Spoiler: off topic I don't think you're bickering at all right now lol. I completely agree that online discussion in particular would benefit from more polite communication. The problem I see is still... what happens once that polite communication is broken. To me, it feels very much like what do we do if someone comes up to us in the street and pushes or punches us. What if they do it again tomorrow and the next day? What if someone just butts into a line in front of me. I don't think there's an easy answer for all situations. And while I can beat a bully up or make them think twice about next time, I shouldn't beat up someone who butts in line. But those who butt in line are a arguably more difficult to deal with. Without resorting to physically removing them, I must rely on their understanding or others to correct the situation. Online forums are more akin to that person butting in line. We don't have any physical presence online, not that it would be appropriate even if we did. So we must rely on the persons understanding or others (Moderators) to resolve a situation. If that person has no desire to stop or understand, and the moderator refuses to do anything, what happens. I think we already know what happens. We've seen what has happened over the past decade. I don't really think there has been a concerted effort to improve the way people communicate online. At least not in any forum I've come across. So those bad apples continue to run free. Ignoring the issues are not going to make them go away. Of course, me bickering with others isn't likely to produce immediate change either. But I'd argue that just because the fight isn't winnable, doesn't mean i shouldn't fight. Although I'd concede a better approach is fighting to become a moderator here. As another wise poster has said, don't raise your pitchforks, I'm not trying to do that. But a mod would have some real influence. Unfortunately this rabbit hole leads me to similarities with politics and trying to win a popularity contest and stay in office doesn't interest me. That reading is incorrect. All three effects of Damaged are referring to scenery. Even the second one. It refers to the equipment the scenery has.
If it gives context that explicates that the answer given is based off of faulty reasoning, it negates the answer. If I ask my boss "Are we working today?" and he says "No, it's raining at the job site," and I check the weather report and see it's not raining at the job site, that calls my boss's judgment call into question and I'd bring it up with him.
Depends on how decentralized the work is. And in the case of Infinity, where individual TOs already do sometimes mix their house rules into the games, it's very relevant.
Spoiler What needs to happen more IMO is that people need to come to the understanding that their own happiness is not dependent on the opinion of others. When disagreements reach a point of rudeness or stalemate self preservation is a valid tactic. Often times people causing problems are looking for a reaction. Separation and avoidance can deter bad behavior. So an interesting thing here is that 'the scenery' is never actually defined in the rules. I suspect you'll find the most commonly used form of logic on the resolution of this is the transitive property. We know that scenery and the Disabled state are linked. And we know that AI Beacons and the Disabled State are linked. QED AI Beacons and scenery are linked. In reality i suspect its related to either translation or simple human error. TOs have the ability to override an ruling accurate or not though. Trying to argue relevance there is like arguing any rule is invalid because a TO Might over rule it. Edit: Also I've never heard of a position where an employee dictates that hours of work over the employer.
After looking at it again, @Hecaton makes a good point. The additional statement does imply it is giving the reason why the answer is no. And if that reason doesn't make sense, I think players are justified in not blindly following the answer. I wouldn't fault a player for following RAW or their own house rule here. This is exactly why players make up their own house rules in other areas of the game. I see three possible ways to play Imetrons atm. RAW: No errors. Damaged equipment continues to work and can't be repaired. Forum Assumption: Effects are in error. Damaged equipment doesn't continue to work and can't be repaired. Alternate assumption: FAQ is in error. It follows that Damaged equipment doesn't continue to work. Damaged equipment can be repaired. I don't know what CB intended here. I don't trust CB to tell us what their real intentions were either. What I do trust CB to do is follow their own agenda and make a ruling that best fits that agenda. I wouldn't put money on any interpretation. So if some player tries to tell me how it's "supposed" to be played, I won't put much faith in their answer.
No, lets use another Mathematical concept. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. In this case we are talking about an undefined term "the scenery" which we think probably shouldn't but may include Deployable Equipment. Where as a Scenery Item is a clearly defined element within the rules. The clause for cancellation is very specific that engineers can stop Scenery Items from having the disabled state. Ultimately this is Nit Picking to the Nth degree though of course.
This is far from definitive but... Beacon's are listed as a bonafide Scenery Item in the rules. Maybe CB made AI Beacons to be some sort of hybrid trooper/scenery item and forgot to tell us? http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Scenery_Item_Profile_Chart Scenery Item Profile Chart PROPS - BEACON - ARM 1 BTS 0 STR 1 -- Hackable (WIP Roll) Edit, so to be clear, Engineers can repair some Beacons, just not their own Beacons they operate on a regular basis.
The entry for Damaged is pretty clearly using "scenery" and "Scenery Item" interchangeably. If AI Beacons are scenery, however, that means they can provide cover, which is a whole different can of worms.
Fixed it for you. Can I repair troops that have the AI Beacon Piece of Equipment? No. The bearer of the AI Beacon is considered a piece of Deployable Equipment, and not a trooper.
What do we parse and quibble endlessly over now? Edit: Additionally, unless it has the exact justification I want, it must be wrong.
Actually, it is even more important to be polite in a text-only format, because some 90% of a conversation's meaning is actually conveyed by non-verbal means. Tone of voice, gestures, facial expression, etc, all convey information that is very important to the message being spoken, but is completely absent here on the forums. That's why it's so easy to get bent out of shape about things online That said, I do agree with Triumph about the FAQ. The supporting reason for the answer is incorrect, so if the person who gave that answer was basing that answer on the supporting reason they gave, then we need to bring it to their attention that their supporting reason is incorrect, and so the FAQ answer needs to be reviewed. It could be that Engineers are not supposed to be able to fix AI Beacons (probably is, actually), but the supporting reason needs to be fixed in that case. It could also be that someone thought AI Beacons were non-repairable Deployable Equipment, but AI Beacons are supposed to be repairable. It could have been handled much more ... tactfully than it was in this thread, though.
93% is our non-verbals and tone of voice. (I teach assorted career development courses and that data is part of both our interviewing and emotional intelligence workshops.)
Just FYI that claim has been debunked (and was based on poor statistical amalgamation in the first place), you may want to consider more linguistically sound/supported data.
This recently rescinded FAQ seems relevant here: Q: Do MediKits, Forward Observer, Discover, Deactivators and Minesweepers get the Burst Support Bonus granted by a Fireteam? Can they be used with Triangulated Fire? A: No, because they are Skills or items of Equipment. The explanation supporting the answer was also incorrect.