The first line of the OP does tacitly say that you're arguing in bad-faith, yes.
TheMarchioness
joined 3 months ago
That's why when she gave you four arguments that should clear the matter up, you cherry-picked one of them and said that it was "making an assumption" and therefore invalid, even though the "assumption" was that the player understood language. That's why you ignored the other three arguments entirely.
You're deliberately trolling for attention. and this faux-innocence isn't fooling anyone.
I think the bigger problem here is that you're arguing in bad-faith.
Hey, you're the one who said the opposite thing in subsequent posts...
- In your first post you said that you're delusional if you think there aren't any species defining traits - implying you think there ARE species defining traits.
- In your second post you said that you're stupid if you think there are species defining traits.
...
The only thing consistent between your posts is that you're really angry about a joke.
Additionally, it seems you're really struggling to find the thing where "powerful build" is a "species defining trait". So here it is:
It's in the same rules block as "you are a humanoid".
According to your logic, "you are a humanoid" is also an ability, and not a species defining trait. Do you think it's teachable? can I train for 90 days to become an abberation?
- Post 1: You're delusional if you believe that there are no species defining traits.
- Post 2: Traits don't define the characteristics of a species. That's stupid. ...
So... you're calling yourself both delusional AND stupid?
Hmmm