[Unahim]

In closing, I seem to find that your "social circumstances" theory is merely speculation on how you want it to be ruled. Run it that way if you want, but it doesn't change what the rulebook says, which is what I've been covering.

That's disingenious, and a low blow. Especially since the first thing I said in this thread was that your opinion was how I thought it should work. I just don't agree that it is how it works. It's how I'll do it in my games, but that doesn't change my stance on what is actually written.

Even if a Social Modifier is a "modifier to social tests" that doesn't mean every modifier to social tests a social modifier. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

My "rule supporting this" is the exact same thing you've been quoting. We just disagree on what it means. There are no two "sides" here, or if there are, I'm not on the one opposite to you, Wells. I think your ideas are good for balance, they're just not -the- rules. You're working off a logical fallacy of the kind of "If B's are A's, then all A's are B's."

That's all.

[WellsIDidIt]

You're working off a logical fallacy of the kind of "If B's are A's, then all A's are B's."

Show me an A then. A single A.

There is no fallacy here. It's a simple "If B's are B's, then all B's are B's."

Even if a Social Modifier is a "modifier to social tests" that doesn't mean every modifier to social tests a social modifier. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

If a square is defined as a regular quadrilateral (four sided polygon with equal sides and angles), what are all regular quadrilaterals? Are they not all squares by definition? If something falls under the exact definition of a term, it is that term. So that means that, yes, if a Social Modifier is defined as a "modifier to social tests", every single "modifier to social tests" is a Social Modifier.

Now, if I were claiming that every single modifier in the game could be a Social Modifier, you may have a point, but I'm not. Instead I'm claiming that all modifiers that fit the definition of a Social Modifier are Social Modifiers.

Social Modifiers
Many sorts of modifiers may apply to social skill tests, depending on the situation and characters in question.

Social Modifiers are clearly listed as the sorts that may apply to social skill tests. If it cannot apply to a social skill test, then it's not a Social Modifier. Of course, it it cannot apply to a social skill test, it's never going to be a modifier to a social skill test because it cannot apply to the social skill test.

Where exactly is there any wiggle room there? If it may apply, it is one; if it doesn't fall in that range, it isn't one.

My "rule supporting this" is the exact same thing you've been quoting.

Then explain it. Underline what part of it meets your claims and discuss.

[Unahim]

But it is never -defined- as such. The fact that Social Modifiers encompass many sorts of modifiers does not mean that every modifier that applies to a social skill test has to be a social modifier. That's a simple fact. Once you realise that, you also realise that "Well, it modifies a social skill test." does not mean it is a social modifier, as we've just established there's nothing in the text saying "Any modifier applying to a social skill is a Social Modifier." If there was, well, fair point, but there's not.

Many sorts of modifiers may apply =! all modifiers that apply are this

Your analog with a square is cute, but at the same time inapplicable. You're likening something where you're making assumptions ("Social Modifier" meaning "anything that modifies a social test") to something based just on facts. I can just as easily construct such an analogue for myself, you know.

There's basically a statement that says "Water makes various objects wet." and because we've now found that orange juice also makes things wet, you're concluding that it has got to be water. It contains elements shared by the water, sure, but it is not water, it is orange juice, even if it sometimes sorts the same effect.

[Mäx]

But it is never -defined- as such. The fact that Social Modifiers encompass many sorts of modifiers does not mean that every modifier that applies to a skill test has to be a social modifier. That's a simple fact. Once you realise that, you also realise that "Well, it modifies a social skill test." does not mean it is a social modifier, as we've just established there's nothing in the text saying "Any modifier applying to a social skill is a Social Modifier." If there was, well, fair point, but there's not.

Many sorts of modifiers may apply =! all modifiers that apply are this

Your analog with a square is cute, but at the same time inapplicable. You're likening something where you're making assumptions ("Social Modifier" meaning "anything that modifies a social test") to something based just on facts. I can just as easily construct such an analogue for myself, you know.

There's basically a statement that says "Water makes various objects wet." and because we've now found that orange juice also makes things wet, you're concluding that it has got to be water. It contains elements shared by the water, sure, but it is not water, it is orange juice, even if it sometimes sorts the same effect.

Thanks for butting this so eloquently, saved me the trouble of trying to explain the same think and ending up with a lot less eloquent explanation.

[WellsIDidIt]

There's basically a statement that says "Water makes various objects wet." and because we've now found that orange juice also makes things wet, you're concluding that it has got to be water. It contains elements shared by the water, sure, but it is not water, it is orange juice, even if it sometimes sorts the same effect.

Which falls on it's face as a comparison, since orange juice is not defined as water.

But it is never -defined- as such.

Please provide the definition of a social modifier according to the rules that supports your stance on this. I have yet to see you provide any sort of rules to back up you claim.

The fact that Social Modifiers encompass many sorts of modifiers does not mean that every modifier that applies to a skill test has to be a social modifier.

I think you're missing something here. Social modifiers encompass many sorts of modifiers. These modifiers have one thing in common, "apply to social skill tests". I've already stated that not all skill modifiers are Social Modifiers. Only skill modifiers that "apply to social skill tests." It doesn't matter if it's prejudice, drugs, appearance, show of force, rudeness, visibility, disorientation, ect. (Many different sorts here), what matters is that one key part, what it's applying to.

as we've just established there's nothing in the text saying "Any modifier applying to a social skill is a Social Modifier." If there was, well, fair point, but there's not.

Again, please refer me to this definition of Social Modifier that you're referring to. The only thing we are given is the section on social modifiers which starts out describing, that's right, social modifiers. Now, you could decide to claim that the section on social modifiers is not, in fact, describing social modifiers. What is it describing then? Yellow daisies?

Literally, the only line we're given defining Social Modifiers is "Many sorts of modifiers may apply to social skill tests, depending on the situation and characters in question." That is the definition as far as the rules are concerned.

Many sorts of modifiers may apply =! all modifiers that apply are this

Again, explain how you get around this.
If it does not classify as applying to social skill tests, how does it apply to social skill tests?
You cannot have something be B and not B at the same time. It either must apply or must not apply. If it applies, it must follow the rules for applying. If it doesn't apply, it must follow the rules for not applying.

That said, you would be correct, if another rule defined other types of modifiers that were excluded from being considered social modifiers. A specific rule can always cancel a general rule. Without such a rule though, there is no modifier type that applies to social skill tests and isn't considered a Social Modifier.

Now, another question for you to answer, how do you determine if a modifier is a Social Modifier? From the baseline I've provided, it's a simple "applies to social skills tests" binary. The only other options from that section are "may all impact a character’s Charisma-linked tests" and "The gamemaster should evaluate each situation and apply modifiers as he feels appropriate."

The first of these two is even more overly reaching than what I've proposed as it would affect non-charisma uses of charisma-linked skills (giving orders with leadership for example). The second is essentially the same as it would mean whatever modifier the GM chooses for a situation is a Social Modifier for that situation.

So which one is it, and please don't say it isn't in the rules. What would be the point of the section if the section were not meant to govern and define Social Modifiers?

[Mäx]

There's basically a statement that says "Water makes various objects wet." and because we've now found that orange juice also makes things wet, you're concluding that it has got to be water. It contains elements shared by the water, sure, but it is not water, it is orange juice, even if it sometimes sorts the same effect.

Which falls on it's face as a comparison, since orange juice is not defined as water.

Neither is Social Modifiers defined as everything that modifies Social Skill pools.
And nothing in the book except the stuff in the Social Modifiers table is defined as a Social Modifier.

[WellsIDidIt]

I've listed the three possible definitions of Social Modifier:
A.) Any modifier that applies to a social skill test.
Based on:Many sorts of modifiers may apply to social skill tests, depending on the situation and characters in question.
B.) Any modifier that impacts a charisma-linked test.
Based on: may all impact a character’s Charisma-linked tests after the example.
C.) Any modifier the GM decides to impose on a social skill test.
Based on: The gamemaster should evaluate each situation and apply modifiers as he feels appropriate

Now, I firmly believe that it's the first one, although admittedly the last one is functionally the same as the first one. For starters, it's set up like a typical definition. You have the header which is the term being defined, and a simple, relatively short, explanation of what the term means.

Neither is Social Modifiers defined as everything that modifies Social Skill pools.

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying they are modifiers that apply to a social skill test. Your skill enhancing and attribute enhancing modifiers aren't to the test, they're to your skill and attribute. They aren't social modfiers. Only DP modifiers to the specific test count as Social Modifiers. Everything else is, at the time, part of your character.

Now let's look further into this for your claims.

