Regarding the existence of Composite human: Part 2

[Amexim]

I went through the thread again. Most people who agreed it wasn't a valid argument were people who wanted it deleted. That's not "everyone". That's not even most people. Some of them, like Triforce, even said this; ". CH is fun is a terrible argument, but there's a reason people said it. At the end of the day, we're here to have fun, to entertain ourselves, each in his own way. CH is interesting, popular, is used even in other VS debating websites, and, most importantly, it doesn't bring any harm to the wiki.

If the only reason for why CH cannot be allowed is because "it breaks the rules", then the rules can go to hell. They're needed to create order in the wiki, but now they're only causing problems. Especially for such a small rule, which is an exception of an another small rule. Come on guys..."

Exactly what I said, plus "It's fun." Even acknowledging its not a strong argument but doing what many of us are feeling and asserting it should be kept for that reason anyway. I'm not the only one who recognizes that you're starting from the point of "rules are rules" rather than approaching this as you should, from the perspective of a person trying to convince us to apply the rule to someone it clearly doesn't apply to. There's no point in having an argument or even counting votes if the guy who conveniently position himself as final boss of the thread that the neutral party just conforms to is on the opposing side. With him in power, he can veto arguments instead of actually engaging with them. I literally did my best to explain why "Dems da rules" isn't enough and he just said "but they are tho". There's no debate.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Yeah, most of the people who agreed wanted it deleted. Are you just gonna appeal to motive?

Also, as I've said many times, following the rules is the standard. If there is a good reason to make an exception for CH, I would be fine with that, but there isn't. The only reasons given so far are things that could easily be solved by just making it a blog. I'm not the "final boss" of anything, I'm just asking for a good reason to keep the page, and you for some reason refuse to give me any (while also calling me stuff like "dishonest" or "cowardly", and not taking it back even after I point out to you that I'm none of those things, but whatever).

 

[Amexim]

They're not being taken into consideration by you and the neutral party that cucked to you because you said so and nothing more, just like how "it's fun" isn't a reason because you said so. You managed to snatch yourself a position on the board where you're the person who needs to be defeated when that's not the proper order of the debate. You and Yobo are presenting a change. It's your job to give a reason BESIDES "Rules say so." It's, to quote Goji, an unnecessary change. And the only logical reason for that change that was stated in the thread that you implicitly state and agree with is a slippery slope. It doesn't matter if you didn't say it, just like "fun" doesn't matter to you. Both are factually true, people do like it because it's fun and you trying to remove it can only be logically explained by a slippery slope reasoning. Otherwise there is no reason to get rid of it, because just like "fun" isn't an argument, "Rules" isn't an argument either.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

By "not being taken into consideration" you mean the FRA votes? Because those are kind of the ones that prove I'm in no way as dishonest as you're saying I am, since, once again, removing them did more damage to the agree side than to the disagree one.

I didn't "snatch" myself into anything, I'm just responding to a thread I'm part of. Just because I'm more active does not mean I'm more important than anyone (it only really meas I have more free time).

You are correct that is is our job to give the reason, something that has already been done: the reason for CH being removed was already given, that being that he is just like all of the other Real Life Composites (I went into more detail on the last thread, multiple times), and that the only reason he was kept around (popularity), was agreed by most in the last thread to not be valid. It was only when people started throwing "the rules can go to hell" around that the burden of proof was moved to your side; if you want an exception to the rules, just provide a good reason to do so.

Yes, it does matter if I didn't say it. If you're arguing against something I never said, you're arguing against a straw man.

 

[Amexim]

No. I'm saying that most of the people who you claim don't think it's a good argument are the same people against the whole thing in the first place. You frame the idea that everyone agreed with fun not being a good reason as if both sides agreed with that, but they didn't. The only sides that agreed with it being insufficient are the sides that disagreed with CH's continued existence. That's relevant because that basically reduces any logic you used to discard "Fun" as a reason to a difference of opinion between two groups, not a universally recognized or accepted belief. And are you gonna actually interact with the argument, or use a phrase you learned from someone else again and again when it's convenient. A fallacy is only applicable when it genuinely is a fallacy, you know. If there's a reason to point out a conflict of interest, and that reason holds up to some viable scrutiny logically, it's not a fallacy. It's a claim. And sure, just pointin that motive out might be irrelevant to the conversation, but when that motive impacts your ability be reasoned with and logically recognize things, it becomes a part of the problem.

You keep saying following the rules is the standard, when the very fact that we're here and that there's anyone who disagrees with you is proof that it is neither the 100% standard procedure nor the 100% common value held by this community. Nevermind the fact that rules are often bent and changed, you appealing to the rules ignores the reason the rules exist in the first place. They don't exist just to exist, they exist and are followed and applied for a purpose. If there is no reason to use or apply or follow them, the harm done by rectifying an exception is greater than the benefit done by it. You accomplish nothing but make shit harder and put more work on others just to get what you want.

But, you're not listening. You think that you saying something is the only way information can be gleaned. You think that you have to actively state a fallacious reason for you to engage and utilize fallacious reasoning and that you can only be called out for it if you are doing the former— as if saying that you didn't, unintentionally or otherwise, find a way to make it so that way everything has to go by you before it's ok. Why do we have to care about you being convinced? You're just one person with an opinion that subjectively, arbitrarily judges with no logic what is a good reason to keep around something you would rather not keep around at all as it is. Which, in fact, influences that bar you set, making your motive RELEVANT whether you like it or intend it to or not. Saying you're not any of these things doesn't make you not any of those things. It's just you denying what I am stating. A criminal isn't not guilty because he denies his crime. I break down how you don't make any sense and you ignore it or restate exactly what doesn't make sense as if it does, and it does because you say so and no one holds you to that. You don't have to be intentionally aware of yourself to be something, especially not dishonest or to engage in disingenuous activity. You can do these things without realizing it, just as I can be an asshole without knowing. But just because I deny that doesn't make it true.

The people who agreed the reason to be not valid are the people who were on your side. That's not a universal disagreement. Stating that means absolutely nothing, because that point is literally still in contention. You haven't proven anything, just stated that others agree with your arbitrary assessment, and only those on your side who do. It isn't a consensus or a conclusion that holds and validity, so restating it as if it was a commonly accepted position is dishonest, intentionally or not, because it's observably not true and hard to misunderstand. It can only be that the words use are misleading because they are phrased exactly in a way and with a purpose that implies a consensus was formed, when the only consensus was amongst the opposition that was already in agreement.

Both currently, and before, the idea that fun wasn't good enough is in contention. To state that your rejection of both the previous and current reasoning for people's desire to preserve the page is somehow proof or evidence or an argument at all is literally the same as saying "The fact that I disagree with the reason for the page existing is proof that the reason the page exists is bad."

Again. All your side did was assert it wasn't good enough. That's not an argument. That's stating your position. You and your side think it's not good enough. That's all that happened. There was no general agreement that your position was a reasonable one, but you're framing it as if that's the case.

 

[Andytrenom]

"It's fun" isn't a reason because we said so, it isn't a reason because it undermines the idea of even having standards or approaching things seriously in the first place. We can allow literally anything if we allow entertainment to be something that undermines actual standards, and that simply does not fly

And rules are definitely an argument, the whole point of rules is to describe what can or cannot happen somewhere and for an exception to be made, it has to justified in a logical and agreeable manner. It might not please everyone, but we aren't just going to stop prohibited certain things for the sake of upholding rules as if it isn't the normal thing to do

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

You'd then have to prove that the only reason why they thought "fun" wasn't a good reason was because they were against CH being kept, when it could very well just be that then not thinking that "fun" was a good reason was what led them to be against CH being kept. You're basically jsaying that everyone who thinks the reason is invlid is only doing so because they're biased against CH, which really can't be proven.

Yeah, it isn't 100% standard procedure nor the 100% common value held by this community... which is what I've been saying through this entire thread. Just give a good reason for the exception to be made, and it can be done just fine. You're once againa cting as if my argument was "the rules says so, end of story", when I'm really just asking you to provide a reason for an exception to be made, something you for some reason refuse to do.

It is true that information can be given in non-verbal ways, which is why it wasn't really a problem that you thought I made a slippery slope fallacy (heck, there was even a point in this thread in which I apparently got one of your arguments wrong, so I said sorry), the problem only arrived when you kept on accusing me of doing so even after I explained multiple times that I didn't; I've already explained that I've never made the argument you think I made, yet you refuse to just accept that you made a wrong assumption about my argumen and prefer to just continue to argue with a straw man.

Why do you have to care about me being convinced? You don't. I am just one person after all; people have the right to believe in whatever they want, and if they disagree with me, they have the full right to say so; however, I also have the right to defend my arguments, which is what I've been doing. I'm not above anyone here, and I don't know where you even got the idea that I thingk I am above anyone, I'm just a guy debating on a weird website.

 

[Amexim]

Checkmate. See, "We can allow literally anything if we allow entertainment to be something that undermines actual standards, and that simply does not fly" is a slippery slope, Paulo. The fact that this response is the only reasonable conclusion to the opposition that "fun" is a reason is why I kept stating that this was a part of your claim. Because it's the only reason for your claim to exist. You taking this position along with Andy implies not just that you agree with his slippery slope argument, but that your reasoning is to avoid the consequences he outlined in that fallacious argument. There's no reason to assume that we'd just go gung ho with adding things in because "it's fun". This argument assumes that having exceptions is inherently the same as choosing to always disregard the rules. When that's not how it's done. I can marry whoever I want, man or woman or intersex, but just because I'm throwing tradition out the window, that doesn't mean I'll **** an animal. Likewise, just because we're letting composite human stay doesn't mean we'll give profiles to fan characters.


And Andy, by saying "it's the normal thing to do", you're appealing to norms. Just because it's "normal" doesn't mean it's smart, correct, or even justified. On top of that, the reason rules exist is to protect from the chaos of not having them, as per your slippery slope reasoning, not to simply outlaw actions for no other reason than to outlaw them. It stands to reason, as stated by Mori in the last thread, that if an exception does no harm, especially if it's not any relevant to the purpose of the rule's existence, it doesn't need to be regulated. Because rules and regulations exist to quell chaos, and if an outlawed action does not cause chaos, the rule's adherence is arbitrary.

Just like ******** being illegal in Maryland and Heels w/o permits being ridiculous in California. You want people to be arrested and to follow a rule that does nothing good and only restricts? Because this is literally it...

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

> Using what a completely different and unrelated person said as an argument to accuse me of using a slippery slope fallacy

> wat?

 

[Amexim]

That's not my argument Paulo. I'm saying that they agree that it's not a good reason, and therefore agree that CH should be removed since, to them, that bad reason is as good as no reason at all. Please do not try to twist my words according to that as a bias vs non biased statement. That's, again, intentionally or unintentionally dishonest. And I don't have to prove that they disagree with the reasoning if they do so by virtue of disagreeing with it staying. They don't have to not like the page like you to not want it around, you see.

So, you first make an appeal to norms, and then you admit it's not even 100% a norm? Lmao. What's your point? And again, so what? That doesn't support the decision to suddenly apply them to this evident exception at all. The rules are not by themselves logically compelling.

Your problem is that you didn't change your position, which, as Andy demonstrates, is inherently justified by the slippery slope fallacious reasoning I keep "accusing you" of having. You can't divorce yourself from the implications of your words just by saying that you don't mean them. You have to not say the same thing over and over again, for starters.

Because you set yourself up as the person who needs to be convinced. Social cues kind of created that environment and now, like earlier, everyone is arguing against and supporting YOU. You stand here, attentive, and ready to refute any reason that dares Cross this thread, as if you believe your opinion is the final say on the matter. You even framed the discussion in such a way that it became relevant to consider your opinion with this "change my mind" shit. It's... Not a stretch, much of what I said. You also haven't defended anything. You merely appealed to norms and implicitly supported fallacious reasoning by arguing something that founded on an illogical conclusion.

 

[Amexim]

OK PAULO

I asked you this multiple times.

What's your reason for following the rules? And DON'T say "because they're rules!"

Why should "fun" not be a satisfactory reason, logically speaking? Is it because if we let fun be the reason we allow exceptions, we can do that for anything? If so... Fallacious.

So. Answer. Finally. Why? I'm curious.

 

[Andytrenom]

Rules do not need to exist for the sole purpose of avoiding chaos, sometimes they are just the results of how something is defined and what its scope is. If we choose to define ourselves as a site that indexes fictional franchises then we should make an attempt to stick to that, exceptions have been made for the real world because those profiles can be used for reference and to a lesser extent mythology which is still like a collection of stories in a functional sense, real world will also function like a conventional verse as far as indexing is concerned

But the composites? They are literally just hypothetical ideas with no setting behind them or any kind of canon defining them, they are not what the site is for so either focus on expanding the scope of the site or giving some proper reasoning for allowing an exception, because a lot of the reasons given so far feel more like double standards and borderline demanding policies to be ignored, than any meaningful insight as to why the composite human is special, why he can be permitted when every other composite is out of the question

 

[YungManzi]

I've never been a conformist.

