[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I did admit that I worded that post incorrectly.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of error, while noting that my complaint is not the wording of the post, but the wording of the response when I brought it up; the mischaracterization of the question it purported to answer.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You still haven't answered my question. What was unclear here?

You can use both strategies.
This can be read either normatively or proscriptively. In a normative interpretation, it's saying that you can use either strategy; "both are possible". In a proscriptive interpretation, it's saying that you should use both strategies, "both should be used". This is unclear.

Spam taunt until your group needs strategic taunting.

This entails multiple implications. "needs" implies that "strategic taunting" is situationally necessary; that it is sometimes the optimal strategy. "until" can be read as an imperative, a command or prescription to use "spam taunt" "until" some condition is satisfied. It can also be read tautologically: use A unless you need to use B, but the structural lack of an inverse, "use B unless you need to use A", implies an asymmetry that privileges A. In other words, if you state "use A unless you need B" but don't state "use B unless you need to use A", that entails an implicit endorsement of A. This creates a conflict between the facial interpretation and the structural interpretation, which makes it unclear.