[WellsIDidIt]

Everyone has the same ability to do research. I work writing software manuals and reports, but I can just as easily write reports on anything with ample time to research the topic.

You put a lot of quotes into there, but I don't see a single one where the information was not directly relevant to what another poster put forth or explicitly asked for by a poster. If you're annoyed, or insulted, by taking a realistic and informed approach to something, that is your problem.

[Namikaze]

I'm annoyed that you're perpetuating conversations that derail topics.  This is the original post of the thread:

My decker's getting interested in bricking weapons during firefights - which is good because that's useful.

However, it's not stated if different weapons have different device ratings. Page 234 has a table for device ratings and classified weapons as device rating 2. Unless there's an official rule elsewhere, do I assume all technological weapons have device rating 2?

Now, way down below the thread started to derail thanks to a post by Maelstrom (another infamous derailer).  Granted, he wasn't trying to be malicious, he was simply stating how his GM runs his table.  But by then the damage was done.  Ultimately the discussion was still about bricking weapons, and hadn't gone to the absurd lengths it got to though.  That I lay squarely at your feet, Wells.

Sure, Maelstrom started the derailing, but it got back on track.  Twilight took it off the rails again, but stopped perpetuating the derailing.  You took it from page 4 to page 13.  That's 9 pages of derailing.

[martinchaen]

*salutes Namikaze*
We don't always see eye to eye on things, but thanks for picking up this one

If you're ever in Houston, you'll have to let me buy you a beer...

And to get back on topic (at least what the original topic was, I have no idea how far off topic this got for the last four pages), this is why you slave your gun to a Rating 7 commlink, or have your decker protect your gear.

Alternatively, this is why you don't run wireless at all, if you want to go at it old school stylee.

[WellsIDidIt]

I'm annoyed that you're perpetuating conversations that derail topics.

I am so sorry that this offends you. Topics change directions. That's part of life. Get over it. The direction it headed in was tied to the original question by speaking on whether guns should be non-functioning when bricked. Again, if this is offensive, you could always not participate in it or read it.

[Namikaze]

I'm not offended.  I'm just sick of this.  It's like if someone disagrees with you, you just keep arguing and repeating yourself until they give up.  That's not what I would call constructive or useful by any definition of the words.  That's being a bully, plain and simple.  And I'm tired of your bullying.  I have a choice to ignore you, but you're not always like this.  There are times when you are constructive, and you contribute to a discussion.  But then there are times like this, where it's just tiresome and irritating, like a mosquito that I can't seem to swat.

I respect that you have a lot of knowledge, and I respect that you're usually right about rules interpretations (at least in my opinion).  But now you've gone and used that knowledge and respect as a bit of a blunt weapon, clubbing people into leaving the thread.  People that also have valid interpretations and opinions.

[WellsIDidIt]

It's called debate for a reason. If you can't support your side, then their is a flaw in the logic for your side. Knowledge is the key to any logical discussion. It isn't "a blunt weapon," and seeing it that way is probably why it bothers you. Please, put me on ignore if logical discussion is going to make you sick and annoyed.

[Kincaid]

Telling contractors and vets that your Popular Mechanics-inspired knowledge of all things military is superior to theirs isn't exactly logic.  Indeed, your seemingly limitless ability to brush off the arguments of essentially every single person that disagrees with you suggests to me that logic isn't paramount to your posts.

There are a lot of gray areas in the rules right now.  Part of that is because there's only one real book out so far and part of that is that book was not edited in a consistent fashion.  A lot of debates over rules will, inevitably, boil down to both sides saying, "Well, we'll have to wait and see.  We just can't know right now."  And that's okay.  There's no need to pointlessly drag a thread out seven more pages to quibble over conjecture.  In editions 1-3, people complained that deckers had nothing to do (and were impossible to understand when they did).  In 4e, people complained that deckers could hack from the far side of the world.  5e wireless rules address both these things.  Deckers now have more options than before, and are strongly incentivized to be with the team, which makes for a smoother at-table experience.  The wireless rules exist to integrate the Matrix more seamlessly with the meat world.  Is some of it shoehorned?  Sure, but who cares?  It's a RPG with elves and dragons--if suspension of disbelief is going to be a problem for a player, he's picked the wrong habit.  My number one concern is that people at the table are happy, not whether or not someone's firing pin has a microchip.