I simply don't believe that laws are absolute. Laws are created by humans, and therefore they are automatically imperfect in many ways. When these laws inferfere with the good of the people, they should either be discarded or altered.

I say all of that to say, I don't believe "rules are rules" are valid for deletion if most of the wiki wants to keep the page (And only if most want it to stay).

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

So, your argument is "they agree that it isn't a good reason, and therefore want CH gone because of that"... Yeah, that is how it works, and that does not invalidate their votes in any way. What's your point?

The point is that exceptions are very rare, and that there should be a good reason for an exception to be made. I've been repeating this ever since this thread began: an exception can be made, however, following the rules is the standard, so if you want an exception made, you need to provide a good reason.

Again using Andy's argument to argue against mine. Andy and I are two completely different and urelated people, and their argument is complately separate to mine. It doesn't "demonstrate" anything about my argument. I don't have to "divorce myself" from anyhing, because you were the one who made up that I ever made a slippery slope fallacy, when that was never part of my argument to begin with.

I'm not setting myself up as anything, I'm simply debating (you know, the entire reason this thread was made for). The fact that I reply to other people's arguments is just because that's the entire point of debating, and the fact that I'm very active here is just because I have a lot of free time, and spend most of it online, meaning I am very likely to get the notification from this thread as soon as it is sent. I really don't see why you're acting like me replying to people was a big deal, when discussing and debating is the entire point of the thread.

 

[Amexim]

Composite Link isn't from any canonical source staring him explicitly. Neither is Composite Godzilla. Sure, they exist as a part of a verse in terms of what they're based on but they're just as unofficial as CH. Hell, often times we refuse to make profiles for things that actually officially exist out of "redundancy" or it taking too much effort to do. Hence CC Goku not existing. The double standard for Composites— along with the rest of our decisions exist even without taking those Trees and shit into account, and having an exception in no way negatively impacts our purpose in any meaningful way. How can CH somehow tarnish our nature as a fiction categorization wiki when not just real life on its own, but the page itself says that their existence on this cite is Atypical? What's more, it's easier to have all of the best human stats and weapons on a profile than listed on a verse page in fragments. It's also already done.

What problem is there again?

 

[Andytrenom]

No one's arguing laws are absolute, but if you there aren't good reasons to ignore the laws then you shouldn't, it's a simple concept

CH was first excused because of popularity, and that's just a double standard, fun got brought up but that's also an extremely flimsy reason which can be made for literally any kind of profile that isn't allowed. Can you make exceptions to rules? Yes absolutely, what you cannot do is just point out rules aren't inflexible and expect it to mean something for a specific situation, when the actual reasons for ignoring a rule aren't very good

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Real Life Composites were agreed not to be comparable to Fictonal Composites, due to having no specific setting, unlike the fictional ones, and being way too broad in comparison.

 

[Amexim]

The point is, Paulo, that saying that is the same thing is saying that they hold their position. Again, having a position isn't an argument or evidence against anything. You keep saying that "everyone" agreed that it wasn't a good reason, when only your side did. This is saying that there was an overwhelming consensus on the thread accepts the premise you have, despite the fact that it is still in contention.

I've been repeating myself too! And I still don't get what I'm asking for! I literally just gave you a chance to prove that you're not being incompetent or dishonest. You still said "Norms are norms and it's normal to follow them. Being abnormal is incorrect." In so many words. I LITERALLY asked you to SPEAK for YOURSELF. I asked YOU to explain why YOU think what you do. And you refused. You MUST be dishonest. Because I refuse to believe you're stupid.

...Yup. I refuse to believe you're dumb because I'm nice, and even if you don't understand anything that I say, I still think you're capable of it.

My hand is shaking rn.

 

[Amexim]

Agreed? No. That argument was presented. There was no CONSENSUS or general agreement by both parties on that. In fact, it was hardly discussed for more than a couple posts. Jesus. Please stop stating your sides beliefs as "agreements".

