Can you please tell me how did you read this:
Y wrote:I've read the link and
your point seems even worse
. The whole article is meant to teach players how to play good mainly because they don't. Attacking a player, especially a new one, for not playing right according to something you read is ridiculous. The article was written because of townies not arguing right.
Besides that, I found no indication that method 1 must precede method 2. It is kind of intuitive though.
My conclusion is that you're basing your theory on a newbie not playing right. Great find.
And understood this:
yabbaguy wrote:@Y-438: Wait, wait, wait, I thought you said I was bussing Kirby, now you're saying I'm legitimately attacking him?
Please?
My post contains three parts (Omitting the fourth where I FoS you, which is irrelevant to the case):
Part one: The article teaches how to avoid bad play. You accuse a player of playing bad, just like the article suggests most people do.
Part two: While it might be intuitive or perhaps better play to use the methods in the order they're listed, the article never says that. Accusing some one for not following a guideline which isn't written anywhere is, well, absurd.
Part three: A sarcastic comment meant to say "You discovered that a newbie isn't playing good. You should've known that already and it's a very common situation that should be anticipated".
So, you have a new player who doesn't follow something which isn't written, in an article he never read, therefore he's acting like the usual bad player described in that article as common bad behavior that leads to bad play and unjustified accusations.
Can you please point me to the part which justifies your attack? Thank you, since I seem to be stupid enough to miss it.
Way to completely ignore what I actually say.
