"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Yeah you're right, I phrased that really badly :)

I don't know about others, but the point *I* am trying to make is not that you
phrased it badly - but that it's virtually *impossible* to phrase properly.

I see many people here trying to conjure up a waterproof and airtight precise
ruling, which I think doesn't exist at all - while any attempt to come up with
a common-sense based approach is countered with some nitpicking.


Well, if that's where the IRTC is going to go, then I'll not stop it. But I
won't go for wars about petty rule details where I think common sense paired
with some mutual tolerance should do the job. *Perfect* justice is nowhere to
be had anyway.

If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
TC-RTC.

Post a reply to this message