Oh, I don't know... how about not resorting to name-calling at all?

Sure. Except when they're being a condescending n'wah.

As you may have read in my post, I only chose to pick on the atrocious grammar because the poster was being arrogant and condescending.

He wasn't being arrogant or condescending.

Were you around at the time Dragonborn1 was posting? That is exactly how he behaved. It was a simple comparison. I can't even begin to imagine how that could be "arrogant". As for condescending, did you read The Main Event's post? Something so vapid deserved a bit of condescension.

His "atrocious grammar" was that he replaced "would have" with a colloquial "would of". Oh no! Lock him up!

You made a mountain out of a mole hill, and now you're stubbornly attempting to build a fort on it. I'm out, I've got ponies to watch.

Have to disagree with you here.

First of all, if someone is only saying "No, it's a perfect game just the way it is," without offering any sort of evidence to support their stance they aren't arguing. They're just contradicting someone. They offer nothing new with any of their posts and make for a terrible conversation. If they can back up their opinion, that's fine, but if all they have to say is "I like it," then there's really nothing to gain from talking to them.

Also, your practice of trying to discredit someone based on the fact they said "would of" rather than "would have" is just ad hominem, and completely pointless. It makes you come off as someone who is more form over function. I don't abide poor grammar, but I'm okay with a misspelling here or there as long as the point is clear. It's a simple mistake that anyone can make, and doesn't instantly invalidate their opinions.

First, just to get it out of the way: the colloquial of "would have" is "would've". "Would of" doesn't actually make sense.

If you have to start tossing around words like "fan boy" in order to make your "point", then you've gotten to the stage where you're not interested in debate, just in silencing people who disagree with you.

I thought in RPGs, all skills should be viable. If I want to be able to shirk some battles, why can't I do a diplomatic approach? Oh wait, Beth didn't want this game being an RPG.

You were the first person I saw on this thread who threw a direct insult as I alluded to in a earlier post. One that you conveniently seem to have overlooked.

I don't think speech should work on everyone you come across. I can't imagine walking into a fort owned by bandits and saying "You all need to leave," and having that pan out.

However, as I said before, Speech does need to be more prominent of a skill.

Didn't overlook it. Just didn't care.

So you freely admit to being a hypocrite and an obnoxious one at that, dragging out arguments that you knew you were in the wrong about for no other reason than to be difficult?

Go away.

I don't think speech should work on everyone you come across. I can't imagine walking into a fort owned by bandits and saying "You all need to leave," and having that pan out.

However, as I said before, Speech does need to be more prominent of a skill.

The sarcasm in the post you quoted (incompletely, I might add) was pretty much dripping off the page.

That doesn't change the fact he's correct. You did indeed criticize someone for throwing insults when you yourself were the only one to actually do so.

Edit: Jeez, I just realised I'm wasting time arguing with an obvious troll. Where's that ignore function?

I know that, but I mean for boss battles, or people who become hostile to you via dialogue, such as people looking for a fight. You can't persuade somebody to do anything if they just attack on sight

When it comes to 1v1 conversations, I just don't see why it always has to come to the point where somebody always has to die/get beaten up.