User talk:Commander I. Heartly Noah
Commander I. Heartly Noah
Contributions - lots of descriptions and dialogue in the 50-90 range.
Lots of rules speculation, especially involving elves, stats, and tactical options.
- That was you? Nice job! SteveMB 22:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Somebody else was doing the dialogue & descriptions at the same time as me - for a while, we leapfrogged.
Crossposted from DToC talk page: I've whipped up a blog citation templatesummer-updates-007 . A template for Intermission entries specifically is possible, but it'd take more code and time and I'm waiting for more requests before I decide it's worth it. ;) But yeah, in the meantime, here you go. Menlo Marseilles 08:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"Great job on the descriptions and dialog transcriptions! One sometimes wonders how all the work gets done. People like you! Thanks from the Interwebs!" --- 220.127.116.11 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I asked Rob through private mail on the forums and here is what he replied:
Scarlet (though that is not really her name) is Unaroyal. Maya (same deal) is Hobbitm. There is a reason for that, which does make sense, but it would spoil a joke later. I can't be much more specific than that, but blue = Hobbitm and red = Unaroyal.
Not what I thought, but pretty unambiguous, I'd say. -- Muzzafar 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Spec vs. Prop C
If you ever write something and find yourself using "unlikely", "probably", or other "possible but not certain" term, you're writing Spec, not Prop C. --Kreistor 15:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there new information about Warlords and Leadership that I have not been made aware of? --Kreistor 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You've edited the pages to make it appear that the resolution you agree with has been accepted. Are we done with accepting other people's positions entirely? Are you trying to start an "Undo" war?--Kreistor 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"However, Warlord is a specific term for leaders with the Leadership ability. Commander is a more general term, and also encompasses Casters, who do not have Leadership.Erf-b1-p084a Both CastersErf-b1-p017 and WarlordsErf-b1-p007 can be and have been called "Commander," even insisting on it,Erf-b1-p083 while both have also been referred to with their more specific terms. (Incidentally, Wanda Firebaugh was once referred to as "officer,"Erf-b1-p005, which we can only assume is a rarely-used synonym.)"
You declared victory on Warlord, not Commander. Have you no objectivity at all, Noah? Did you think I wouldn't notice? You only moved the argument to Warlord and failed to present anyone else's perspectives on the subject. We have to work together, but something like this, while we are discussing an issue? Objectivity means representing everyone, Noah. Did you do that today? --Kreistor 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to respond to your last message on my page? Do you still not understand the issue? --Kreistor 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, don't characterize other people's arguments in the Wiki. That's just flat out rude. When you argue about the argument it's opinion and just not helpful to anyone, and can only lead to what I've done -- completely undone most of what you wrote. Do you really not get that this is a place where we all have to play fair? What you write, I can unwrite. Readers can decide if my arguments are marginal without your claims to that effect. If they are, they'll realize it, so you don't need to say it. If they aren't, then you don't deserve the air time.
Compromise, Noah. This place must be a place of compromise. I gave all three Disciplines equal time and presence. Could you have done that? No, you couldn't because you've been undermining it since I did it, trying to advance the Carnymancy case by tearing down everything else. I started in the middle ground: that should have been obvious from the start. If I was being unobjective, Shockmancy would have better arguments and I would have undermined everything else: I didn't. No one has unwritten anything that I wrote about any of those subjects: I did a good job of representing the ideas of my opponents, didn't I? But here I am unwriting vast tracts of your work as prejudicial and argumentative. Your goal is to try to ensure only your idea wins, but that is not what this Wiki can ever be about. It is about all ideas.
I will not negotiate any other position, because this is the only position we can end in. Stop trying to undermine your opponents. It's only bringing the battle from the forum to the Wiki. Keep the arguing off the Wiki: it is supposed to be a place of information, not bickering.
(BTW, Magicians are Hat Magic, not Carnymancy. I shifted the flight argument to trapeze acts which fit the carnival motife better. [u]That's[/u] objectivity. Are [u]you[/u] capable of improving an opponent's argument?)
--Kreistor 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1) I put Shockmancy first, because the last two times I was involved with my own theories, I put my own theories last. (Disbanding and some other page.) Sometimes I get first crack, too. It's not unobjective to give yourself first read once in a while. 2) Your objections about objectivity are from the Forum, not the Wiki. As I pointed out on the forum, I am using different rules here. 3) Carnymancy. I want you to take a step back and think for a moment. Is there any spell or effect that you can't come up with a theory of how it fits into Carnymancy? Uncroaked? Voodoo priestesses and horror shows. Golems? Dr. Frankenstein-like stage plays. You've given Carnymancy such a broad scope, that quite literally every single spell or effect can fall under its umbrella, including those that we know are other Disciplines. Just step back a moment and try. I realized this last night. It's so broad that it quite literally now includes all magic... all you have to be is creative enough. --Kreistor 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)