Darned good.

So it seems. I'll bear this in mind.

My query still stands.

I should think it pretty obvious; I was responding to a couple of people.

I also asked a question pertaining to this whitelist business.

I asked about the possibility of a Quick-Fix unban. If you read what I posted, I said pretty clearly that I wasn't clamoring for it. 4812622 responded strongly with some good points. I haven't said anything about it since. Also, if a person is a "moronic pubber," wouldn't you expect that person to have certain views which you consider utterly untenable? Why would you be surprised by that?

Some fellow used Trump's election as a metaphor. Rocketslay and I responded.

Democracy is a form of government in which the laws, policies, and so on are decided by majority rule. A republic is the form in which representatives are chosen by the people to carry out government.

True, we do have minor democratic elements in our structure (referendums are the most prominent example). Nonetheless, America is and was meant to be a republic. I quote the following Founders:

Samuel Adams, " . . . it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather a tireless minority keen to set brush fires in peoples' minds."
Zephenniah Swift, "It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion."
John Quincy Adams, "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy is the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived."

The words 'democracy' and 'democratic' are not to be found in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

Anyways...I don't watch b4nny's stream, so this is the first I heard about those other weapons he suggested for unbanning. Really surprised by the pomson being among them. Did he go into any depth on that?

You make some good points. If all that is as you say, it certainly seems the Quick-Fix would remain banned. We'll see.

My participation in the voting process in no way affects the rightness or wrongness of my views. If my views are wrong, then prove it through reason and argument, not this "credibility."

If they're mad Trump was elected and didn't vote, sure, they have less to stand upon. The same does not apply to when, after Trump is elected, he makes a poor decision and people (who voted for or against, or abstained) criticize him for it. Anyone can criticize an individual's action. The legitimacy of the criticism will either stand up to scrutiny or it won't.

Edit: The voting analogy is also a silly one because America is a republic, not a democracy. There are many states (such as the one in which I live) that vote Republican overwhelmingly. There are some who supported Clinton who did not vote because they knew their votes would not matter nationally (the fact that the alternative was voting for Clinton didn't make them more eager [they still voted on local and state people]). I still have political discussions with them and don't hold them in any lower regard.

He's busy playing a different game. I'm glad he hasn't left the community entirely and still checks in and gives his views. I often disagree with him, but he's smart and thinks things through.

You know, I voted for Trump and am glad Clinton lost. I am sure he will do certain things people don't approve of. This is a likely thing, no? Why would anyone lose the right to criticize him, whether they voted or not? I'm sure I'll have occasion to criticize him. Valve receives praise for a great many things; the fact that we are on this forum is evidence that we love this game very much. On the other hand, we criticize Valve for bad balance decisions, bad matchmaking system, Valve Time, etc.

Yes, Valve listens more than the memers would have people believe. Yes, they have listened to people like b4nny on occasion. The contention of the critics is it's not enough or it's badly done or there are still problems and so on. They have the right to express their views on the matter. Silencing discussion by the "you lose your right to complain" is counter-productive.

My use of the word 'arbitrary' was in the sense of ESEA making the decision itself, rather than the random sense. We are now discussing whether the community should unban this or that weapon, not ESEA. The fact that people were generally happy with the banning is a fair point.

I actually disagree with those who hold low-scoring games in contempt. Yes, it typically means less action, but it cranks up the tension. In a low-scoring football game (American, though the same no doubt applies to soccer), a score or a large gain are much more meaningful than in a shootout. Shootouts are fine, but so are slower games. People may disagree; that's fine.

The question of whether it is now fun is for more knowledgeable people than I.

(I will watch that gameplay; if it changes my mind, I'll edit this)

I think you are unlikely to convince your audience that this is the case. They believe that Valve will modify the game into something they do not like, snarky comments or no.

Before this thread became heated, I said the following;

A large part of this thread became 'b4nny is wrong/misguided' and 'b4nny is wrong/misguided and here's why', countered by others (sometimes b4nny himself). The weapon he suggested unbanning is the Quick-Fix. I think it is reasonable to say that this is the weapon that he believes is most ready to be unbanned, would, as he put it, most increase the tactical variability of the game, etc.

Solely on the basis of gameplay (forget Valve/state of TF2/comp scene/etc.), is the Quick-Fix in a state in which it can be reasonably unbanned? After all, wasn't it arbitrarily banned by ESEA some nine or ten seasons ago? In addition, it has been nerfed since then, both directly (slower uber build rate) and indirectly (all Medi Guns allow the Medic to increase his speed when healing someone who is faster).

It seems to me that it must answer the following questions in the affirmative:
Is it balanced?
Does it increase (or at least not decrease) the skill involved?
Is it fun to play with?
Is it fun to play against?

Balance: I think so. The fast heal rate and uber building is strong, but halving the buffs and not granting invulnerability are sizable downsides. You also cannot block point capture with the uber. Also, it is useless against a Kritzkrieg.

Skill: It adds the dimension of Medic latching onto a Soldier or Demo and flying across the map. Conversely, the Medic must take care not to be jumped in inadvertently by his heal target. This increases a Medic's need for awareness and knowing his team. The nature of the Quick-Fix uber forces teams to be very aware of sticky traps when pushing through chokes, especially into last. Like the stock, the Medic must know whom to flash with the uber.

Play with: If it's not fun to play with, no one will use it.

Play against: Since I have minimal experience in a competitive setting, I won't try to answer.

From the standpoint of casters and spectators, the Quick-Fix makes for a rock-paper-scissors game of Medi Guns, where Stock beats Kritz, Krits beats Quick-Fix, and Quick-Fix (used properly) beats Stock.

Again, I'm new to the scene and maybe I'm completely wrong. If that is the case, how so? Keep in mind that I am not clamoring for the thing to be unbanned; I'm interested as to why it continues to be and if that should change.

Note: It seems 4812622 inadvertently anticipated my post in responding to another as I was typing this.

4812622: Wouldn't that just make the Kritzkrieg a better option, since it heals the same as Stock and counters the Quick-Fix?

Huh. Thought b4nny's cat looked different...

I wish to change my name to Hal. As of typing this the name is not in use.

Thanks.

I meant individuals. If my party is the minority, that fact does not permit me to commit acts which would otherwise be reprehensible.

As far as representation goes, fixed senators per state is fine, as long as there is some other mechanism to acknowledge the population differences of the states. The House of Representatives and Senate are prime examples of this.

This is one of the problems with the United Nations. As a wise fellow once said "I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations which represent less than ten percent of the world's population."

Do they? Interesting.