Let's Talk Rapid Thought!

Let's play MTG?

nc-italy wrote:

You accused me of misinforming, which is ridiculous and really out of the scope of a polite and respectful discussion.

I have been polite and respectful with you this entire thread, Emiliano.

Do you feel that someone within your community, asking you multiple times to please not do a thing, showing proof of why it would be a bad thing for you to do, and showing you facts to support their reasons why they are asking you not to do such a thing, is disrespectful?

If you were to call your new format "Rapid Thought" when there is already a well-established, well-known, well-liked format with the *exact* *same* *name*, that would be the perfect definition of "misinformative". It was not a personal attack upon you and I am sorry if you took it that way.

You say "You are not in the position of accusing me of stealing anything," even though you stated very clearly your intent to use the name for your different format unless it was a "legal" name for the format.

You say "i've made clear from the start what's the point i addressed about rapid format," even though it wasn't clear to me, and so I kept asking you not to use the name. I am sorry if you thought that was pedantic, but until now you never answered that question.

You say "and it's blatantly obvious that speaking of some testing for the same format extend to 4-5 players table it's so pointless to being afraid of use, or refer to, a given name instead of another for such format (providing, as said, that the credits of the idea are always provided in the test). Ending up with positive test results, it's clear that a would be name would be different."

I'm glad to see that you aren't going to use the name "Rapid Thought" for your new format. That is all I have ever asked of you.

floppyzedolfin wrote:

I gave some quick examples of possible results with Life Boon / Withdraws above.

I see those, but I think you are misunderstanding the ruling that you are quoting. It is possible that I am the one misunderstanding but if that is the case it is only because LSJ's language is sometimes written for a specific answer to a specific question and not for a general answer, and the ruling I cited is a perfect example of this.

Indeed, you even reworded the ruling that he posted when you say

floppyzedolfin wrote:

Life Boon awards half-VPs when half-VPs are awarded (until a full 1VP is awarded): [RTR 19991206]

Perhaps we should get a more clear, more exact ruling from LSJ? I cannot post on BSG, unfortunately.

Ok, I'll ask Scott on BGG (no stars involved )