ilan.muskat at mail.mcgill.ca
Mon Nov 11 10:25:24 EST 2002
Hi, Trevinsky. Since you've decided to make a personal attack on-list, I
must sadly defend myself personally on-list. Wait, I'm not that sad.
> Firstly when you state you are creating the summary of something you
> normally try to keep impartial as is humanely possible,
Well, yes. I was very arrogant in my post. Kitsuki Mitsu (upon reading of
his later responses to the actual corruption thread) was very clearly joking
with his more-reactionary responses. Sometimes it can be hard to tell
though, with the ratio of "people with senses of humour" to "people who take
offense at mention of tainted play". KM did not imply that Shosei was dumb,
just that he was clearly a taintmonger. And even this was done in jest.
> However I digress the point I was trying to make was that you portrayed
> yourself as a middle man impartial to either side when you were
> obviously partial to the side of using the taint to win.
This is my point. Knee-jerk (emphasis on "jerk") reaction to any and all
posts calling for less-reactive responses automatically get the poster
branded as a taint junkie. Obviously there's no way for you to know that
not only have I not *ever* used a deck with taint, I haven't even ever
*taken an action which causes me an honor loss* in competitive play, but
that's still no reason to call the side I was supporting "the taint side".
These are my choices (well, when I play Lion they aren't exactly choices,
but when I play Dragon they very much are).
The point I was trying to make is that both Tamori Shosei and [insert
T.Scott Hadsall's in-character name here; I used "Knish" for lack of a
better term] were saying that using taint isn't a federal crime, nor does it
imply character weakness, it's simply a choice to make when building a deck
(unless you're a Lion, in which case it's simply a bad idea).
> Secondly, when quoting people or rather when pretending to quote them,
> if you are using it in an obviously oppoinated argument do try to keep the
> quote as close to the actual source which though I cannot quote it myself
> am sure it was far removed from your rather unimpartial view.
I made it clear that my interpretations were exaggerations. Caricatures, if
you will. But not distortions. Well, except, as it turns out, in KM's
case, but that was more a matter of misinterpretation of his intention.
> Finally I noticed your attack on the first persons grammar, this is
> something I take great offense to, in fact it is a sign of a strong
> to keep his critism solely on the argument and issue.
His grammar was a source of frustration. In fact, I did get his character
name wrong (he is a Hitomi and not a Togashi), but my discussion with Mr.
Patient has now gone off-list. Nonetheless, while I'm not the grammar
police, there is a point at which writing mechanics can be so problematic
that they undermine the effectiveness of communication. I believe that on
the Internet this line is crossed many times.
> to give them a stance of authority on the issue (which they may or may be)
> while deploring your opponents in a rather base manner.
Well, now you're accusing me of ad-hominem attacks. Allow me instead to
suggest that the principals suggesting a balanced evaluation have made their
points several times.
Mr. Hadsall has, if not authority, then at least credibility with respect to
competitive play. And his argument has been made several times. Once in a
while, it's been made aggressively (ie. the infamous "I hate you, please
quit L5R") and more recently it's been clearly expounded (see last week on
the archive). Similarly, Mr. Dalen has made Shosei's argument clear, and on
other lists such as L5R-Story has given excellent summaries (*actual*
summaries, not snide ones like mine) of story events to the extent that I'm
quite convinced of his familiarity with the game world.
> Perhaps you would like to revise your summary refer to the evidence and
> opinions and finally write one that is deserved of the topic of 'summary'
> rather then being delegated to argumentative obscurity by ill-founded and
> ultimately flawed opinions?
Not so much. I simply don't think that people who have argued against
corruption have done so in any kind of well-reasoned or well-expressed way.
Rather, they have done so in emotional, reactive statements that makes
people slap their heads when they read them. Of course, Dragon Doyens such
as Puck and Kagetora have made concise statements (and accurate ones) about
how simple it is in-game to fall down Jigoku's slippery slope. But I've yet
to read an extended, effective counterargument to the idea that taint in a
deck can be experimented with.
Not that such an argument necessarily exists. How can one could
*reasonably* convince someone else that they can't build a deck however they
want, in pursuit of storyline victories for the Dragon Clan? I don't think
it's an easy thing to do, and it will take a lot more than purist vitriol to
make such an argument convincing.
Matsu Kinra (Ilan Muskat)
Lion Clan Niten Samurai * Negotiator * Dragon Clan Student
"There is always another way."
More information about the Dragon