> No, I don't believe that anything that frustrates players is good. I
> belive anything that is for the good of the game, whether or not it
> frustrates the players is good; as I have said from the very beginning
> and everyone but Andrew has understood.
I was pointing out that you have a problem. Your stated philosophy
does not match what you and I know to be the Art of Administration.
You could not get past my words to understand though. If you had
only tried instead of being hostile and aggressive you might have
understood. I would be happy to explain anything you don't fully
understand about my position, all you have to do is ask. However,
you just fired away with names and witticisms, you didn't even
respond to my points. And it's sad too, considering how hard I
was trying to have a productive conversation with you, for once.
> If Andrew is appalled by me
> calling him an idiot (several times), it should only be expected since
> he has consistently acted like an idiot. If he's not really an idiot,
> he's a damn good actor.
I'm not appalled by you calling me an idiot. I'm appalled that
while I take this discussion candidly with full intention of
not playing games, you have resorted to name calling. It's
inappropriate. It's not productive whether I'm wrong, I'm
right, I'm an idiot, or I'm a genius. It'
s just not the
productive way to have a discussion.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST