Suggestion talk:20071029 Observation V2

Funt Solo's vote

Spam - anything that's so powerful it requires a cost of 4-12AP, is probably overpowered. You place great store in the limits (you must have all these skills!), but many, many players now have 1000s of XP, so they're not going to care. Plus, it doesn't make any roleplay sense at all. Why would anyone need any skill just to observe stuff. Clearly, the reason that we can't all currently choose to see that stuff must be gameplay (like, avoiding the promotion of trench-coat stylee PKing reprisals). So, this breaks that. And it encourages zerging. I can't think of anything good about this. And any edit, after voting starts, is bloody cheeky. --Funt Solo 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So on that basis, are syringes overpowered ;)? It costs so much because it's a long term action. As I said, I thought the edit was minor enough, especially as only two people had voted and one of them was asking for the change. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I count 7 or so voters before your final edits, not 2, but that's by the by. As for syringes - there are always exceptions. My limited "move other player" suggestion got implemented, for example, and that's usually a strict no-no. As it is, you've only sort-of answered one complaint out of the several I have. Sorry - I love good suggestions - but this isn't one. --Funt Solo 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The latter edits were only clarifications and thus perfectly acceptable. The reason why it was removed was the first edit.

A hypothetical question: Would the edit still have been "bloody cheeky" if I had managed to squeeze it in before The Hierophant voted? Meaning that there would have been only one vote which was asking for the change? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This advice in the suggestions rules, "When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it", was placed there to avoid exactly the kind of drama you're now trying to fan the flames of. As Gage used to say (to me, sometimes): get down off your cross, use the wood to build a bridge and get over it. --Funt Solo 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Got down my cross and re-posted it. The reason why I'm still going on about this is because you made it sound like I was intentionally trying mislead the voters. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"you made it sound like I was intentionally trying mislead the voters". No - that's just your interpretation of what I actually said. As it is, if you make edits after people have voted, then you meant to do so (you are in control of your actions, right?) and it's prone to confusing (ie misleading) people reading pre-edit votes, right? So, by definition, editing after voting has started is intentionally misleading voters. That's just a fact, and nothing to do with what I said to you. I'm going to make like a shepard and get the flock out of here, because I get the feeling that you're just going to argue the toss till the cows come home - and I'm not that interested in your defensiveness, to be honest. --Funt Solo 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my interpretation of what you said, which means that it sounds like that (at least to me). It seems I misunderstood you, though.

First, confusion != misleading and second, I wasn't trying to achieve confusion. Yes, I made the edit intentionally (and I'm not saying it wasn't wrong), but I didn't try to intentionally mislead the voters.

As for you last sentence (if I interpreted it correctly); I've said this earlier and I'll probably say it again. In an argument, there is a high probability that one person isn't right. I like to who that is, be it you or me. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Argument for argument's sake, and the narrow view that one person must be right and the other wrong (far too black and white for me) all comes under the general banner of "drama", in my opinion. Perhaps your energies would find a more suitable outlet as part of a debating society? --Funt Solo 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't have those here. Also, I said "a high probability" for it and I didn't say one would have to be outright wrong, only "not right". Yeah, I admit I'm a bit of a nitpicker :D. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)