WarbossLincoln wrote:This whole conversation is as verbose as silicon policy itself. I guess it's a symptom of people being dumb or assholes
No, it almost has to be this way. It's a discussion about a very verbose, complicated thing.
So yes, of course you should expect wordy posts. Of course there will be rules-lawyering (fuck I hope I did get the right meaning of that word or somebody is going to go off on my choice of words again) if you want to get rid of rules-lawyering. Call me an autist if you want, I don't care.
Posting one-liners should be seen as dumb or dickish, if you actually want to have a discussion.
Emphasis on the word discussion - it's not a debate. There's not going to be a jury that is going to say you were right or wrong or that you have won or lost.
Bring up points and if you see bad points, bring up an argument why you think it is bad.
If you cannot follow, ask. It's super fucking simple once one leaves the whole "I MUST WIN THE ARGUMENT" attitude out of it (
yeah dont bother trying to use this 'against' me, there is no 'against' anyone as far I am concerned when it comes to a discussion.).
WarbossLincoln wrote: I play AI most rounds that I'm not just being annoying as an assistant and I barely know the long ass silicon policy or policy rulings.
I don't think about silicon policy when playing AI either. I bet nobody does.
Yet the silicon policy is 'ass long'.
The whole point of this thread is why people think we need silicon policy to be like this.