Now, we haven't always been the best of friends, Mr. Graatch. I think you're somewhat Battle-centric, but you don't see me posting stuff like "Graatch doesn't understand how CF works." If I did, I would get dogpiled by other players, even the ones who aren't the best of friends with you. CF's been around a log time, and people know who you are and what you're about.

I further recognize that having Battle-centric players is useful because they they're the canary in the coal mine if we change something that has a disproportionate negative impact on Battle. When we make that change, some sort of Bat-signal goes off over NYC, an emergency phone chain is activated, and you and Thinhallen and Abernyte and whoever else appear out of the (Eastern Road) woodwork and make sure Battle's still viable. I come in with some idea that you guys know what "viable" means in practice most of the time, and it often matches what we see in our statistics and what the game-balance-hawks on staff are telling me. I have some feeling that I'm speaking more with a lobbyist than a judge, but at least it's a sane lobbyist.

Credibility matters. Most arguments over CF aren't over black and white issues, but involve shades of gray like "too difficult", "too time-consuming", "underpowered", and the like. Rookies and veterans both use those phrases, but the latter are more likely to use it in a proper context.

I think Pro just plain doesn't understand how CF works. I'd honestly take advice from a 1st-day newbie before I took advice from someone that has done that much to convince me he has no clue how it works.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com