Inevitable Job Simplifications?

[Renathras]

....

New SMN - Demis feed into Primals, Primals feed into their sub-phase, Ruin 4 exists as a movement tool during two of the phases if needed, and that's the Job. The only thing "off to the side" (another way of saying "disjointed") is Energy Drain, Energy Siphon (though those prep Ruin 4, so they have a reason to exist, they just make less thematic sense), and Fester. Painflare, technically coming from Bahamut, thematically makes sense for SMN to have. The only part of the kit that doesn't thematically make sense is the Aetherflow part, but it IS connected to the Job as a whole as driving its burst as weaves between Bahamut GCDs.

(Note: Not having DoTs to interact with isn't part of a definition of connected or coherent.)

Old SMN had DoTs that weren't connected to the rest of its kit. Egi-Assaults that weren't connected to the rest of the kit. Ruin 4 that derived from Egi-Assaults for......no one knows (this is just as disjointed as New SMN's generation of Ruin 4, not somehow better). Bahamut was disjointed from Phoenix. Aetherflow STILL made no lore sense for Summoner and was just this weird thing on the side, especially once it was removed from DWT. None of the systems were connected or tied together other than DWT leading into Bahamut. Ruin 4 was used under Bahamut but had no connection to it. Egi-Assaults were used in the filler for movement but had no connection to DWT or FBT, and only had a connection to Bahamut indirectly. Aetherflow and Fester weren't connected to DWT, FBT, Bhamaut, or Egis, were only connected to the DoTs through one ability (Fester), and only vaguely connected to DWT and FBT via Tri-Disaster being refreshed by them (but T-D existed independent of DWT and FBT, so it's only a tenuous connection).

New SMN, everything's connected and continuous other than Energy Drain/Fester, which is kind of a side game like AST Cards that isn't connected to the main system.

Old SMN, DoTs weren't connected to anything other than Fester, Aetherflow wasn't connected to anything except DoTs ONLY WHEN using Fester, Bahamut wasn't connected to anything, Egis weren't connected to anything, and DWT and FBT were only connected to each other via shared CD, and loosely to Tri-Disaster which also existed by itself over to the side.

Old SMN was very much more disjointed, if we're using the definition of "not connected, coherent, or continuous". You can bask in the 12 people that can read a definition then upvote a thing that violates that very definition, but it's still wrong.

.

Again, admitting New SMN is less disjointed than Old SMN doesn't make New SMN better. It's not some admission that New SMN is amazing. It's just an admission of reality. /shakeshead

Also, you keep doing the stupid thing. It's not a failure as the kit works fine and the Job is the most popular with players of all the Casters. The word you're looking for there is success. It's okay to say "I don't like something". That's fine. you can say that.

What I'm annoyed with is you lying.

Fist of all,
Wall of text with a lot of misconceptions

First of all, ShB SMN was disjointed.

That's the point.

The thing is, it wasn't BAD. This is what you both are misunderstanding. A thing can be more disjointed YET STILL BE GOOD. Just as a thing can be less disjointed YET STILL BE BAD. It's okay to admit a thing isn't the worst thing every in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY AT ONCE, you know?

Also, you aren't reading my posts, then. I played Old SMN. And as I've said many times, I liked Old SMN. I get you're now just all jumping on me because you don't want to say New SMN has anything going for it. Because for some reason, people seem to think "If I admit a thing I don't like has anything at all good about it, this will somehow surrender my entire position". It...doesn't And the "well, you just read a website and didn't know what you were doing or are trolling"?

Really?

I'm surprised you didn't call my mother fat along with that stupidity.

ou said it all. There is basically no system to manage, that's why the job is braindead as it is. And that's why we're complaining about it.

Yeah, but this is the point: It can't be disjointed if there's nothing really to BE disjointed!

I'm trying to get you guys to stop with the kitchen sink insults of "everything and anything negative must be true about New SMN". It turns out it has a few positives to it - other than "braindead", if one considers that a positive (you clearly do not). Sometimes, you may dislike a thing, but should learn to admit when it has things that are in its favor. That's how one can actually prove they know what they're talking about, when they can admit the good things about a thing they oppose, but explain why those don't make up for the bad and it's still a net loss overall.

It's intellectually lazy to just say everything possible about it is bad and resist any argument as "Wall of text".

There aren't disparate systems...if there aren't systems. Old SMN WAS more disparate than New SMN. The question isn't that. The question is if disparate was better or not. Make that argument instead: It at least has merit.

I disagree on this point. I will say, overall, I really like the general direction that we are trying to take SMN in, but unhappy with the execution. It just is very inflexible and feels like the kit is unfinished and empty right now, but is otherwise a good foundation for something more. ShB SMN was the most disjointed of all iterations by far. It felt like the kitchen sink job--a garage sale of many different pieces that have no interaction with one another outside of specific, isolated combinations. SB SMN was very punishing, but I think that was peak SMN experience. It felt way more cohesive than ShB's smoothie challenge headache.

Bingo.

Perfectly well said.

.

Old SMN was less disjointed, but you can absolutely argue that was a benefit. Using disjointed as a pejorative is just silly, especially since it applies more to Old SMN than New SMN.

And we also have to consider this mechanically and thematically.

Mechanically, Old SMN was more disjointed than New SMN, but thematically...Old SMN was HORRIBLY more disjointed than New SMN. Say what you will about New SMN, it knows it's a Summoner and that's what it does. Old SMN couldn't decide if it was a plague mage, a pet mage, a channeler (DWT was basically SMN channeling Bahamut), or a Summoner (or a whatever-the-heck-Aetherflow-was-er). New SMN very clearly has the Summoner thing going for it, and is thematically consistent on that point with only one major (Energy Drain) and one miner (Sub-Job: Channeler) deviation.. And unlike Old SMN with DWT/Bahamut, the Primals/Favors seems like the Primals are granting you favor to channel their powers, while Old SMN kinda just...had DWT...there.

[Dahlinea]

Flowers and rainbows

There, more peace for you.

I know you like old SMN . I'm just saying that this new SMN is bad because it is braindead and has barely no mechanics at all!

I'm just remembering you that you forgot how old SMN worked and just kept saying nonsense in comparison with how it actually behaved!

It turns out it has a few positives to it - other than "braindead", if one considers that a positive (you clearly do not). Sometimes, you may dislike a thing, but should learn to admit when it has things that are in its favor. That's how one can actually prove they know what they're talking about, when they can admit the good things about a thing they oppose, but explain why those don't make up for the bad and it's still a net loss overall.

And it's you that aren't reading all my posts if you say that. The job is braindead and need more flexibility and things to actually decide during fights, not that fake decision making legos. The execution is terrible but has the tools to be good if changes to the rotation are made and the visual are cool. I already said that, but clearly you just gloss over what want to read and discard the rest. Still have the gall to talk about intellectual laziness...

[Renathras]

I'm just remembering you that you forgot how old SMN worked and just kept saying nonsense in comparison with how it actually behaved!

Just stop. You're being intentionally antagonistic. I described how it played BECAUSE I PLAYED IT. It wasn't "reading a guide" (though I DID read guides for it - at the time - BECAUSE I PLAYED IT). You're just being needlessly antagonistic.

And it's you that aren't reading all my posts if you say that. The job is braindead and need more flexibility and things to actually decide during fights, not that fake decision making legos. The execution is terrible but has the tools to be good if changes to the rotation are made and the visual are cool. I already said that, but clearly you just gloss over what want to read and discard the rest. Still have the gall to talk about intellectual laziness...

What did I say in that quote that is wrong?

You think the Job is braindead? That's true.

You dislike the Job? Also true.

You've resisted saying good things about it? Also true. In this thread, what was the last post you said good things about New SMN? Before page 20? Before page 15? Moreover, you make any praise contingent on changes, which isn't praising the extant system.

I've gone back to page 15 so far. I can't find one place you said "It has the tools to be good" and "the visuals are cool", even if we ignore you qualified those with "if it's changed". So even if we count that, you haven't said it in the last 10ish pages of thread. I could probably go back further and also not find it.

I couldn't gloss over what you didn't say.

You're trying desperately for some kind of "gotcha" at this point and failing. Badly.

Maybe you should stop trying to insult me and address actual arguments instead...ad hominem is a logical fallacy for a reason.

.

EDIT: I've gone all the way back to page 1. At no point did you say good things (or even arguably good things) about New SMN as far as I can find.

Maybe you shouldn't lie and make false accusations against people? It would appear my "gall" is well placed.

(As it happens, I read everything I reply to - the entire posts - and am rather Entish about replies. If I'm going to reply to something, I'm going to give it a fully reply as it deserves, and that means I'm also going to read all of it. You MAY accuse me of misunderstanding from time to time, but you can't accuse me of cherry picking from your posts - which you did - and/or ignoring parts:

"gloss over what want to read and discard the rest" is an absolute lie.)

[Dahlinea]

I've gone back to page 15 so far. I can't find one place you said "It has the tools to be good" and "the visuals are cool", even if we ignore you qualified those with "if it's changed". So even if we count that, you haven't said it in the last 10ish pages of thread. I could probably go back further and also not find it.

Go to page 20 and say this again. But don't get me wrong, I like the aethetics and ideas but absolutely condemn the current execution of the job and will keep complaining about it as long as it stays in that sorry braindead state.

[Renathras]

Go to page 20 and say this again. But don't get me wrong, I like the aethetics and ideas but absolutely condemn the current execution of the job and will keep complaining about it as long as it stays in that sorry braindead state.

Only post by you on page 20:

And you're failing to understand that no Colourful Mage the devs introduce will stop people that play SMN to complain about its "no effort" state (because "braindead" is offensive, apparently, despite being the right word for the job right now).
People been justifiably complaining about this trend of the devs in over simplifying job core mechanics for some time now. Now we get an extreme case of a job being reworked and getting all its verticality removed in the process and FOR ABSOLUTLY NO REASON. This is no accessibility at all, for those who want to claim it as such, and people already gave examples of jobs that feature a better a idea of accessibility, like DNC or RDM. The job needed fixes to pet actions' responsiveness and an eased opener, which nearly every old SMN player agreed about it.
The devs created the right tools, the good animations and you can see traces of feedbacks the players gave for the job in the past, but the execution of the job they put out is terrible, the baseline being is your near best approach to the job, leaving no room for players even trying to extract more of it besides one or two tweaks.

You call our arguments subjective but all you did up until now is using your biased conceptions of what the jobs should be as something objective. You're being subjective as hell for the most part of this thread as well.
Also player count doesn't mean anything. If it did, BLM would've been reworked to be a braindead job ages ago.




I don't know man. You said I was like a cultist or something back there.

That it?

"right tools, the good animations" said in a single post several pages ago that was couched in "but the execution of the job they put out is terrible, the baseline being is your near best approach to the job, leaving no room for players even trying to extract more of it besides one or two tweaks"?

Forgive me if I missed, in between you saying it was awful and you saying it was awful, that you liked the animations and...I don't know what you mean by tools here since you can't mean the mechanics or rotation (as you've said both are terrible).

.

Yeah, I don't think you can accuse me of "gloss over what want to read and discard the rest" when you have exactly 4 words (with a "the" in the middle) in 24 pages of posts that you think I "discarded", which were in the middle of you saying it was bad and you saying again it was bad.

[Dahlinea]

Yeah, I don't think you can accuse me of "gloss over what want to read and discard the rest" when you have exactly 4 words (with a "the" in the middle) in 24 pages of posts that you think I "discarded", which were in the middle of you saying it was bad and you saying again it was bad.

