--The thing about the logic thing is you can do it too, and if you're being clear any of them are more than likely to accept it. The ideal behind applying logic to these kind of discussions is to refine points down until they are clearly understood and set apart from anecdote. Originally both people may be wrong, or even the one going for the logical argument, but the thing about logic is that once it actually arises it objectively gets you somewhere. Comparing experiences is a lot less valuable. It just doesn't get that far here because few accept it.

Regarding "come back later and we'll talk." That's a perfectly valid request. If someone is ignorant, yet still wishes to have a discussion, there's nothing wrong with asking them to educate themselves a bit before the discussion begins.

--But who decides? Why? And how come one day Graatch decides you need to play a rager, and then the next he decides you have to play three? What if he's just flat out wrong that you have to play one at all? You can personally require that, but if you're just basing it on your feelings you're likely denying yourself the chance to learn/reevaluate by refusing to weigh in his opinion. Artifical is not a newbie, I think he's more than capable of understanding anything about this game you do, if you can explain it. If you can't, is it so impossible that you are mistaken that he shouldn't be allowed to contest it? And why are you the exception and not him?

Regarding "how hard it is to be a rager." Now, I know that the plural of "anecdote" is not data, but when it comes to these situations all any of us can do is cite our own experiences. However, I've been playing a non-Villager (non-mage) (with some pretty deep restrictions) and to be honest, it's like playing with training wheels on. From my experience it's much, much harder to play a Villager than a non-Villager.

--Being a rbw is rough at hero because you are no longer desperately OP like in the mid thirties, and you have no escape mechanism with high expectations for aggression. It's frustrating because when you hit a wall with someone, you can't stop and say "Well let me try to get more preps" and just have to pray for deathblows. It really depends who you're up against and how much you care about not being a ####. I think average player vs. average player, villager is way easier. Being a non-villager is only massively advantageous if you're either a) not aggressive or don't like dying, or b) very good at the game to start with, as it removes the power roof and you get to pick more of your fights. But an exceptional player on a rager is not hard if you can accept that you will die sometimes when an enemy cabal is overwhelming you and you have to defend, because that is not the majority of the time, most of the time you can maintain a fair degree of control of your situation no matter who you are fighting.

Also, I'm not quite sure you can pigeonhole people who play ragers. With over two-thousand Village hours under my belt I can honestly say that the cabal attracts players and characters of every stripe. To assume that there's just one type of player who rolls Battle is pretty misinformed.

--Maybe I can't. But you have to consider I don't like many of the players who play ragers to start with. As far as anecdotes go, I seriously just don't have the same experiences with characters in other cabals regarding ####-talking, lying, and huge egos, whether in or out of the cabal. I always run into crappy attitudes from battle characters that I almost never do coming from anywhere else. And let me revise that earlier statement: I always wind up full-saccing ragers. I don't full sac them just because they're ragers(much as it tempts me).