Now, for modifier types. Does anything restrict modifiers to having one type? No. For example, the Visibility Impaired modifier is a Ranged Attack Modifier, a Melee Modifier, and a Perception Modifier. It doesn't matter what else a Social Modifier is, it can be that and a Social Modifier when it meats the criteria for both.

Now, is there any evidence, whatsoever given for non-Social Modifier modifiers to social skills tests? None that I've found.
Is there evidence that Social Modifiers extend beyond the Social Modifier table printed? Yes, blatantly so.
The Social Modifiers Table (p. 131) provides some examples.

Now, let's look at other modifiers. They tend to be much more exact in wording. Ranged Attack Modifiers are "The various modifiers are listed on the Ranged Combat Modifier Table, above, Visibility Table, p. 152, and the Weapon Range Table, p. 151." Melee Attack Modifiers are "The modifiers noted on the Melee Modifier Table (below) apply to both attackers and defenders,
unless specifically noted." Sensor Modifiers are "so modifiers from the Signature Table apply to the detecting vehicle’s dice pool."

There is a trend here. If the modifier is limited to what is on a table or several tables, it explicitly says so. Where is this for Social Modifiers? It doesn't exist. Instead we get instances of whatever the GM feels is fit and what applies to the test. Hmmm...sounds like the ship is sinking here.

Now on to the case of what the GM feels is fit. I can already hear cries of "but that can't apply to warez/magic/software always works," so let's nip that right away. It can. Too simply put? Ok, I'll elaborate. Every single bonus has a circumstance it does not work in. There may only be one, but there always is one. So, even if the GM feels that the modifier fits 99.999% of the time, he's still has to rule that it fits (although usually it's a lack of him ruling it doesn't fit which is functionally the same). Therefore, it's in the same category.

And nothing in the book except the stuff in the Social Modifiers table is defined as a Social Modifier.

Quite untrue. Even if you throw on blinders and refuse to accept the only three possible definitions the book grants us, the following is clearly a social modifier from the example: Overbearingly Loud Music. It's not on the table, but exists.

The only things I could ever see not being considered Social Modifiers would be specialization since it is technically connected to the skill part of the equation and just represents advanced training in that area.

And now a challenge to ye old naysayers of the Social Modifier definition:
Provide at least one modifier (other than Specialization) that is not comparable, in some way, to the modifiers on the table.

[Mäx]

Now, let's look at other modifiers. They tend to be much more exact in wording. Ranged Attack Modifiers are "The various modifiers are listed on the Ranged Combat Modifier Table, above, Visibility Table, p. 152, and the Weapon Range Table, p. 151." Melee Attack Modifiers are "The modifiers noted on the Melee Modifier Table (below) apply to both attackers and defenders,
unless specifically noted." Sensor Modifiers are "so modifiers from the Signature Table apply to the detecting vehicle’s dice pool."

There is a trend here. If the modifier is limited to what is on a table or several tables, it explicitly says so. Where is this for Social Modifiers?

Because to list all possible social modifiers a GM could come up with that table would have to be 20+ pages long, so they just give examples.

And now a challenge to ye old naysayers of the Social Modifier definition:
Provide at least one modifier (other than Specialization) that is not comparable, in some way, to the modifiers on the table.

I allready did  that on the last page.

Also your still clinging to the logical fallacy of "Beer is alcoholic beverage, as cider is also alcoholic beverage it must be beer"

[The_Gun_Nut]

Sooo....are we arguing that if it works the way we thought, then we won't use it, but since it doesn't seem to work the way we thought, we're going to argue about it not working that way and not using it?

Little confused here.

[Unahim]

I've listed the three possible definitions of Social Modifier:
A.) Any modifier that applies to a social skill test.
Based on:Many sorts of modifiers may apply to social skill tests, depending on the situation and characters in question.
B.) Any modifier that impacts a charisma-linked test.
Based on: may all impact a character’s Charisma-linked tests after the example.
C.) Any modifier the GM decides to impose on a social skill test.
Based on: The gamemaster should evaluate each situation and apply modifiers as he feels appropriate

And again:
A) Many sorts of modifiers may apply =! "all modifiers that do apply are social modifiers"
B) "may impact a character's Charisma skill" =! "all things that impact a charisma skill are social modifiers"
It's like someone is saying "Storm damage may impact the market value of a house." and then you reason that drug dealers count as storm damage because they ruin the neighbourhood and bring down market values. I'm really starting to find it hard to believe you really just cannot see the logical fallacy in what you're saying. It's extremely basic.

