Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shadowjack on <08-05-11/1251:56>
-
Would you like to see them in 5e? I know many of you will instinctively answer yes but let me try to persuade you.
- Extra IP's are a huge part of your character(essence, power points, sustaining focus) and everyone seems to agree that you NEED multiple IP's to compete. This is essentially forcing players to choose between a weak combat character without multiple IP's or a strong combat character with IP's, With all the options in Shadowrun, don't you think this is a shame?
- The more resources you invest into multiple IP's, the less interesting and unique your character will be. The entire coolness factor is non existent because it is a combat character staple(based on what everyone seems to say here). This is making your character more generic.
- There is a ton of cool augmentations but you won't get nearly as many as you could afford if you didn't have to take multiple IP augmentations. This lack of breathing room makes cookie cutter builds more prevalent but if there were no multiple IP's in general, you would see many different augmentation builds.
- A big part of the fun of an rpg is playing out your turn. Imo, it's not fun watching other characters taking 2-3 more "turns" than you before you can act again. I don't see the need to make so many characters ineffective in combat like this.
- The game would run much smoother if IP's didn't exist. Splitting movement between IP's because someone else has them and you don't is basically crap. This system is open to abuse via grenades and probably a bunch of other things.
- Above all, we would see many more unique characters if multiple IP's didn't exist.
Fwiw I have always loved the idea of Wired Reflexes and it's counterparts but it just isn't appealing in it's current form. Instead of extra IP's I would like to see something related. I often wonder if I should just make a house rule to remove all of this from my game so everyone can take equal turns and the game will run more smoothly. It's not cool to swing a sword, miss and then have one guy fire 8 bursts at you in the same 3 seconds and kill you 3 times over.
Thoughts?
-
SR5D20?
-
Lol. Now that would be a disaster :P I don't want to touch another d20 to be honest.
-
. It's not cool to swing a sword, miss and then have one guy fire 8 bursts at you in the same 3 seconds and kill you 3 times over.
Thoughts?
That's why you get extra IPs. So that doesn't happen.
I don't understand your argument, really. If I am reading it right, you're saying that you don't want to spend the resources on additional IPs, but then you're bored (and dead) because other people understood the value of being wired and get to go more often.
Point by point :
- No, I don't think it is a shame. SR4 offers you a dizzying variety of ways to build an effective combat character. You don't HAVE to have 4 IPs. You can do pretty well with 2, which leaves you all kinds of options. Heck, you can get by with 1 IP...if you aren't combat-centric.
- Even if you did get 4 IPs, which I would agree does somewhat limit your character, you still have plenty of easy to make your character unique. If you find it restricting, get fewer IPs.
- Yes, ineffective characters are ineffective. If you only have a single IP, you will have to wait while other, more effective, combatants get their turns. They chose to spend resources on IPs, you didn't - you spent them on other things. It is a trade off. Besides, how many rounds do most combats last? Very few.
- The game runs smoothly. Movement spread over IPs is odd, but most people, I think, houserule this for simplicity. Grenades are fine...well Scatter is wonky, but a superhumanly fast person should be able to react.
- I disagree entirely on the point of uniqueness. Removing options does not enhance variety. You are saying that by making EVERYONE have the same number of IPs, they will become less similar...that is backwards.
It sounds like you don't want to burn all your BP on having 4 IP, but don't want anyone to have more IP than you...it is about balance. You can have your cake, or you can eat it. You can't eat your cake and then decide no one else can have theirs...
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I wouldn't mind seeing IP's done away with in 5e if it ever comes about. I think its fun on a personal basis to go several times, but I fully follow and understand that the other players get bored with waiting on everyone else to finish their turns.
It's also frustrating to have to invest in Wired Reflexes/Move By WIre/Synaptic Booster/Improved Reflexes/Sustsaining Foci just to survive in the combat, so that's wasted nuyen/essence/focus/karma if you are playing something not uber set for combat like a face or an investigator.
But at the same time, that is one of the staples of SR as far as I know (I have only looked into SR3 and beyond).
What would you suggest Shadowjack?
-
"You are saying that by making EVERYONE have the same number of IPs, they will become less similar...that is backwards". I'm not sure why you think that to be honest. As it stands right now, at least 90% of combat focused characters have multiple IP's, thus making the majority of combat focused characters similar in that regard. By removing this requirement you will in turn see much more diversity.
