koontz1973 wrote:agentcom wrote:I feel like I'm basically just repeating my previous post. I don't think that we're going to agree on this one koontz. That's my reason and I'm not alone in thinking that it's a "good reason." But to hold the bar at finding a reason for which "an argument against it cannot be found" is a little bit of a high threshold that I won't be able to meet.
Fine, we will not agree, but far more in the thread do agree than disagree. I feel that your argument against this is more personal than logical.
Seriously, koontz?! WTH? Of course it's personal. This is an issue that people can disagree on and I'm giving my personal opinion on the matter. And given my personal opinion on the matter, there's nothing in my post that isn't "logical." I don't know what the point of your comment is here.
And to say far more agree than disagree is misleading at best. There have only been a handful of people that have said anything. There have been a few people for the idea, a couple against, and several comments that were either from the same users or didn't lean one way or another.
But if it is that rare, why do players feel the need to play play off games? And why has a thread in this forum been stickied for an escalating spoils refinement that is supposed to stop stalemates. In that thread the argument goes that this is a bigger problem and the refinement needs to be done.
Don't ask me. I didn't sticky it. I think both suggestions are unnecessary. Also, your first sentence doesn't make any sense. People play the tiebreaker games to get out of the rare stalemates that do occur. Just because they're rare doesn't mean that they don't exist.
All settings and all things on the site have the potential for abuse. To say some would abuse a setting is not a reason to stop it. Same way some abuse the forums, we do not close them, we ban the person. Abuse is abuse and we have a whole department to deal with it. If some one abuses a setting, a player can report them. As for the long games and epic battle, we get them as some players like them so do not play play of games. For those players, they would not touch a button like this.
For someone who is demanding logic from me, you sure aren't showing much ability to grasp it. My main point is that the "problem" that you are trying to solve is rare; therefore a solution provides little benefit. That's the main point. In addition to this, there are other problems that could be caused. Obviously we disagree on the scope of these problems, but uncertainty probably weighs in favor of being conservative. More importantly, just because you think this suggestion won't cause lots of problems is not a reason to implement it. It has to also provide some benefit.
But I can't really be surprised that you find my posts lacking. You've made it clear that you aren't going to be swayed from this quest. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't bastardize my arguments along the way.
