"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.10), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.
Wait what are we fighting over again?
What about them?
Anyone crying about not being able retire by 40 is obscenely wealthy or out of touch, either way he deserves no respect and therefore got the appropriate amount of respect.
There's plenty of content there, I mean look at how many replies we've made from. It goes back to being concise.
And finally I'm not even bothering to argue with him so "engaging with his argument" doesn't apply because there's nothing to argue. It's not like you report anyone who agrees with the poster they quote.
So, you are the arbiter of who, or what, is deserving of respect? Fascinating, under what auspices are you, in particular, granted this ability? Perhaps you should message Brado and let him know we should amend the rule to be clear then to say: "Simply, be respectful of other forum users (unless FourdogsinaHorsesuit says they aren't deserving of respect). If you can't control the urge, go somewhere else."
There is no rule stating the need to be concise. The rule is against lacking content. You seem to imagine that a discussion of the lack of content is content in-itself. Not quite. Even so, your post did not make a case for lack of content, it was an insult and/or personal attack.
A clever attempt, but the rule states you need to engage with his argument, not that you don't. You don't get a pass because you chose not to engage his argument, the whole point is that you need to do just that and not resort to personal attacks. If he did, as a matter of fact, make no argument, then your post should have been about that lack, not a personal attack.
You can "creatively" read the rules however you like, but "engaging with an argument" does not mean you must disagree. In fact, agreeing with someone's point is engaging, quite specifically.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
In my life? Yupperoo.
This is incoherent, logically and linguistically. Post better.There is no rule stating the need to be concise. The rule is against lacking content. You seem to imagine that a discussion of the lack of content is content in-itself. Not quite. Even so, your post did not make a case for lack of content, it was an insult and/or personal attack.
This describes your efforts which have confused "guidelines" for "rules." And shame on me for taking so long to notice.A clever attempt,
This forum is not the exposition of your life, it's a communal space. That means there are behavioral expectations. I couldn't care any less if you respect him "in your life" the matter at hand is conduct on this forum.
In what way? You cite "It goes back to being concise." This is not a claim that being concise is the purpose here? What, then, does "it goes back to being concise" mean, exactly?
My point is rather coherent. You make the case that if someone posts something that lacks content, then you are free to make comments further lacking content, because that constitutes content. That hardly follows. If you had, on the other hand, actually made the case for his lack of content, then you'd have a case. However, you instead simply insult and/or attacked him. Now, you'll make the case that in your mind, "fuck you" is substantive content, or that it is the making of such a case, but I would simply wish you good luck with that normative claim. It might be where you come from, but hardly seems like it would be a universal.
What did I quote, the site guidelines, or the site rules?
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
Please stay on topic even if u don't like the topic
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Okay, fine. I'm hijacking this motherfucker. You want new mods? Send me a PM with your top 3 choices of members who you think have the temperament and dedication to the community to do the job. Feel free to explain why you think a person deserves consideration. Don't vote for yourself. If I'm seeing a lot of the same names, the administrative staff will discuss them as mod candidates. Go on then.
Thank you mods/admins! Your meme skills are admirable. I'm lookin' at you Zilla and Jander!
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
You're welcome, thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)