'way out of my way'? i quoted a single recent post.In post 312, Reasonably Rational wrote:Thank you for going way out of your way to make it really clear you weren't asking Mastin to claim more ... by quoting yourself telling mastin specifically to claim whether miller or not and also telling mastin to claim neg utility in plain terms.In post 293, Not Chara wrote:Drixx, this was the post. i'm not sure how you misinterpreted my intent from this. i couldn't have been more clear.In post 275, Not Chara wrote:mastin: if you're a miller, you should at least claim that.
i'm against flavour claims and ability claims, but any negative-utilities should be on the table in plain terms, without hinting at one's flavour role.
The question is should I give you the benefit of the doubt or not?
You see: Steven Universe and Steven Universe Prequel and pretty much all of the Varsoon games based upon actual shows/games have strong flavor reasons for the abilities and roles people are assigned. So asking Mastin to explain her negative role utility "in plain terms" actuallyISfishing for flavor in a Varsoon game. It's really enough that she told us there's neg utility with her role and it's probably too much that she made such a big deal about wanting to say more.
this is a language/terminology disagreement, and i've had enough of those.
from the games i've read, i had the understanding that claiming negative utility meant claiming what you were. if you were a miller for example, you would say so, to tell anyone thinking about it that investigating you would be useless. claiming a vague negative utility seems to have no actual benefit. except for when one claims later, to say 'see, i already told you i was negative utility'. what am i misunderstanding?
and, i don't see how you can call it fishing with intent for such when you felt you had to explain to me