What differentiates the two? Fictional Composites don't have a canon. They therefore don't have a setting. They don't have a story. They don't even officially exist. They are fan fiction. They're the same as CH.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

I've been saing that most people agree, which is true, pretty much everyone in the thread agreed that it isn't a valid reason. Unless you want to accuse them of being biased (which you've stated that you do not want), then what side they're in is irrelevant.

What I think does not really matter, if it did, I would be biased. You say "norms" mockingly, but, yeah, the norms are what matter. Following the rules is the standard, so if you want an exception made, you need to provide a good reason. Just givve a valid reason for an exception to be made; I've been asking this for hours.

There is no argument in this paragraph.

Keep it away from that place; it's November.

 

[Amexim]

That's just you presupposing laws and rules should be followed inherently, not proving a logically compelling argument for rules and the adherence to them.

Andy, is "because I like wearing high heels" not a good enough reason to break the law concerning those— you need a permit to wear em? Because you just keep stating your opinion rather than providing logic to it, and at this point, i'm genuinely curious how you handle day to day living with this in mind. No bullshit.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Agreed? No. That argument was presented. There was no CONSENSUS or general agreement by both parties on that. In fact, it was hardly discussed for more than a couple posts. Jesus. Please stop stating your sides beliefs as "agreements".

Yes, there was a consensus in the thread about Real Life Composites, which is why the other Real Life Composites were deleted for this (among other) reasons. The only reason CH was made an exception was because of popularity.

 

[Amexim]

I don't think "everyone" agrees with you if you count everyone actually. Like, at some point, we held majority. And that was... Earlier before you discounted votes you didn't find compelling.

So, this means I can continue to "accuse you" of being biased? Because, you know, you don't care that appealing to norms is a fallacy? Ok. Cool. Then, why argue? You're not defending your position at all. You're just talking.

Anger. It's from... Frustration. Very very frustrating, talking to you. But it was funny. I laugh. Ha.

 

[Amexim]

So, wait, you understand what a consensus is now, but not when I tell you not everyone agreed with your other claim like you said? Because if you think those things are the same, they're not, and that means I can disregard your affirmation because you think they're the same things and what you think a consensus is isn't one. If you understand what a consensus is, and you recognize you were incorrect before, you must be dishonest. Because that confirms you're not ignorant.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

I discounted FRA votes, since they provided no reasoning (and I did so for both sides), and votes based on "it's fun", since most people in the past thread agreed that wasn't a valid reason. It had nothing to do with me "not finding it compelling". Also, worth mentioning your side did not hold the majority before I removed the "it's fun" votes, it was tied, 15 agreed, 15 disagreed. The only point your side held the majorities as when the FRA votes for my side were removed, and minutes later, your FRA were removed as well and the sides tied.

Again, it would be a fallacy if I was saying "CH has to be deleted no matter what, because of the rules", but that's not what I'm saying. All I'm asking is for a valid reason to be given.

Hahaha.

 

[Amexim]

I went back and looked. Livid.

The only "consensus" that existed where you and blue agreeing. Two people. One person lightly disagreed and then you went on to talk about something else.

What the ****...

 

[Amexim]

Literally Gojiboy was disagreeing with you and then the conversation started to transition.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

By "consensus", you mean he one about Real Life Composites not being comparable to Fictional Composites? That consensus had nothing to do with the previous thread, it was reached way before that, back in the thread were the other Composites were removed.

Real Life Composites not being comparable to Fictional Composites is not a consensus we got to while talking about whether CH should be deleted or not, it was already a consensus before that thread even started, and the other Real Life Composites were deleted for this (among other) reasons.

 

[Amexim]

I doubt that you actually believe that, whether you belive me or not. Because it doesn't make sense for you to arbitrarily require him to go if you're not slippery sloping me. You WANT them to go. It's not a hard conclusion to come to. Ugh.

 

[Amexim]

BY consensus, I mean the last thread. And just like the consensus was CH stays, that can change too!

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

You WANT them to go. It's not a hard conclusion to come to. Ugh.

Yes, I do, and I have admited this ever since I first arrived in the previous thread; I hate CH... however, this has nothing to do with my arguments. If I was just letting myself go, and doing whatever I wanted, I wouldn't even give you a chance to give a reason as to why CH should be an exception, but I'm being unbiased, because my feeling towards the character are completely irrelevant. The reason why CH should be removed was because he does not follow the rules, simple as that, and I've been giving you dozens upon dozens of chances to explain why you think CH should be made an exception to the rules, yet you haven't been able to provide a valid reason.