You like to be so pedantic about words and meaning and now is discarding it as if I said nothing. It's there, I said it, I didn't say just bad things about this new SMN like you claimed it. Deal with it.

[moroarda]

The job is braindead and need more flexibility and things to actually decide during fights, not that fake decision making legos. The execution is terrible but has the tools to be good if changes to the rotation are made and the visual are cool.

I realize that everyone mostly wants to fight about semantics surrounding whether or not this was said and/or when that may have happened and like... okay, sure, that's fine I suppose, but the real issue is that this quote is entirely correct.
SMN is utterly braindead, and while jokes can be made about how interesting it was in past iterations there's no way to say it got more interesting in it's current form. RDM on introduction was also violently simple, as is (and has remained) DNC. This trend of introducing new jobs and/or reworking old jobs (deleting them and giving another job their name and soul crystal, in SMN's case) into mindless nonsense is really troubling for DRG and AST mains right now.

[Renathras]

Good points. Simply put, we are pigeon-holed into 3 roles and SE has backed themselves into a corner. This is why we wind up seeing limited jobs like BLU. That's how they can allow these jobs to exist, but not allowing them to do any current content.

Warden was an example of what LOTRO would consider a fairly complicated job. I'd love to see something similar in FFXIV, but it would have to set into one of the three roles and would probably lose all its flavor.

Agreed. BLU is able to do so much because it breaks with the otherwise rigid system FFXIV uses. But because it does so, it isn't allowed to compete in current content because...I guess people clearing content is bad or something.

This trend of ... reworking old jobs (deleting them and giving another job their name and soul crystal, in SMN's case) ... is really troubling.

I disagree with your post on the whole, but specifically the words above, I agree with.

I feel like at this point they should be adding these as new Jobs, not reworking/replacing existing Jobs. If a Job sucks, then let it continue to suck. If the Devs thought Old SMN was in a corner, they could just give them a new animation for Miasma and Egi Assault and then call it a day. Make no additional changes to the rotation in future expansions, just an occasional graphic upgrade to a spell. Then people can't complain the Job was changed, and if it sucks...well, then it just sucks and they want it to suck, so...let it suck. They can't complain it's not being changed, since they are on the record not wanting it reworked. They can't complain the Devs are just being lazy or vindictive since we know they would complain if the Devs seriously looked at and changed the Job. So the Job could exist as a more or less time capsule with some pretty window dressing. And that would be fine. The people that would love it would continue to love it. After all, if people loved ShB SMN, they can't well complain that it isn't changed since they already LOVE IT as it was.

I think if people want some Jobs to be terrible and unfun to play, because they somehow find that fun, that's fine, and they should absolutely be allowed to keep that. I don't think they should force it on everyone else/change other Jobs to be like that, but it's fine if some Jobs are like BLM and suck. Some few people will find them fun, everyone else will avoid them like the plague, and everyone can be vaguely happy together.

I honestly have no idea why this isn't allowed - or is allowed for BLM and nothing else.

New SMN is way better than Old SMN. It could have just been a new Job. It's not like FF lore doesn't have more than one name for the Summoner archetype. Evoker or Caller (probably Evoker) would have worked fine. Have it share the Class Arcanist and be done with it. Would some people complain about that being weird? Sure. But who cares?

As for these, they're not arguing the points and are just rampant ad hominem attempts to avoid the actual discussion going on. As such, I won't be giving them anything other than a HB text so they will stop distracting and attempting to derail the thread. If those of you quoted wish to continue derailing the thread, that's on you. If those of you who are liking their posts which have no substance, no point to the discussion, and are just derailing attempts want to continue liking their posts because they're somehow your paragons...you have questionable taste, but that's on you, too. I won't continue giving it any kind of top billing, and may honestly just ignore them as what they are - harassment and derailing attempts.

