Since you asked Crypt, here's explanation what I ment:
What are we gonna do, scrap all the rules because we don't want to upset cheaters and those who back cheaters?
Here he implies that that's what I meant - "scrapping the rules" etc. It's a serious overinterpretation at best, I never suggested anything of the sort. Later he implies that other players in Swordfell "back cheaters". But they didn't have a say in this, how come "not having a say in something" is backing it? Yes they could've protested and be banned or quit the realm, but half of them even didn't knew that it's going to happen untill it happened and most them saw precisely the same kind of secession not being as much as frowned upon by anyone. And honestly - have you ever seen players protesting against some a bit fishy but universally accepted behavior en masse by leaving the realm? I'm only a year old player but I'm certain you haven't. Not going to extreme lengths to protest something you disagree with is not "backing it".
I mean, sure, we could probably streamline the rules a lot, but what do you expect people to do, cheer the bad players?
Here he implies that I expect people to cheer bad players. Not cheering the fact that someone's quitting the game is equal to "cheering the bad players"?
The titans didn't invalidate your progress, Crixus, the guy you supported, did. He betrayed you, the titan's reaction was neither arbitrary nor unpredictable.
Here he assumes he knows what progress I'm talking about, and based on his (completely wrong) assumption creates a (still incoherent even if it was based on a right assumption) arguement. He said "Crixus, the guy you supported" - which is a false statement. Actually, let me dress the entire logic structure of the last sentence into different vocabulary to highlight the nonsense and illustrate how appaling it is:
Your parents didn't raise you, Bill Gates, the guy you know in person, did. He birthed you, your parents' reaction was neither peaceful nor calm.I'll pass over the fact that his entire response in it's construction accounts for my "hard feelings" regarding what I said about Titan's decision affecting my gameplay in a negative way. Those hard feelings by the time I wrote the comment he's responding to were "mild annoyance" at best, which I signalised with a wink at the end of that sentence.
And finally all he said was based on the assumption that the main reason for the ban was strategic secession, when it really wasn't. Strategic secession was just a pretext and micromanaging was the main reason for the punishment. I saw nearly exact same secessions, at least two, with noone being punished for them.
So voila.
tl;dr - "I'm surprised it is even possible to be this wrong." - if he ment it, or - "I'm not sure what are you trying to achieve here." - if he was just teasing me with ironic, intentional use of logical fallacies and bad eristics.