It's also not about understanding the value of extra IP's, it is obviously very powerful. It just seems very silly to me that the first thing people do when they make a combat focused character is say "Alright, how am I going to get extra IP's this time?" That is very poor design.
As for my suggestion, Crazy Ivan, I would keep the names of wired reflexes, synaptic boosters etc and represent the quickness enhancement with something similar, but less game breaking than extra IP's. I could give examples but it would probably just derail the thread.
There is no reason investigators, hackers etc need to be practically useless in combat.
-
Saying that, instead of choosing between 1 through 4 IPs, everyone has 1 IP - that reduces variety.
It's self-evident.
Which of the following has more variety?:
Option 1: :)
Option 2: :) ;) :D ;D
If you did not choose Option 2, you need to back up and rethink things for awhile.
Investigators, Hackers, etc, aren't useless in combat. The way IPs have been redesigned over the editions has actually REDUCED the effectiveness of things like Wired Reflexes. As it stands now, being blazing fast only counts at the end of the round - used to be you could, if you were fast enough, take all your actions before the slow-pokes could even react.
My current main combat character has 2 IPs. He does fine. Yes, he had to get +1 IP somewhere, but that certainly did NOT limit my ability to make him unique. It cost me more BP to be a Metavariant than it did to get Move-by-Wire. Wire Reflexes would have been less than half as much.
By your logic, you should remove Metahumans from the game, because it would allow people to make characters that were more unique.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I'm not sure why you always resort to confrontations like this. If you read what I said, you should realize you are wrong.
-
I'm not sure why you always resort to confrontations like this. If you read what I said, you should realize you are wrong.
Wow. Seriously?
Good luck in your travels.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
*coughs slightly*
Well! That's a mite awkward.
Although, I would like to suggest that some issues with Initiative Passes could be compensated for by way of House Rules. A GM may opt to impose an automatic or resistible Stun element to prolonged use of certain augmentations which grant additional Initiative Passes. Other potential downsides or complications could be provided, as well, such as costs to maintain the implants (in the Cyber- and Bioware situations, at least). Depending on the GM and players, the cost alone can make extra Passes prohibitively expensive.
Another alternative is to allow for items or spells which 'slow down' opponents (or allies, if you /really/ think it's necessary), and remove x number of additional Passes from their Turn. I'm not 100% versed in the rules, so these may already exist.
I agree that it can be painfully unfun, especially for new players who haven't let learnt the value of additional Passes. A good GM, though, will make sure that EVERY player has the opportunity to shine. That may be the real issue some people face when they're up against Pass-Monkey builds.
-
Its a difficult argument either way. How else do you represent that level of speed inside of combat? I've fought people who could move infinitely faster than I ever thought possible, but not to the degree that cyberware/magic leads us to believe that is intended.
-
Just kicking around some ideas here, so please let me know what your takes on it are.
I'd be for making that first extra initiative pass really really easy to get (5-10 pt. quality?) so that basically anyone can get it with no problem. Just make it so that 3rd and 4th are really hard to get, and you can't tack any more onto the one that is offered as a 5-10 point quality.
So basically, the one offered as a quality gives you only that one. Heck, make it so that drugs don't even stack for game balancing purposes. You cannot stack any more on it, there is not another quality that gives you more IP's. If you want 3 or more, you must go with wired reflexes, synaptic boosters, etc. and start sacrificing essence, power points, or boat loads of nuyen to get them.
Like Joe was saying, that 2nd initiative pass is usually enough, even for combat characters. If you don't have to make serious sacrifices to get it, then everyone is still in the game and all the flexibility is still there. Trying eliminate initiative passes from the game kind of sucks a lot of the spirit out of the game, though.
I agree with Shadowjack in that being stuck with only one initiative pass basically removes you from combat, which sucks. But, if everyone basically has 2, then only the sams and adepts who made serious sacrifices for their extra shots get to go while everyone else is waiting. And really, that's not that big of a deal, is it? It doesn't seem like it would take up too much time (nobody should be waiting and waiting to go), and those who make serious sacrifices get the full benefits for it.
What do you think about that?
-
Personally I like the extra IP's. Not everyone is good at combat and for some people thats all they do. I don't think you should limit everyone to one IP because some people will be faster and all around better than you, it happens. Ya I agree that some of the rules are a little different but as others have said there are ways to fix it with house rules and the like.