Also, that does not prove that I made a slippery slope fallacy, me disliking CH does not make any of my arguments a slippery slope fallacy, and the only thing you have to "prove" that i made a slippery slope fallacy is your own assumptions you're making about me, even after I've said many times that you're assumptions are wrong. I did not make a slippery slope fallacy; if you want to argue against a slippery slope fallacy, go argue with Andy, because trying to argue with me about an argument I never made would be arguing against a straw man.

 

[Andytrenom]

Is "because I like wearing high heels" not a good enough reason to break the law concerning those— you need a permit to wear em? .

What are you even talking about?

 

[Amexim]

It fundamentally does have to do with your arguments. You don't understand that just like how you don't understand half of what i'm saying. I'll say it once more.

If you don't like something to that degree. It will be harder to convince you of anything to keep it around. It makes you biased. Your slippery slope fallacy comes from your likely belief that not following the rules and having bad exceptions to them leads to chaos. Nevermind the fact that it's the only viable reason for your opposition. You REFUSED to answer my question when I asked you DIRECTLY. I'm only "putting words in your mouth" because you won't TALK. I have reason to suspect you won't answer because you KNOW that i'm not far off. If you have no reason for requiring a good reason to place an exception, you're being more irrational than anyone who wants CH to stay. Clearly you have a reason for wanting a satisfactory justification, because not having a satisfactory justification means that we'll keep breaking the rules for no reason. If Andy can't think of a reason not to have bullshit justifications, and I can't perceive one that makes sense, you definitely can't.

 

[Amexim]

Andy, do you think "I want to live my life and enjoy myself" is a good reason to break a rule that harms nothing?

 

[Amexim]

Paulo, you won't answer my question. If you don't think having a bad or no justification to call CH an exception is wrong or incorrect, you wouldn't have your position right now. It doesn't take a genius to understand that it's probably a bad idea because of exactly what Andy said. If that's not your reasoning, then what is? I asked you not to give me a circular justification by saying "Rules is Rules" and you did anyway. You're going to ignore this question aren't you? Cool. Cause don't bother answering. I already know the answer.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Yeah, because giving the other side dozens upon dozens of chances to provide evidence to their side, agreeing that CH being a blog post could work and literally removing 8 ******* votes from my own side is totally biased. Seriously, I am not biased, I am just waiting for an actual good reason to be given for CH to be an exception.

"Your slippery slope fallacy comes from your likely belief that not following the rules and having bad exceptions to them leads to chaos." Oh, you mean that believe I don't have?

By "I asked you DIRECTLY" you man the times you asked me why a reson is needed for an exception to be made? I've already answered this multiple times: Following the rules is the standard, so if you want an exception made, you need to provide a good reason.

Also, calling you own argument "bullshit justifications" does not help your case.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Paulo, you won't answer my question. If you don't think having a bad or no justification to call CH an exception is wrong or incorrect, you wouldn't have your position right now.

I do think that... it just happens that it has nothing to do with slippery slope. Slippery slope would be if I said "making an exception this time will result in an exception being made many more times in the future", something I've never said, you just assumed that this was what I meant by your own accord.

 

[Amexim]

I literally told you to give me an answer besides that garbage. And you still failed me. And I was trying to frame it from your point of view with that, whatever arguments you think aren't good enough can come here. And evidently that's basically true.

Following the rules just because they're the rules, APPEALING TO NORMS is not a reason. The same way "fun" isn't a logical reason. And not just in my opinion. Fundamentally a basic logical premise. It's a fallacy. Following the rules just because that's the normal thing to do (standard) is not a justification to do them, hence you having no reason to need an exception brcauseyou have no reason to follow the rules. You just do because you want to or think you're supposed to (which is the same as wanting to). No matter how many times I say it, it won't be words to you.

I... Please don't be stupid. Just say you're trolling.

 

[Amexim]

You're LITERALLY saying "We follow the rules because the rules are supposed to be followed".

 

[Amexim]

Why do we need to have a reason for it then? To say that you need a reason without a reason for needing one is... Oh my god, just as illogical following rules because they're rules...! I need to go ******* game end myself. I can't. No more.