce the statement "It sucks, you don't want to go there." It not only sucks, it is easily the most boring experience you will ever have...unless you enjoy watching Moesha and playing Craps with dice made out of soap for trays of food...you don't want to go there. >> were an VP of engineering, formed a plethora of broken, repetitive, > > Please quote a post where I claimed to be a VP of engineering. May I make that claim? ...at the same time I claim to be the Shah of Iran? *grin* > Oh, the lurkers support you in e-mail, right? That's nice. There are a > few non-lurkers who've supported you in PUBLIC too; do you think it > worries me? Where do I sign up to support Derek? He's one of the most kind and altruistic people I know. Of course, I _do_ live in the Detroit metro area... Regards, Noal

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: > > >So far you have failed to contact me privately, demonstrated little to > > I have seen no need to contact you privately, and since you've twice > claimed to have put me in your killfile, That wasn't his claim, that was my suggestion. Both times. - Jason Bell

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >Consider the exact same sort of request by the host of a dinner > >party: "For those of you who asked if they could bring anything, > >we need ice, soda, and maybe an appetizer." > > That's different from, say, 'Some of you people have asked what they > can do to help. I need ice.' > > One is peremptory and arrogant. The other is not. It's all in the tonality > and phrasing. Well, I am officially bewildered, since I can't parse those two methods in such a way as to be offended by either. English: A different language for each of us. > (Jason Bell, for example, lives in the 'passionate, > occasionally misguided, but non-stupid and probably worth listening > to at least occasionally' neighborhood) Yeah, but I've found that it is much easier to deal with other humans if you avoid putting them into small boxes such as this. I think maybe you became offended by Jack's call for assistance because you viewed it from the context of the box you put him in. Maybe I'm defending Jack more than I ought because I have put Ray and Coupe in such boxes, and have only seen Jack be obnoxious after they poked him with sharp sticks. Shrug. > >Why? > > No-one likes being commanded by people they have a low opinion of, > especially when the would-be commander has no real authority to command. There is just no way to translate "I need" to "You must do." There is no explicit or implied command, it is merely information. What is implied by "I need" is a request, not a command. > Example: > > If you and I are playing a quiet game of V:tES, Good one, "quiet game of V:tES." What would that be like? (sweet, we're on topic for the newsgroup for a change) > and you get up to head > fridgewards, I might ask: "Jason, while you're up, would you mind getting > me a Coke?", and that request might have some result. > > Or I could, without even looking up from my cards, snap my fingers and > bark out "Bell! Coke me!". And that is likely to have a very different > sort of (non-)result, especially if you don't think I'm kidding. What if I said "Can I get you anything from the fridge?" What if you just answered: "Since you asked, I need a Coke?" I'm going to call that one rhetorical, so we can get past it. - Jason Bell

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] Nice trolling, Derek. [ quoted text not captured ]

>May I make that claim? ...at the same time I claim to be the Shah of >Iran? *grin* HERETIC!!!! There can be only one.. >Regards, >Noal

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:<YAF97.1362$YJ3.2...@news.uswest.net>... > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > news:f5VnjixS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > I will, openly, concede that I am also worried about a weenie deck > that > > basically goes: 40 Mask, 50 Venenation. I bleed, you block and I > steal > > you. I bleed, you don't block and I oust you. > > Don't block? :) > > > (Obviously, refining the deck for some defence, but you get the > idea.) > > I think that Sorrow is right in that it's just not *that* scary. > Disturbing, perhaps, but they'll learn not to block soon enough, and > you'd have to make the bleeds pretty nasty to want to block them. And > then there's always deflection. > > Though a Sensory Dep/Venenation/Mask deck would invite lots of blocks. > Of course, you probably couldn't do it with weenies. > > Xian Hmmmm. i have been having a lot of fun recently with the following deck, which i repost from the August NL. It doesn't care whether it gets blocked or not. It certainly scares my wednesday night playgroup. It doesn't use Mask or, indeed, any stealth at all apart from the Opium Den and when it says +1 stealth on the cards. Legbiterized version of Sorrow's will-they-won't-they Setites The idea for this deck came from something Sorrow [Chris Boget] played against me when he visited us in June. i used my version successfully in two Wednesday night games during July, managing on both occasions to take over ALL my Tzimisce prey's vampires and then swarm-bleeding out my next preys [3/4 and 4/5 possible vp]. Both times i was decked by the end, so 90 is not too big for this deck. On 2 other outings it [1] died horribly [prey's initial influence was Cailean, i was being dominate stealth-bled and didn't draw ANY Tributes] and [2] got 2/3 possible VPs in a game at home. Deck Name: Embrace the Serpent Created by: Legbiter, but inspired by Sorrow Comments: If you block, i corrupt you. If you don't block i swarm-bleed and swarm-corrupt you. If you rush me i get killed. If you vote against me i DT your vote. If you bleed me i probably get killed but ecstasy and tribute keep me in the game longer than you might think. Focussed-degenerate and therefore a Setite clan theme-deck, if you like. CRYPT [12 cards] Lalitha 2 Celine Chevalier 3 Khalil Anvari 3 7 x Aabbt Kindred 4 2 x Nefertiti 10 LIBRARY [90 cards] ACTIONS [24] 13 x Corruption 8 x The Embrace Form of corruption 2 x Summon the Serpent ACTION MODIFIERS [32] 16 x Change of target 16 x Venenation MASTERS [20] Opium Den The Path of Typhon 8 x Serpentis Temple Hunting Ground 9 x Tribute to the Master REACTIONS [14] 4 x Delaying tactics 5 x Ecstasy 5 x Wake with Evening's Freshness

On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:33:33 GMT, ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote: > Nice trolling, Derek. Silly... that wasn't a troll. That was flamebait. There's a difference, you know. ;) -- Derek "You should rush your predator this turn." "Why?" "Because he's not me."

On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 18:01:15 -0400, Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote: >Where do I sign up to support Derek? He's one of the most kind and >altruistic people I know. Of course, I _do_ live in the Detroit metro >area... For those not familiar with metro Detroit, "altruistic" means that the guy who mugged you will give you the credit cards and ID out of the PREVIOUS guy's wallet so you can "get yourself back on your feet, buddy." =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 18:01:15 -0400, Noal McDonald > <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote: > > >Where do I sign up to support Derek? He's one of the most kind and > >altruistic people I know. Of course, I _do_ live in the Detroit metro > >area... > > For those not familiar with metro Detroit, "altruistic" means that the > guy who mugged you will give you the credit cards and ID out of the > PREVIOUS guy's wallet so you can "get yourself back on your feet, > buddy." > Hey Derek, I see you have been to Detroit. ;) Raille so whoes cards you got now?