Stop insisting the book provides definitions that aren't there, too. It's extremely arrogant and quite annoying. We only have example modifiers to go by, and none of them are anything like the gear you insist fits into it.

C) Yeah, I can actually sort of agree with this. It's all situational modifiers that a GM can throw on a player based upon very specific circumstances, so -NOT- modifiers that a player can strive to -always- apply to the test so long as he adheres to a few general rules. If you can say "So long as x and y are true, modifier z applies to the skill." then it's not a social modifier. If it's "If x situation occurs, GM may decide to give a modifier based upon the social setting and the temperament and character of the NPC in question." Then yes, it is a social modifier. You'll no doubt note that all examples given are in this second category, while the equipment is in the first, as you don't even need a GM decision for it. (real-life meeting and cam recorder in place? Bonus achieved.)

Check the table again. Pretty much all of the bonuses or penalties are preconceived notions or mutual interests or leverage, or because of elements that appease the NPC or displease them. The gear actually makes you do a better job by giving you pointers. Surely even you can't ignore this blatant difference? It's getting silly here.

I mean, just go over it:

With respect to the character, the NPC is:
Friendly +2
Neutral +0
Suspicious –1
Prejudiced –2
Hostile –3
Enemy –4

Bonus or penalty based upon NPCs predisposition towards the character. PCs actual social finesse isn't modified. (that is to say, bonus doesn't mean that PC does a better job, but just that it was easier. Penalty doesn't mean that they do worse, but that the other doesn't want to listen as much)

Character’s desired result is:
Advantageous to NPC +1
Of no value to NPC +0
Annoying to NPC –1
Harmful to NPC –3
Disastrous to NPC –4

Bonus or penalty based upon NPCs predisposition towards the outcome of the thing desired of them. PCs actual social finesse isn't modified. (the NPC being after the same goal doesn't make you a better speaker)

Control Thoughts/Emotions spell cast on subject -1/net hit

NPCs thoughts are compromised, so his predisposition is skewed in your favour. PCs actual social finesse is not modified. (the enemy being mind controlled doesn't make you a bettr speaker)

Character has (known) street reputation +Street Cred (p. 265)
Subject has (known) street reputation –Street Cred (p. 265)

Bonus or penalty based upon PCs fame. PCs actual social finesse isn't modified. (being well-known doesn't make you a better speaker)

Subject has “ace in the hole” +2†
Subject has romantic attraction to character +2

Bonus based upon superior negotiating position. That doesn't make you a better speaker.

Character is intoxicated –1‡

Modifier because being drunk is usually not a very stable position to negotiate from. Could apply to decreased skill, but I know plenty of people who actually grow more charismatic and open as they drink, so not likely. It depends on the characters in question and their stance on alcohol.

I can't even be bothered to do the last three, you see where I'm going with this.

This is the main kicker though, if you read any part of the post before this and are not convinced, fine, but this is black-on-white writing here:

depending on the situation and characters in question.

So if it doesn't depend on the situation AND characters in question, it's not a social modifier. The software? It doesn't depend on the characters. Works on every ganger, wage slave, corp security leader, whatever. I also don't agree that meeting IRL with a cam equipped are a "situation", but even if you persist and disagree on that, as long as it says "and" you need both anyway, and the software obviously doesn't depend on who it targets so the "characters in question" bits is -definitely- not part of the software.

The gamemaster should evaluate each situation and apply modifiers as he feels appropriate.

For the software the GM doesn't need to "evaluate the situation" because the software works under very precise wordings, so it's always a clear Yes/No case, and he doesn't need to "apply modifiers as he feels appropriate" since the modifiers are set in stone.

Even ignoring the logical fallacies and the fact that the example modifiers and the software are nothing alike, these two (or 4 if you split it up into parts) elements of the "definition" of social modifiers don't mesh up with the software. ALL elements of a definition need to be accounted for if something is to adhere to it. If a Social Modifier is something that is x, y, w, r, q and z, then the software, having just been shown not to possess -all- of these elements, is not a Social Modifier. Just like the water lacks some of the elements that make orange juice, the software lacks some (not all, but a sufficient amount) of the elements needed to qualify as a social modifier.

Conclusion: the software is a different kind of modifier. Thank you, and goodnight.