...

I see your posts.
I read your posts.
I reply to your posts - often point by point, often quoting your own words.

Saying people are bad at reading comprehension doesn't work well when they're using your own statements.

As for what is good faith - good faith means a person is making an honest attempt. (That means the "or no" doesn't count, even if that is what's happening). If I seem to be misunderstanding what you're saying, it might be worth you asking questions to see why I'm not understanding something, or restating it. I would like to know, as you asked me the question, what have I misrepresented of your position? What have I misunderstood of it?

As for mine, you've consistently ignored my posts (as you admit) and even flaunted that you were doing so. But you've also misrepresented them as favoring "braindead" (when I've clearly said I don't see SMN as "braindead"), and you seem to misunderstand when I talk about things being fun or not or discussing specific terms.

You like to be so pedantic about words and meaning and now is discarding it as if I said nothing. It's there, I said it, I didn't say just bad things about this new SMN like you claimed it. Deal with it.

Stop.
With.
The.
Attempted.
Gotcha.
Ad.
Hominem.
Fallacy.

As I noted, you're being antagonistic, and if you weren't aware, ad hominem (what you're doing right now - attacking/addressing me directly, not my argument) is a logical fallacy. "attack on the person" or "addressing the person" rather than their argument. It's an attempt to sidestep arguments that are difficult to overcome.

If I was going to be PEDANTIC, I'd note I said:

What did I say in that quote that is wrong?

...

You've resisted saying good things about it? Also true.

...and point out that you saying, in only one post in the entire thread, while also saying "but it still sucks" that the graphics were pretty could be considered "resisting" saying good things about it and only doing so grudgingly. So if I was going to be pedantic, I'd point out my statement was still true.

Also, it's not "discarding it as if (you) said nothing". It's pointing out you've said exactly ONE good thing, couched in a compound statement of negativity, and that I did not "gloss over" or "discard" it, I didn't consider it you being positive when you were couching it in "and it still sucks".

You said one thing that MAY not have been bad, and seemed to do so grudgingly.

And now you're engaging in rampant ad hominem because you don't want to actually deal with arguments which you can't overcome, so you'd rather attack the person saying them.

Meanwhile, do you know what you've done?

You that aren't reading all my posts if you say that. I already said that, but clearly you just gloss over what want to read and discard the rest.

...because I said this in my prior post, and you clearly just glossed over it and discarded the rest.

Deal with it.

[Dahlinea]

Whinning

What? You said I didn't admit anything good about new SMN and I showed I did. You were expecting a parade with throwing flowers and shouting praises about it? lol

And you do gloss over people posts indeed. I noted that when for some stupid reason you started spouting things along the lines "New SMN is not braindead, the problem is that was removed from the old SMN and people are mad" and started believing in this crap, when people been saying that the rework is braindead and need more complexity, which is true. From this point on all I saw on you was someone with a mentality of "they want complexity on my braindead job and I need to defend it!". Coming with talks about "I hope they release Green Mage with old SMN rotation" to support that stupid belief of yours and ignoring the fact people are complaining about new SMN for it actually being a no effort job that needs help because obviously you don't want to lose the job that don't require player skill to perform good. I even said in that post I talked about something good on new SMN aesthetics that "no Colourful Mage the devs introduce will stop people that play SMN to complain about its no effort state" signalling that it doesn't matter that the old job was removed as long as they fix the braindead state of the current one. But did you get it? Of course not! You then insisted on using old SMN, the job you "liked" (clearly a blatant lie), as being something disjointed, a mix of various systems, having a braindead baseline and other things trying to stablish a supposed point that "proves" that the new SMN is better than the old one. When what were people were pointing is that SMN is braindead and need more to go on and feel like a job that actually provides something to work with and don't simply handhold the player through the entire rotation.
That's why you gloss over people's posts, especially the ones that criticize the new SMN for its braindead state and only grab the parts that feed on your "objective arguments" about how new SMN is good as it is, which clearly is not good, and at the same time try to use old SMN, "the job you liked", as example of how it is bad in comparison. Finally, that's also why I stopped taking you seriously from page 20 onwards and just had some fun from there. Btw I can't attack you, it's against the forum rules you dummy!