-
I like the 'theory' of Initiative Passes. I like the fluff of the augmentations like Move-by-Wire and Wired Reflexes. However, in practice, I have to agree with Shadowjack. In any system, if there is something that is a Must-Have, then there is something wrong with your game balance. Multiple IPs are a must have, and I've never liked that.
All my combat players immediately jump on that shit, ending up as a 4 IP tweaker of one kind or another. This in turn forces me to give the majority of the enemies multiple passes to keep these players from bulldozing the competition, which in turn pressures my other players to invest in multiple IPs as well, even if they aren't trying to be combat specialists. It's a vicious cycle that basically means everyone is gonna be packing at least 2 IPs, usually 3, and probably 4.
Now, my main issue with that, as a GM, is the whole issue of in-game time. With everyone a tweaker, combat gets resolved in less than 3 seconds more often than not, and that really messes with the cinematic quality of the game. How many firefights can you name in movies that end in less than 3 seconds? It's silly.
In my latest game, I outright ruled that nobody could take any IP boosters. With all that extra BP, I've seen a lot more interesting builds, and so far, I'm a lot happier about how that game is turning out. So while I still love the idea of Wired Reflexes, as a game mechanic, it just doesn't work well in my experience.
-
Shadowjack, if it were possible to disagree with you more than I do right at this moment, I would disagree with you that much more.
This isn't your first post that amounts to "I like the idea of playing a game called Shadowrun, but all the rules are stupid and if you disagree with me you're wrong and stupid".
I want you to try very hard to explain how decreasing variety increases uniqueness. Pretend like I don't know anything about competition theories or taxonomy or basic prepositional logic and wow me with something just mind blowing here.
JoeNapalm, for the third time in two weeks I agree with everything you say. I'm impressed. +1
-
*ahem*
Let's not get another thread locked, shall we?
-
I like/hate extra IPs for reasons others have stated. Putting on my GM House rule hat, I think a balance could be achieved by making a few tweaks. The obvious ones to me are hard limits and diminishing returns.
Hard caps are easy. "I don't care if you've become a god, you only get this many IPs."
Diminishing returns are trickier but have many variations. For example: A second IP gets everything a first gets. A third gets only a simple and/or free. Fourth gets a free action only. Alternate: treat like increasing attributes. 1 "boost" for each rating of increase past the first. So the second IP costs two "boosts", the third costs three, the fourth four... You want five IPs? That's fourteen boosts, and they don't come easy.
Given the intent (making players keep at least /some/ uniqueness) I'd lean toward a cap. Barring godhood there are only so many things that can be done in three seconds.
-
Well, I disagree with all of the reasoning for getting rid of IPs, but I believe they need some serious work and retooling or to be replaced.
I don't like the fact that my speed demon with Move by Wire 3 can only move a quarter of his movement during at the same time that a normal person moves their full movement. I honestly think that extra IPs should always give you a movement increase, and that you should be allowed to split movement across IPs freely (I always hoped I was horribly misreading the movement rules).
That said, I've been toying around with a system that reduces the number of Initiative passes by making the first IP granting bit of cyber/bio/magic/drug) give two free simple actions, the second giving a second IP with two simple actions and the third giving a second IP with four.
Example:
Normal = 2 Simple Actions, 1 IP
Wired Reflexes 1 = 4 Simple Actions, 1 IP
Wired Reflexes 2 = 4 Simple Actions (1st), 2 Simple Actions (2nd), 2 IP
Wired Reflexes 3 = 4 Simple Actions, 2 IP
It makes wired characters more powerful as they get their actions in one burst, but it makes things go by so much faster in the little testing I've done with it. It also allows for more layers (a minor implant that gives +1 Simple Action?).
-
Kirk, three seconds can be a very, very long time. Sure, there's a limit to what can be done in 3 seconds, but anyone that's ever played basketball, raced, rode a bull, or had to deal with my ex-wife knows just how long 3 seconds can really be.
Someone posted a speedshooting video of a man firing 6 rounds, reloading a revolver (with a speedloader), and firing off 6 more rounds in just under 2 seconds if I recall correctly. That's well above and beyond what you can squeeze out in 4 IPs and that's just a normal, incredibly fast and talented man (no fanning, 12 trigger pulls). 3 seconds in a sport fight (former wrestler here) is nothing doing, but 3 seconds in a street fight (been in my share of barfights, probably your share of them too) is an eternity and the possibility of being stabbed 4 times in 3 seconds isn't a stretch by any means.