[WellsIDidIt]

Also your still clinging to the logical fallacy of "Beer is alcoholic beverage, as cider is also alcoholic beverage it must be beer"

Is "alcoholic beverage" the definition of beer? No. It's a possible characteristic of beer (not all beer has alcohol). Same with Cider. The flaw is in your example in this case. Congratulations.

I allready did  that on the last page.

I fail to see anything that would work, care elaborate. Everything I see is easily similar to another modifier on the table.

Stop insisting the book provides definitions that aren't there, too. It's extremely arrogant and quite annoying. We only have example modifiers to go by, and none of them are anything like the gear you insist fits into it.

Stop insisting the book isn't providing definitions that are there. It's extremely arrogant and quite annoying. We have example modifiers to supplement the definition, and they are all similar to the gear and powers that you can gain bonuses from.

So if it doesn't depend on the situation AND characters in question, it's not a social modifier. The software? It doesn't depend on the characters. Works on every ganger, wage slave, corp security leader, whatever. I also don't agree that meeting IRL with a cam equipped are a "situation", but even if you persist and disagree on that, as long as it says "and" you need both anyway, and the software obviously doesn't depend on who it targets so the "characters in question" bits is -definitely- not part of the software.

You're in a real-life meet. You've got your camera strapped on. Mr. Johnson has a camera neutralizer, boom situation negates your bonus. Mr. Johnson has had physical mask cast on him to just appear as a blur, boom situation negates your bonus. Now, are you trying to say that gear is not part of a character at this point? Magic Abilities? I don't get where you're going with this. It certainly does matter what "character" you target, because any given character may have a way to circumvent it. Tactics, knowledges, resources, personality, psychology, these are all parts of any given character that can fit into the puzzle and be pushing him to find a way, know a way, or just simply always use a way of communicating that kills the bonus.

It's not just a case of meeting in real life. It's a case of meeting in real life, and the camera working, and nothing disturbing the camera's picture, and the Johnson showing up on the Cam, and your camera feed not being edited by Johnson's hacker buddy, ect. Every single situation is different. Note the use of the word, situation. How it can be more situational, I do not know.

For the software the GM doesn't need to "evaluate the situation" because the software works under very precise wordings, so it's always a clear Yes/No case, and he doesn't need to "apply modifiers as he feels appropriate" since the modifiers are set in stone.

Oh, so it's like being Intoxicated. It's a clear Yes/No case, and he doesn't need to "apply modifiers as he feels appropriate" since the modifier is set in stone. Just like he doesn't need to "apply modifiers as he feels appropriate" when you're intimidating with a weapon because it's a clear Yes/No case and the modifier is set in stone.

Oh wait...those are both Social Modifiers. Oh my. Your argument does not hold water. Any exampled modifier falls under the same category of the software, it's a clear Yes/No case with a set in stone modifier. Is target friendly? Prejudiced? Hostile? Does character have gun? Romantic Involvement? Obvious Magic? Control Thoughts Spell? Is Empathy Software working?

See what happened there? All of those were Yes/No questions with a clearly stated modifier.

Even ignoring the logical fallacies and the fact that the example modifiers and the software are nothing alike, these two (or 4 if you split it up into parts) elements of the "definition" of social modifiers don't mesh up with the software. ALL elements of a definition need to be accounted for if something is to adhere to it. If a Social Modifier is something that is x, y, w, r, q and z, then the software, having just been shown not to possess -all- of these elements, is not a Social Modifier. Just like the water lacks some of the elements that make orange juice, the software lacks some (not all, but a sufficient amount) of the elements needed to qualify as a social modifier.

Just so I'm clearly understanding this. The book's definition isn't good enough...err...I mean doesn't exist to you, so you're claiming that a definition based on what you've made up (Must not be a Yes/No answerable question with set modifier effectively) is the valid interpretation of what a Social Modifier is. We're supposed to have gotten this from the book with no text at any way hinting toward that definition at all? That's less absurd than using what the book says?

A) Many sorts of modifiers may apply =! "all modifiers that do apply are social modifiers"

You are absolutely right. I've stated that. A specific rule can always overrule a broad rule. However, the sort that doesn't apply must be defined to not apply. Got an example of one? I can't find any other definition for modifiers to social tests anywhere. Definitely none that say they don't count as social modifiers.

