3 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

No, it's still a bad job either way. When can we stop pretending like different interpretations aren't separated by degrees of plausibility?

That page 13 rule was as clear as Ventress' card, at least to me. To you, one is clear, the other wasn't. Comes down to who is trying to interpret and what information they have in their head that brings them to a conclusion. Plausibility applies to a population not an individual but no need to have a math conversation here. Just so say, it does not apply to individuals which are exactly the people who do the reading. TBH, that page 13 rule was a hell of a lot more clear than which definition of the word "Another" is being used by Ventress, at least that is my opinion. One thing we can agree on is that people are here to enjoy this game, a game that is rather complicated and not always clearly communicated. So instead of calling people out and saying they should have known better, maybe just politely explain things and accept the fact that not everyone sees things the same way.

12 minutes ago, Mep said:

That page 13 rule was as clear as Ventress' card, at least to me. To you, one is clear, the other wasn't. Comes down to who is trying to interpret and what information they have in their head that brings them to a conclusion. Plausibility applies to a population not an individual but no need to have a math conversation here. Just so say, it does not apply to individuals which are exactly the people who do the reading. TBH, that page 13 rule was a hell of a lot more clear than which definition of the word "Another" is being used by Ventress, at least that is my opinion. One thing we can agree on is that people are here to enjoy this game, a game that is rather complicated and not always clearly communicated. So instead of calling people out and saying they should have known better, maybe just politely explain things and accept the fact that not everyone sees things the same way.

I stopped reading halfway through your first sentence, because you're full of crap. You admitted that the RRG was wholly inadequate for that ruling, and that you pulled your interpretation out of your ***. Do I need to quote you yet again?

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I stopped reading halfway through your first sentence, because you're full of crap. You admitted that the RRG was wholly inadequate for that ruling, and that you pulled your interpretation out of your ***. Do I need to quote you yet again?

I was being kind. Something you know nothing about. And, yes, since there was confusion by some, all be it not me, it was inadequate. The interpretation wasn't pull out of anything other than the page 13 rule that was rather clear.

12 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I stopped reading halfway through your first sentence, because you're full of crap. You admitted that the RRG was wholly inadequate for that ruling, and that you pulled your interpretation out of your ***. Do I need to quote you yet again?

No need to be a jerk. This should be a friendly conversation. As your mother may have taught you... if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.

There's no need for anyone to be a full on liar or hypocrite either, but that doesn't seem to be stopping some people. This conversation has long since lost any redeeming value, and you don't have me to blame for that.

I like pizza.

15 minutes ago, CBMarkham said:

I like pizza.

Me too, friend. Me too.

36 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

There's no need for anyone to be a full on liar or hypocrite either, but that doesn't seem to be stopping some people. This conversation has long since lost any redeeming value, and you don't have me to blame for that.

You must be fun at parties.

1 hour ago, KrisWall said:

You must be fun at parties.

Should I have admitted that I like cake instead?