Jowy Wrote:It's funny because Krill didn't actually write it.
reminder that that post was constructed by several lurkers acting in concert to interpret a rule, which is really no better at all and undermines the crux of the pro-Krill argument, namely that the game needs a neutral arbiter to enforce the rules. When the justification for the rule enforcement is provided by a person who has no actual role in the game, what does that say for Krill? Do you honestly think that that post adds legitimacy to Krill's ruling?
The fact that some random lurkers wrote the defense of what seems like the make-or-break decision of the game is also ridiculous in light of all the panty-twisting everyone was doing earlier about lurkers not impacting the game. Seems like a pretty big impact to me.
Now, Spullla's argument rests on the fact that they could have achieved exactly the same ends with only minor alterations to how the turn played out. The fact that you guys had to dig into a sub-example of a rule and extrapolate it out to say something that it plainly does not say in the text itself further hurts your case. I'm no Constitutional Constructionist, but I do feel like your case is really really weak. Add in the fact that Krill is now taking it personally, and I think the only actually reasonable thing to do is for Krill to step down and for Spullla to pay some minor reparations.
No offense Krill, but it's clear that you're taking this personally. I can't blame you - I would have blown up at Speaker and Sullla a long time ago based on the inflammatory nature of their posts. However, your role must be neutral if you want anything you say to be taken seriously, and you are clearly not neutral right now. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
By the way, this whole stupid situation could have and should have been avoided. Y'all should be pretty embarrassed about all the things that have been said over a game that no one has any real stake in. Take things less seriously for god's sake. It won't kill you.