Also, the law of diminishing marginal returns should dissuade most players from ever even seeking that 4th IP, and will keep many from even getting a 3rd. The game could be capped at 8 IPs and I still wouldn't personally go for more than 3 ever again... that third pass just comes up too infrequently to be of the same value as the second, and the fourth is next to useless and most likely a major points or Nuyen sink.
Crash, the idea of implants giving actions instead of passes is similar to how the system myself and my creative partner are constructing works... but we don't have a passes mechanic to speak of.
-
The "unaugmented maximum" of 4 shots in 3 seconds with a pistol? That's not even hurrying.
With 4 IPs, you could crank off 12 shots...that's definitely fast, no doubt. In reality, though, a reasonably talented combat shooter could do that, at a range of probably 7 yards, and put them all on target.
I shoot in steel matches and other timed courses of fire on a regular basis - combat in SR4 doesn't happen too quickly. If anything, for the unaugmented, it's much too slow. (Three seconds to insert a fresh magazine, and you're not even on the move? Maybe if you've been shot in the hand...)
But that's okay, because - as I have often observed - SR4 combat is not a simulation, it's an abstraction. It's a set of rules that is striving to model a very, very complex and variable environment as quickly and cinematically as possible. They've slowed it down to make it more playable.
But it's certainly not unrealistically fast.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatraite
-
When it comes down to things that really matter, a single heartbeat is a lifetime. Three seconds, an eternity.
-
I don't want to get this thread locked because of another dispute between OnionMan, JoeNapalm and I. So I will proceed with relative caution. I do realize this post won't win me any fans but I do not enjoy the same duo trolling my threads and then when I defend myself the thread is locked, so I ask again, please do not lock this thread.
@JoeNapalm I have encountered you twice and both times the first post you made was rather abrasive and simply because I disagreed with you, you were borderline violent in your posts. I will not respond kindly to such behavior and I can see this will be a trend so I will try to take the peaceful route and no longer argue any points with you. That being said, I think you are a good guy at heart and I don't think you have any ill intentions. (Other than smiting me every time I disagree with you lol)
@OnionMan "if you disagree with me you're wrong and stupid"." This is quite ironic coming from you. It seems to me that every time you are wrong in any thread you will ramble on about gaming theories and other things as a method to avoid losing face and present yourself as an authority on the topic. You are basically bullying your opinions around the forums and in general, you demonstrate an air of superiority which is both undeserving and delusional. Furthermore, I have no desire to debate anything with you as I find it unpleasant and there is no possibility of changing your mind as your opinion is always correct, even when proven incorrect.
It's too bad that you feel the need to troll another thread which will probably get locked despite my *attempt* to be somewhat peaceful about things. Until now I have responded to your posts but don't expect any responses from me in the future.
Back to the topic at hand: Combat speed can be represented in many ways other than extra turns. I have played many pen and paper rpgs and I've never seen one in which one character can act at an 8:1 ratio(8 shots vs 1 melee swing). Everyone should have fun on their turn by taking actions with their character. It is not so appealing to take a single action and then watch the next 4 characters take 32 actions. This is both time consuming and boring. I do love the game but I firmly believe that extra IP's are a big flaw. In any game, taking extra turns is usually the most powerful mechanic. This is certainly the case in Shadowrun and this is evident because the majority of players exercise this "option". Because so many players go for IP's, this absolutely detracting from character diversity.
Ryo shares many of my opinions on this and I'm glad to see others agree on some level. @Ryo, did you make new rules for Wired Reflexes and its counterparts? If so, I'd be interested to see what you came up with.
-
Onion Man, I don't want to drag in Real World - if I did I'd go back to Rolemaster or one of the other billion charts for every move games. That said, there are still limits on how much a person can do in three seconds, even in the real world.
The problem is we're playing a game. A game is supposed to be fun for all the players at least most of the time. The question is whether too many IPs break the fun. The corollary question is how we prevent that break. The working suggestion that opened the conversation was that one solution is no IPs.
