degaston wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused.
And you're saying that we cannot allow people to play games for points, which is the opposite of what he said.
OK, so the way English grammar works is that you have to include all of the words in a sentence to understand its meaning. In this case, the relevant phrase was not highlighted in bold red font but consists of the words "because they might be abused." That is, I was sarcastically suggesting that we should prevent people from playing the types of games for points in which they might be abused. (Owen's argument is that these games will become very common in the situation in which there are also points-free games.) I agree that if you leave out parts of my sentence then it starts to make less sense, so perhaps I should include a qualifier in future posts reminding people to read the entirety of my post before responding.
Metsfanmax wrote:(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)
Again, you're stating the opposite of his view, but your wording makes it look like you were trying to sarcastically agree with him.
Pretty sure you just didn't understand his point, because the whole thing I'm making fun of is the fact that he doesn't seem to have a problem with points-free games as such; his only argument is that it will ruin the games that do have points because most of the games played for points will be started by farmers.