Is it strictly necessary to call me out by name like this? I understand that you’re not a fan of the whole idea but maybe I’d be more able to fix the issues you’re raising if it weren’t all coming with an air of vague agginess.

There currently isn’t a rule called Dynastic Distance; I assume you mean Building Block, by this? If so, best edit that in, as at the moment the wording here is unclear.

Was it necessary? No… but given you had a two different patch proposals up to fix issues and didn’t address this in either issue… certainly seemed to me like it was an intentional choice to leave out

I’m fine with the idea of building blocks. I think the system could still probably use some tweaks, but overall its still probably a step in the right direction over special case rules. My objections were to the bugs in the system not to the system itself.

Thing I’m annoyed about is using them as a opportunity to push through other riders. Seems to me you want the option to turn off dynastic distance gone for whatever reason. But rather than just propose that on its own so we could discuss the merits of leaving or keeping it you tacked it onto another proposal thinking it was inconsequential enough to live or die on the original proposal’s merits.

Oh, okay, so the call-out was a deliberate strategy, then?

Clucky, I’m a human being. Sometimes I miss things, like you missed out a couple important words in this two-line proposal that I was good enough to point out for you to correct rather than dropping a pass-agg proposal in the morning about.

I definitely missing things in posts that are clearly exhibiting frustration. I’m sure you work with or interact with other humans in your daily life; if so then you will understand that that is a human behaviour. We tend to avoid hostile, negative energy. You know this, because I remember you complaining about it when it was ais523 close-critiquing your posts a few years ago. Your comments on this issue so far have been constructive but consistently frustrated, and I have to tell you that that is a poor communication strategy if you want to get things actually fixed. See, for example, Kevan’s comments, which have been largely positive and as a result have led to all of his identified issues being fixed.

I also tend to take things slowly when there isn’t a burning platform, as there currently isn’t. I committed to using all my slots to patch bugs but that wasn’t enough for you, clearly.

You’re right that I don’t care about the debate on dynastic distance. I was never going to withdraw the first proposal over it, and indeed that proposal passed with only your objection. I’m sure that it sucks for you that, as the only person who cares about it, you’re going to have to propose yourself to set things the way around that you want them, and I’m very sorry about that. It does not justify the breach of the community guideline stipulation that “players should always treat each other with courtesy and respect”.

I’m going to go idle now, as this is very much not the game I want to be playing at this moment in my life. If you have any other issues, fix em yourself. Quorum drops to five.

When the concerns get pointed out twice and then you make a third fix post that still doesn’t address the issue (while being very short and addressing the two other concerns still pending)... that didn’t strike me as “I missed something” that struck me as “I deliberately don’t want it there”

I don’t wanna keep pointing out the same concerns multiple times. If you want to talk about ‘treating each other with courtesy and respect” I don’t exactly feel respected when my feedback is ignored

Anyways I apologize if calling out what seemed like a deliberate strategy by you felt over the line. I’ll update the proposal title while its still in the edit window.

also sorry to everyone else for derailing the dynasty with pointless drama. was annoyed at feeling ignored. could’ve certainly handled it better =/

although this won’t do anything as written as the other side of this is currently “Unless otherwise stated by a dynastic rule, for the purposes of dynastic and Building Blocks rules, the Grim Reaper is not a Necromancer.”, and Core trumps Building Block - I’ll put up a patch.