Brad's view is the only one that makes sense to me. All the other comments
seem to boil down to the idea that we dont like other players "behaving
badly", where behaving badly means anything the individual commentator wants
it to mean. Bad behaviour is part of the game. Incompetent play is,
regrettably sometimes a part of the game. Unconscious incompetence we /
Clint can try to address. Conscious incompetence will persist (but there
really aint much of that).
Cheers
Mike
···
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 03:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brad Brunet <bbrunec296@rogers.com>
Subject: Neutrals
This is all quite funny. Really. A thread was started because of the
perception that the Open Game quality is deteriorating. And we end up with
neutral bashing.
Consider the possibility that anyone who believes they like neutrals, but
are only offering up ideas and/or options, are really neutral bashing also.
Consider the possibilty that there are only 2 options, as I've previously
mentioned and nobody has addressed:
1) Neutrals as is, end of discussion full-stop.
2) No Neutrals, open 12v12 setups.
Anything, I ask you to consider that Anything that isn't #1 is, for all
intents and purposes, simply a precursor to #2. No gray area will ever be
agreed to amongst the player base in significant numbers to warrant
implementation, and even IF it were to be, it and all possible gray area
ideas are somewhere between #1 and #2. Once you start, there's rarely any
going back. Move off the #1 Point on the line and you are simply closer to
and now have movement in the direction of, and therefore momentum towards,
#2.
My point? Unless you agree with the statement "I believe we should elminate
neutrals from MEPBM", then you reply with a "Leave the neutrals alone!" or
simply avoid any/all discussion of ideas/possiblities completely.
Thanks for your reading,
Canadian Brad
Neutral
------------------------------------------------------------------------