Forum

You are mistaken about it being "intentional" – I assumed that the wording of the rule might not appeal to everyone, so I immediately indicated my willingness to discuss the nuances of the wording. As a result, this discussion took place, and the final version of the rule turned out to be significantly different from the initial one.

And the fact that a mudslinging contest started in parallel is entirely Lucky's fault, who stubbornly insisted on the thesis that "the rules cannot be changed," and did so in an extremely rude and aggressive manner. And at that point, there was no turning back – one of us had to be the one to leave.

I am quite satisfied with the outcome of that discussion, if only because it exposed the "non-systemic" individuals with whom we would have argued sooner or later anyway. And if that's the case, why not sooner?

I simply have no words to describe how rotten you are. You have to put in a lot of effort to twist and manipulate the facts over and over again. I tried to communicate with you normally for a long time, both before and during that argument, and I presented many arguments against that rule, especially the initial wording that you were trying to push through. As in most of your arguments, you regally ignored the main questions posed to you, skillfully answering only the convenient ones in a political manner. The "insults" that supposedly reached a new low, as you try to portray, began much later, when there was simply no strength left to restrain myself when communicating with such a hypocrite as you. And, in general, you started to back down and make some concessions in the rules only after our main conversation during the tournament.
Wicc, you are a nobody. I remember in one of your очередных attempts to turn everything upside down and portray me as bad, you said something along the lines of: "I don't understand how you could live to be so old without being taught how to watch your language." How about we meet up and I explain it to you?