Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Counter-Poll: NPC's
Geaux Darkcloud No if the number is tied to SL.
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Yes, if the number of faction Pets is regulated via your rank.
No, if the number or abilities of your faction pets is related to your SL profession.
Message Edited by InquisitorPayne on 05-13-2004 01:56 PM
/agree
Yes
Yes
The more usefulness you can put into a profession tree the better.
this would take SL in a direction we don't want it to go. It would make our theme, NPC-leadership, when we want SL to be more efficient in PC leadership. (sorry for arguing, but your post is obviously fishing for a "yes" vote, and people should see the downside of this)
vonbraat wrote:
. . . (sorry for arguing, but your post is obviously fishing for a "yes" vote, and people should see the downside of this)
That's not true at all. Read it again. Since the "no debate" clause seems to be off the table now, I'll go ahead and clear this up. This post was an honest and unbiased attempt to discover whether or not the community at large actually wants to extend the role of NPC control for the Squad Leader profession -without any false premise or alarmist pretenseattached.
A vote of "no" means exactly that, and is a perfect valid and acceptable response to my question. I am not "fishing" for anything. I posted this poll as a counter to the disingenuous wording and subtext of the other one, which was something like: "Would you insist on more NPCseven though you'd have to be clinically retarded to not know itwilldestroy the profession?" Dogg is obviously pushing an agenda in the wording of his question, and this can not be disputed.
My question is the natural follow-on: "Well,what if it doesn't destroy the profession - would you like more NPCs then?" Perhaps you are mistakenly perceivingthe distinct lack of bias in my question as some kind of hidden agenda.Read it again, because it's not there. I find it of great interest that some of the same folks who vote no in Dogg's poll vote yes in mine. There is something noteworthy going on there.
I liken this wordplay to the little game we'd play in junior high where you ask your buddy, "Have you told your Mom thatyou're gay yet?" His answer is cleverly made irrelevant by the wording of the question, and any answer provided can be considered an admission of something never intended. So, you sit there with a smug grin on your face and watch your buddy wrestle with that conundrum until he gives up. It's a fun little game, but it gets old quick.
As a more relevant example, consider my response if you were to ask me: "Would you like it if the devs fixed /boostmorale but firstthey get to sodomize you with a broken hockey stick?" There is no real reason to ask such a question other than to steer answers in one direction or to futher muddy the debate over an already contentious and devisive issue. If I say no, you might try to assume that I don't really want /boostmorale fixed, whereas if I respond in the affirmative you might very well try to claim that I somehowcrave a hockey stick shoved up my pooper.
In actuality, neither is true. I just want /boostmorale fixed - andin addition I would also like very much to completely avoid the whole corn-holing scenario if possible. The full and true story of what I want (and am willing to do for it) is lost in the faulty wording and/or misleading premise laid out in your question. I am sure you can understand.