C) Yeah, I can actually sort of agree with this. It's all situational modifiers that a GM can throw on a player based upon very specific circumstances, so -NOT- modifiers that a player can strive to -always- apply to the test so long as he adheres to a few general rules. If you can say "So long as x and y are true, modifier z applies to the skill." then it's not a social modifier. If it's "If x situation occurs, GM may decide to give a modifier based upon the social setting and the temperament and character of the NPC in question." Then yes, it is a social modifier. You'll no doubt note that all examples given are in this second category, while the equipment is in the first, as you don't even need a GM decision for it. (real-life meeting and cam recorder in place? Bonus achieved.)

Check the table again. Pretty much all of the bonuses or penalties are preconceived notions or mutual interests or leverage, or because of elements that appease the NPC or displease them. The gear actually makes you do a better job by giving you pointers. Surely even you can't ignore this blatant difference? It's getting silly here.

Again, it's functionally equivalent to A.) in all respects. Any single modifier on the table is a modifier the character can strive to always apply to a test.

If I'm playing a character, I can strive to always use my gun during an intimidation attempt. I can always strive to put a round in the guy's kneecap first so he knows I mean business. I can strive to always wear a blood splattered shirt from my previous interrogations.

On the flip side, I can always strive to deal with NPCs of my same nationality/metatype to avoid prejudice. I can strive to only deal with NPCs that I have a good standing with. I can strive to always make my dealings with NPCs advantageous to them. I can strive to always get them drunk (or use an intoxicate spell on them) first.

The problem with your X,Y, Z formula is that it doesn't work. It assumes that there are, at most, two factors that can limit the ability. X and Y. That is almost never the case. Sure you have the power and you aren't in a background count, but you broke your gaesa today? Sure your cam is on and your software is running, but the target is a mimic drone with a voice mask? Sure, your tailored pheromones are on and the target is in a face to face, but he's in a chem-sealed suit? It's insanely easy to have just one more factor fall into the equation that ruins that formula, because you have X and Y, Z should be true according to the formula, but isn't.

Would having a psyche file on your target grant a social modifier? Really think about it, anyone that's studied psychology and hostile negotiators knows that a person's psychology is half the battle, but it is extremely dependent on whether anything is relevant to the situation.

Now truly think about what empathy software is doing. It's giving you the target's behavioral patterns and mapping them out into an on-the-fly psych eval. Not so different all of a sudden. Sure, it's giving you pointers. Do those pointers not vary dependent on the target, the meet, the atmosphere, the temperature, ect. Just because the bonus, if it applies, is always the same, does not mean the information given is any less dependent on the situation and target.

Conclusion: There are no other modifiers to social skill tests.

[Mäx]

Also your still clinging to the logical fallacy of "Beer is alcoholic beverage, as cider is also alcoholic beverage it must be beer"

Is "alcoholic beverage" the definition of beer? No. It's a possible characteristic of beer (not all beer has alcohol). Same with Cider. The flaw is in your example in this case. Congratulations.

Good job not seeing the forest for the trees.

[WellsIDidIt]

Well to maintain the proper internet mentality...it's not a forest, it's a jungle.

You seem dead set that "modifiers that apply to social skill tests" is a characteristic of Social Modifiers, while I am sure that it's the definition of Social Modifiers. I've offered up the other alternatives shown in the text which seem less likely due to placement and restrictiveness.

Now, I'm not going to say that the game defines every term it uses. Initiative Boosters springs to mind instantly. That said, is there an entire section on Initiative Boosters, that's purpose is to define and explain initiative boosters, that's heading is simply Initiative Boosters, that fails to define Initiative Boosters? RPG definitions are always a little on the wonky side. In real life we have chemistry to deal with physical matter and define things. We have culture to deal with histories, traditions, etc. With RPG rules we have, exactly whatever arbitrary thoughts the author of the passage gives us.

You've offered up...what to defend your stance?
Any rules text at all to support a different definition?

[The_Gun_Nut]

So...arguing to prove your superior status.

Typical human mentality.  Ignore what's important for the sake of being thought important.

Please take a break, guys.  Come back in a few days.  I'm sure some cooldown time will aid clarity.

[JustADude]

So...arguing to prove your superior status.

Typical human mentality.  Ignore what's important for the sake of being thought important.

Please take a break, guys.  Come back in a few days.  I'm sure some cooldown time will aid clarity.

Seconded.

Or, better yet, how about we just all let it die out? At this point we've reached the point we've clearly reached a state where neither side is willing to listen to what the other has to say.