So yeah, I said something good about new SMN. You're the one just being picky! ;P

My fears with the current trend of job simplification is on AST, tbh.
I have a fear they might make all cards apply party buffs with reduced effects and increased CD, which at the same time draw a Lord or Lady, and remove the seals making Astrodyne something standalone or just outright remove it with a lot of other buttons...

[Renathras]

accuses someone of glossing over other people's posts while summarizing that person's post as "Whinning" and glossing over the post...

Come now, don't be upset you were called out for ad hominems and an attempt to derail the thread by attacking the person rather than their arguments. Just...don't do it going forward. Simple solution. Or do it again to the same result, it matters not. ANYway...moving on to the actual topic (sorta)

...the rest of the post, the part not in HB...

I kind of agree with AST. But I've honestly never liked AST, so I don't know what people that DO like AST would want the changes to be in the first place (other than I suspect everyone would like Nocturnal back, even some of the other Healer mains).

I saw a suggestion in the Healer forum to make two branches of Cards, with one being the damage buff (because Balance >>>>> all), and the other be the situational buffs (Bole, Ewer type stuff), this way, the two wouldn't be stepping on each other's toes in competition. I could see that being a possible solution. The problem with Bole and Ewer is that they probably weren't up when you needed them (e.g. Bole before a tankbuster), but you didn't want to hold onto them since that meant sacrificing a potential Balance. The combination of "competing with DPS boost instead" and "RNG means it's not likely to be there when you need it" made it not work well. Imagine, for example, if WHM had a single "Curin" spell. But it randomly would pick between Cure 1, Cure 2, or Cure 3 if you cast it. Or if BLM had a "Firin" spell which would randomly pick between Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3, and Fire 4 (and maybe Flare) if you cast it. That level of RNG isn't useful.

AST had that problem with Bole being a card that COULD be useful, but you had no control of it it was up when you needed it or not. So the suggested split (I think that person proposed the Minor Arcana be those buff type cards) with some Redraw RNG security might help. But honestly...it might also be hard to pull off. But the point is that buffs which are unreliable make poor mechanics unless they're more or less equal OR so broad in effect they are still worth having in almost any situation. Which also tends to mean "more boring".

And AST's biggest problem is the having to hot swap targeting during the buff/burst windows...making Cards AOE could solve that, but would cause other issues - for example, what's the point in having charges to Draw/Play if you can only use one at a time and it buffs the whole party (they probably wouldn't stack)? And if they're as bland as "AOE Balance" (which is what PvP Balance is anyway), they'd feel - somehow - even less interesting than now. At least now you can play the pseudo game of "Do I give this card to the Melee...or to the Melee but it's not quite as good?"

Yeah, honestly, I have no idea what they're going to do with AST. They may not even know, which might be why they pushed it. Even if they tried to make a SMN-like redesign, I'm not even sure what THAT would look like. Hard to say...

...

I don't know why I bother when you don't but here you go:

Disjointed is a semantics argument at this point. If we're fighting over definitions, it's irrelevant as a metric, since for a metric to work, it must be something people can agree on. Your definition isn't inherently more powerful than anyone else's, though we're honestly using a similar definition, just differently worded, so that's not even the issue. I actually WAS using your definition. I'll even say how in just a sec.