Now it happens I think SOME IP variation adds to the fun and flavor, but that is just my opinion. It also happens that I've been in the situation of having one IP and seeing Sammy and Magus both with four IPs. That was, for me, not fun - again, an opinion, but that is what was requested.
For what it's worth I'll add my 'wild hair' suggestion. Allow additional IPs to create a dice pool. Hits give extra actions, fit in somewhere in the sequence that causes the most fun with least pain.
-
I'm throwing my two nuyen down here.
The idea that removing options makes more variety sounds farfetched. It sounds like the ol' "What do you put in a bucket to make it lighter?" riddle.
But, Shadowjack's right. Sort of.
Whether I'm spending 3BP, 10BP, or 16BP; every character I make gets an extra IP. And this is just mundane costs. But, that's at minimum 3BP that is not going towards an option that makes my character more interesting as a character. That is BP that is only going to make a character worth staying awake for when bullets start flying. It isn't BP going to make another cool contact, or be a little better at a side business of gun repair, or a quality that makes my character more unique.
I know that it is easy to get a pass, and that there are at least 5(6?) different ways to increase them. But all you are doing at that point is saying, this is a MUST HAVE so we are giving you some different flavors to work with.
Now, saying this. I don't have a problem with passes in my game. My group doesn't want that fourth pass. Only the Expat UCAS soldier, and the Troll Melee Specialist even care about the third one. Because of this, it isn't an arms race for passes; and the later passes go by with a quickness.
-
Children, I know most(?) of the Mods are likely at GenCon, but that's no reason not to behave.
I don't have a mod voice or lockout ability, but I can give you such a talking to!
-
My opinion is that the Reaction attribute and Initiative Passes should be more closely linked. Which is to say, it makes little sense to me that an unaugmented character with Reaction 6 can do fewer things in a combat turn than someone with Wired Reflexes and (modified) Reaction rating of 4 who has 4 initiative passes. And similarly, it makes little sense that such an augmented character would likely go second in combat, despite being absurdly fast.
Something along the general lines of: the number of Initiative Passes you get is equal to your modified Reaction attribute / 3 rounded up, and Wired Reflexes adds 3 Reaction as opposed to +1 Reaction and +1 IP. Augmented maximum for Reaction could be 15ish.
-
And, allow me to, if I may, attempt to clarify Shadow's point. "Fewer options means more variety" is obviously a counterintuitive argument, but it's not automatically wrong.
On the spectrum of character builds, with regard to combat, there's a continuum: "combat-focused" vs. "non-combat focused" (many mages, hackers, riggers, faces). The former have automatic guns or powerful spells or highly optimized melee skills and adept powers, and they ALL have several IP's. the latter NEVER do.
So in combat, what happens? The non-combat characters duck and cover, and don't do a goddamn thing during a firefight. This leaves the "combat-focused" end of the continuum in the fight.
In a non-IP driven game, the non-combat characters might be more inclined to stick around and fire a shot, and most likely being in Full Defense a lot, but doing something. The pussy characters can't shoot well, but they can fire a couple of bullets, and it's a thrill if they get in a lucky shot. So instead of 3 over specced gun bunnies and 3 non-participants in a firefight, you now have 3 gun bunnies and 3 lousy shots. This if I understand correctly is Shadowjack's "more variety".
Or it could be this: Not being obligated (by virtue of being a combat character) to spend 3 or 5 Essence (or Power Points, or w/e) on IP's, could free up more Essence to spend on more interesting and varied augmentations.
Either way, Initiative Passes are in my view fake variety, because every combat character is obligated to have them.
-
Well I agree that the multiple initiative pass mechanic is kind of annoying. I would prefer everyone just have the same number of actions per round. However, if I were designing the game I would still allow for cyberware that boosts one's initiative score (say reaction enhancers) and thus gives that person a better chance of getting the first shot off. I'd probably make non security/military grade body armor a little less effective, and have some mechanic for capping off about a half dozen rounds in quick succession from a semi-automatic without actually having to roll multiple attacks. I'd probably also do something with more realistic rules for called shots. The result would likely be quicker and more deadly combat, and I think Shadowrun is well suited to this style of play. I could probably houserule a bunch of that stuff now, but I haven't quite worked out the details well enough to bother implementing such changes yet.
-
I've played several characters in normal campaigns that have 1 IP. I wasn't really bored, and I always did something in combat. I don't really buy into the 2 IPs is a must to be useful in combat theory.
