[b]On Topic:[/b] I hate it when a player has a Neo complex. They can't just be farmer joe's daughter set off to try and stop the problem at hand, no, they have to be the [i]chosen[/i] one. They can't just want to help people out of an inherent sense of human empathy, no, they need to do it because [i]destiny[/i] or their [i]baller baller wallah wallah mentor[/i] told them to do it.

Also min-maxing, and people who set out to "win" a story. Those people confuse me. :hmm

Also, to quick-fire some stuff here, more in-depth other stuff.

[quote=Prince]It would diminish abuse. It would let you create a republic or an empire without fear of true tyranny[/quote]

You already can.

[quote=Prince]I know people, on the other hand, request a re-roll because a strong character is NOT what they enjoy playing. That's just personal preference and if a game flaw allows it, so be it.[/quote]

Addendum: The pathfinder sessions I join tend to use point buy, not random roll. It wasn't a gift from the RP Gods, it was me abusing the system to make a godmode character while everyone else made fun stuff. The DM caught on and pointed it out, I rerolled something else, because [i]everyone else felt too weak to enjoy themselves when I resolved all their problems effortlessly[/i].

Also, how your group feels does not then invalidate the fact that my group felt like crap in the same situation and didn't want to play. Universal standards like this don't work, ergo choice, which RPG gives you.

[quote=Prince]In fact, Brovo, I expected a lot more from you as our back and forths are slowly growing entertaining, but this was just pitiful.[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem]Can you even logic, bro?[/url] In all seriousness though? Sorry you feel that way. 

Also, please use logos and explain, if you can do so without calling me pitiful, what it is you are thinking. Why do you feel this way about the example? What do you think would be a superior or more logical example?

[quote=Prince]Fuck right life isn't fair. I never said it was. Yet, we have systems for justice and fairness placed into life each and every day. Using the statement, "Life ain't fair" to ever shut down a system of governing is just... well, weak. I expect a lot more than these diluted responses. You were doing so much better, and I'm not even being a dick here. What the Hell happened?[/quote]

Because you don't need a system of governing for what is otherwise a very simple equation.

Player joins server/group. Player is not welcome. Player is ejected. Player goes and finds a new server/group. Entire process takes anywhere between five minutes to two days.

Versus a system where checks and balances are forced on everyone, causing people to become paranoid about accepting players they don't know. After all, what if someone trolls the system? There are lots of people who do that in real life, such as copywrite trolls. In fact, the system in real life takes ages to resolve cases in general. Now, it should, because cases can vary from anything between monetary fines to the electric chair, so you kind of need to be [b]extremely[/b] certain of that. The system's complexity matches the consequences that the system can deal out. Tit for tat, it measures up.

A role play is not going to send you to the electric chair.

[quote=Prince]You're just made this far too extreme for its context. I never referred to it as game-breaking or even detrimental. The rule could have been arbitrary. You just completely ignored that. What the fuck, man?[/quote]

You should probably calm down.

If the rule was arbitrary, the player can argue it. If the GM sees it their way, the GM changes the rules. If the GM does not see it that way, the player is removed. Pretty simple, not sure why you hate this so much.

[quote=Prince]I just plain have to tack this on. Do you realize how FAR you warped that original statement? Do you realize you are implying that a 'grandfathered' aspect could ruin an entire game without knowing anything past the concept basis here? I even used words like "small dysfunction" and "slightly off-the-wall", and you go on acting like I'm throwing a rabid pit bull into field of kittens. You just did that to EVERYTHING I said. [b]It's so extreme and radical. I couldn't take half of it serious. I won't take that serious because it is literally raping my words. You took valid arguments and turned them into propaganda.[/b]

Addition #2

I didn't ever even MENTION that neither party here refused to compromise or change. You added that on yourself. That is an assumption. You could have asked, 'well, did they try to compromise?' or 'Well, how important was this change?', but instead you immediately jumped to the defense of any GM and acted like it was a roleplayer with absolutely no desire to meet in a middle ground. That's how far you are twisting my words. I feel like you just raped my post.[/quote]

You realize that degrading the opposition's words without actually explaining what is wrong with them doesn't make a good argument, right?

Also, speaking of strong words: [i]Literally raping my words, turning my arguments into propaganda[/i]. In fact, how can we have a discussion if you, quote, "can't take half of it serious". If you can't treat your ideological opposition with some manner of civility and seriousness, what kind of sincere argument are you supposed to present beyond "lol ur dumb". Seriously I'm not attacking you or trying to turn your words into propaganda or anything else. I used an example for why your idea wouldn't work: Players who refuse to change and thus abuse the system by swarming the moderation staff with countless facile reports. You replied by calling my arguments pitiful, extreme, radical, that you couldn't take it seriously, that I was literally raping your words, and that I took your arguments and turned them into propaganda.

Then I displayed that in the current system (GM's own their threads exclusively), you can make anything you want to. If you want your system, for instance, you can make it in your thread alone. Nobody is stopping you from enforcing your system in your threads. Nobody is stopping you from making a republic, a monarchy, an anarchy, a fascism, a communism--you are assumed to be perfectly capable enough of deciding for yourself what system it is you want to create and enforce on your own. It requires minimal moderator interference, even, which is great because the mods get tired enough dealing with spam's shenanigans as is. I'm sure they also get tired of me sometimes. :lol

Really, that's all. It's an argument. I'm sorry you see it as some violent raping of your words into some horrible propaganda. I just saw it as a counter argument that used an example.