"I clearly imply it's a "success" if your only metric is accessibility," - That's silly, there are several metrics by which it is a success. Thematically, it fits the class fantasy of a summoner of powerful minions to fight on the caster's behalf. In terms of rotational smoothness of flow, it has that going for it, too. By this I mean no weird "drop 2 Attonements per minute" or "use an Ether to get an additional Flare in", or the like. The rotation is a closed loop that doesn't have hanging threads and if you do it correctly, the total flow is Demi, 3x Primals, a Ruin 4 somewhere in there, and (depending on ping and spell speed) a Ruin 3. The rotation closes its loop and smoothly moves from each subphase to the next without any clunky mechanics or counter-intuitive "record skips" in the rotation. In terms of utility, it has that going for it between its party buff and combat raise. In terms of damage, it's well balanced in the sense it doesn't do so much to be an auto-lock for parties, but not so little that it's actively avoided.

There are additional ways it could be considered arguably a success, such as removing bloat from the Job (it succeeded in THAT, I think we can all agree - some might argue it went too far, but it definitely hit that checkbox), simplifying the Job, removing clunk from the Job (by essentially...removing the Job outright...), and so on. But we can ignore these and still note the successes above.

This does not make it perfect, and it does not mean one cannot dislike it as a whole or dislike components of it, but there are many ways that it can be seen as a success, even if we set aside accessibility as a measure of success (I would disagree it should be set aside and NOT counted as a mark of a successful Job; RDM has long been praised for its intuitive nature) and ignore that all the metrics we have suggest it is quite popular, and likely more played than Old SMN was.

As for the "system bloat", that's kind of a nebulous term we'd have to hammer down to before we could discuss it, but it's definitely far less bloated than Old SMN, it doesn't have DoTs (which are...somehow?...a drain on server side computational resources), nor is the AI doing weird things like Bahamut prioritizing movement over attacking or the AI having to run targeting routines for the Egis. Again, not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it was a success by the metric of reducing system bloat as well.

"I clearly ..." - This is what I mean about lying. (a) "easy to play" isn't the definition I used. Nor is "has a nice flow". I WAS using your definition. I disagreed with you on the application and, perhaps?, the subdefinitions. For example, Old SMN's mechanics were all over the place. They weren't "coherent" (part of your definition). Many were infrequently used or stutter-stepped. They weren't "continuous" (part of your definition). And many were unrelated or only tangentially related. They weren't "connected" (part of your definition). Or rather, a lot of parts of it were not, and just kind of did their own thing. At best, Old SMN only half-way met one of your three criteria. That is: (b) I probably didn't word it as direct/simply enough to make it clear, but I was using the same definition you presented. I didn't ignore it while substituting it with another. (Though it wouldn't have been a crime to have done so, as this is a discussion, I didn't even do that!)

I said that we can ALSO consider thematic continuity, of which New SMN has more and Old SMN had less. But you seem to want to just discard any argument that doesn't agree with yours and are willing to entertain such considerations or definitions. You and I may disagree on what we consider coherent, continuous, or connected, but I didn't ignore them. I was using those same metrics in my evaluation!

(c) I was not "vaguely gesticulate at a different one and don't engage with mine at all". God DAUM if you can't see how wording it like that makes you insufferable you need new glasses! I was using your own definition with my interpretation of your terms. You know, what people do in a debate or discussion when they have a disagreement on how to apply or view something?

And this is just Grade A disgusting: "I get what you're trying to do, you're trying to exhaust under the false pretense of "good faith discussion" where you're just intentionally obtuse, or skirting the actual argument. Timeless-classic online argumentative strategy."

STOP.
LYING.

I was honestly content with just hitting post as I read through and typed this up until I got to that disgusting display.

UNLIKE you, I'm just interested in exchanging points of view with people and presenting my case while offering rebuttals to what I see as incorrect or hyperbolic. The one with the false pretense here, trying to be obtuse and avoid the argument while exhausting their opponent...is you.

I'm not the one that started engaging in personal attacks to distract from the topic. I'm the one who refrained from doing so. You started well before this, as I pointed out, with your "taking the piss" comment pages and pages ago, before I said anything at all that could be interpreted even loosely as an attack on you. A post you still haven't admitted to nor apologized for, even when presented with it.