Shadow knight aggro

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

When I brought up that answer, you responded by mis-characterizing the question in a textbook example of gaslighting. You asserted that you were anwering a question completely different than the question you were actually asked. Yeah, I'm a little hung up by someone attempting to gaslight me.

Also, you frequently mention your willingness to admit error. I believe you were in error here, in your mischaracterization of the original question. If you can admit this error we can easily move on, it doesn't have to be a big deal.

I did admit that I worded that post incorrectly. Twice. It isn't my fault you think the truth is "gaslighting" you lol. You are ignoring all of my other posts, including the posts on pages 2 and 3 which state the same points I have been making throughout this entire thread. My intent was to say that spamming taunt is better than not using it, because if you are too stingy about saving taunt, you end up not using it at all.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...9&postcount=14 - here is an example of me saying the same things I've been saying, on page 2 before the post in question (which is on page 4). I made a mistake with the wording of the post you are referring to. It's really that simple, and the post history confirms it.

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

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

As I have stated multiple times, you can use both strategies. Spam taunt until your group needs strategic taunting.

Taunt has a 6 second cooldown and is unreliable. The opportunity cost of missing a single strategic taunt is extremely minimal, especially on a knight who has agro spells.

[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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

I told you the truth about the intent of the post in question. All of my other posts do not make the claim you think I was making, so that should be evidence enough to show the post was simply worded poorly, which I acknowledge. There no gaslighting going on, simply human error on my part.

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

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.

You are overthinking this way too much.

You can spam taunt until you need to use taunt strategically. It is not more complicated than that. Taunt has a 6 second cooldown, which means the opportunity cost for switching from taunt spam to strategic taunting is 6 seconds at worst. Taunt is unreliable to begin with, which means you aren't assuming your strategic taunt will work anyway. You are already planning around a taunt failure.

[bcbrown]

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

You are overthinking this way too much.

I'm just goofin' around on a Monday night. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'm just goofin' around on a Monday night. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

It's pretty obvious you have been trolling just about the whole time. It's too bad your trolling isn't very good. It's painfully obvious to see where you are trying to steer the conversation into silly gotchas.

[Snaggles]

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

It's pretty obvious you have been trolling just about the whole time. It's too bad your trolling isn't very good. It's painfully obvious to see where you are trying to steer the conversation into silly gotchas.

Maybe not a good "troll" but pretty good at "strategic taunting". He kept your attention for about 6 hours and two pages of blathering insecurity..

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Maybe not a good "troll" but pretty good at "strategic taunting". He kept your attention for about 6 hours and two pages of blathering insecurity..

Rage posting is really not a good look. Why bother making a fool of yourself?

[bcbrown]

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

You can spam taunt until you need to use taunt strategically. It is not more complicated than that.

Why not just use taunt strategically to begin with? "Until you need" implies at least one instance happens where using taunt strategically would be superior to spamming taunt. If you start by using taunt strategically, that instance wouldn't happen.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Why not just use taunt strategically to begin with? "Until you need" implies at least one instance happens where using taunt strategically would be superior to spamming taunt. If you start by using taunt strategically, that instance wouldn't happen.

You've already admitted you are trolling. Please stop. I've answered this question multiple times. You can read the thread to find the answers to this question.