[Namikaze]

It's not logical.  And it's not a debate.  This is a discussion about how wireless works with weapons.  And you are using your knowledge as a blunt weapon because if you'll notice the number of people that have dropped out of this thread since you started up on Page 4 is staggering.

List of those that have fallen beneath the battering of your "debate":
ImaginalDisc, RIP page 4
MaxKojote, RIP page 5
Mithlas, RIP page 5
Xenon, RIP page 7
ZeConster, RIP page 9
Insaniac99, RIP page 10
ProfessorCirno, RIP page 11
Agonar, RIP page 11
firebug, RIP page 11
RHat, not dead yet!
Kincaid, RIP page 10 (and with a miraculous comeback on Page 13 he's back in it, folks!)

So those are the people that have disagreed with you at some point in the thread, and most of them are no longer contributing to the discussion.  While I'm no mind reader, I can see that by the proliferation of your posts in those same pages, and by your responses to some of their contributions, you may be the cause behind them not wanting to participate anymore.

Kicking everyone around and then claiming some sort of "victory" when they all leave is childish.

As I stated, I'd rather not ignore you.  I do that only to people that are completely out of their gourds.  But if you honestly can't take what I'm saying to be constructive criticism intended to get you back on the track of being a positive contributor to the forums, then you are probably out of your gourd.

[WellsIDidIt]

This is a discussion about how wireless works with weapons.

That's part of it. The bulk of what I have debated is how bricking the electronics on a weapon should, intelligently, impact said weapon and if certain designs would be blatantly flawed.

[Namikaze]

And here comes the repetitive bashing of the same argument, and the ignoring of the rest of the facts.  This is getting old, Wells.  Just let it go.  Please.  I'm done here.  I've said my piece, and I don't consider this to be a resignation of my point so much as an attempt to not do more damage than has already been done.  Please think of whether or not your point is important enough to you to damage your reputation on the forums and in the community.

[Insaniac99]

And here comes the repetitive bashing of the same argument, and the ignoring of the rest of the facts.  This is getting old, Wells.  Just let it go.  Please.  I'm done here.  I've said my piece, and I don't consider this to be a resignation of my point so much as an attempt to not do more damage than has already been done.  Please think of whether or not your point is important enough to you to damage your reputation on the forums and in the community.

Just want to say, I've been reading but decided back on page 10 it was pointless to try to rebut any position; I'm fully with you here Namikaze.

[RHat]

List of those that have fallen beneath the battering of your "debate":
ImaginalDisc, RIP page 4
MaxKojote, RIP page 5
Mithlas, RIP page 5
Xenon, RIP page 7
ZeConster, RIP page 9
Insaniac99, RIP page 10
ProfessorCirno, RIP page 11
Agonar, RIP page 11
firebug, RIP page 11
RHat, not dead yet!
Kincaid, RIP page 10 (and with a miraculous comeback on Page 13 he's back in it, folks!)

If nothing else, this stands as proof positive of one thing: I am a stubborn bastard.

[martinchaen]

We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!

[CanRay]

We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!

We had one.  Bad things happened.

[firebug]

We need a rep score, like the actual Shadowland/grid!

Happened once before I joined the forum; I understand a lot of people complained about it and thus it was removed.  Besides, while the website seems to have like at least 60 people viewing it at all times, the number of especially active posters is small enough that you can recognize posters and form your own opinions easily enough.
In an attempt to bring this thread's discussion closer in line with the title, I wanna ask something.

Since it seems the Device Rating of gear is largely software-based, would you allow players to spend money to upgrade the device rating of things like smartguns?  Cyberware's Device Rating goes up with its grade I believe, but most miscellaneous electronics are just kind of set at 1 or 2 I think.  Would it be worth upgrading their DR if it were possible?