There is also the very cheap way to get extra IPs, 1 BP buys a lot of Jazz or (insert IP drug of choice here).
I do feel that unarmed characters are slightly less effective than ranged characters, but I don't feel that its a problem. There is a reason you're more likely to find a gun in a home (for self defense) than a sword in modern times. They're easier to use effectively, and very very fast.
Crash, the idea of implants giving actions instead of passes is similar to how the system myself and my creative partner are constructing works... but we don't have a passes mechanic to speak of.
Its how my keep two system works as well, but its not really a pass system either.
On that subject, how would everyone feel about an action point system?
-
The key problem here is that in combat characters with 1 IP stand no chance against those with many. One solution could be reducing your dice pools in exchange for the extra IP's. For example, MBW specifically says that muscle twitches and that sort of thing are common when the system is active, so perhaps a -2 or -4 Agility dice pool modifier in exchange for 2 IP's? You can get off more shots, but they're not as steady.
This approach could also add some variety between the difference IP enhancers. MBW could reduce Agility, Wired Reflexes could reduce something else, but maybe the Increase Reflexes spell reduces Willpower (making Mage+gunbunny partnerships more effective, as a side effect). Hotsimming already has its own downside (Physical damage versus Stun).
With these sort of modifiers it might be possible to make a 1 IP character who's not worthless in combat.
-
I love them, but I would not mind seeing some changes. For example I prefer the hero system speed chart on the heroic level I see speeds from 2-5 fairly routinely and all of them can be effective in a fight. But to keep it simple I'd give everyone 2 passes and modify upwards from there and maybe have high priced negative qualities that knock you down to 1. The reason being 1-4 puts 1 at 4 times slower than 4, 2-5 is only 2.5 times slower. It is still there, just not as crippling to the base speed group.
Then again we used to play the game with multiple characters with 1 IP and only the street sam types had more with the occasional combat decker with 2ish. And guess what everyone contributed and everyone had fun. I am not sure where/when this idea cropped up that balance only happens in a fight happened but it really screws up the balance in the game for the fighters.
-
If I'm running a combat and I have a player or two who are only getting one turn in a round while other players are getting 2 or 3, I feel bad, and it seems unfun/unfair that as players they get less screen time because they chose to play characters who aren't all souped up with reflex enhancements. Sure extra initiative passes may be a way of showing that certain characters are jacked up and really quick, but I don't think it is a fun one for players who want to play other types of characters. It's important to keep in mind that it is a game we are playing and players come to participate not to sit around and watch other players play the game, so to me it makes sense to find an alternative way to show that jacked up characters can be really quick and bad ass.
Fortunately, this hasn't yet been a huge issue with my Shadowrun game because there hasn't been much combat, and the fights that we have had have usually been completed in about 1-3 rounds.
-
So when you choose to make a character that doesn't really participate in combat it makes combat boring. (Slightly OT, know what's a LOT more boring, running a character with 3 IPs that spends most of their time waiting in the van). Players that choose not to play matrix characters are less entertained by matrix action, players that aren't magicians are generally uninterested in whatever you've got going on in the astral, combat minded players sometimes won't have fun with the role-playing aspects, adventurous characters won't enjoy wading through neverending descriptions of empty rooms, and cautious characters will often be uninspired by an impulsive team-mate's on the side hi jinx.
Switching from iterations to an action economy or changing the spread from 1-4 to 1-3 or 2-4 won't make combat oriented players make non-combat oriented decisions and non-combat characters will still find themselves useless (possibly more active but still largely useless) in combat.
-
@JoeNapalm I have encountered you twice and both times the first post you made was rather abrasive and simply because I disagreed with you, you were borderline violent in your posts. I will not respond kindly to such behavior and I can see this will be a trend so I will try to take the peaceful route and no longer argue any points with you. That being said, I think you are a good guy at heart and I don't think you have any ill intentions. (Other than smiting me every time I disagree with you lol)
"Violent and abrasive"? ???
MY behavior?
In both of the incidents you're citing, I disagreed with you. That's it. And both times, you responded in a manner I found offensive enough that I simply walked away from the conversation. And, now, both times, you've goaded me back with accusations.
"Borderline violent?" Really? Please, just stop talking to me or about me.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
Okay, I'm only temporarily locking this thread, until I can take a closer look at what's going on here.