Did you try to bring up the legal definition of bad faith to the discussion? I don't recall that. Hence, I wasn't talking about you.
You quoted my post but weren't talking to me? Are you new to the internet?
Ah, semantics: misguiding discussions since the dawn of time. The question isn't whether this game developer fits some arbitrary, subjective definition of "bad faith" (even legally, this is subjective, since different jurisdictions have different laws). The question is whether or not their behaviour was acceptable.
I assume everyone here is a writer to some extent, so it's odd that we're getting caught up on the exact (nonexistent) 'correct' definition of an abstract idea. Imagine if every word you used in your stories had one hyper-specific, objective definition. That sure would limit your ability to craft ideas and narratives!
Imagine comparing a marginally different definition to your own with a jumble of "random words." If you can't appreciate and work with nuances in language, you are failing as a writer. That's that. You're not a failure of a writer (I wouldn't know), but you are failing in this moment.
Hardly the first time that Kellie has turned a perfectly good thread into semantic mudslighing.
Way to go.
She better not, that's my job.
Quite apart from the fact that the developer didn't credit LC in their creation, which in of itself is a undoubtedly a form of intellectual dishonesty (to answer your earlier question, he deceived all his patrons. You are essentially arguing that a lie of emission is not still a lie), look at this:
Look at those conjunctions. 
I suppose words can have more than one stringent meaning or interpretation after all!
Quite apart from the fact that the developer didn't credit LC in their creation, which in of itself is a undoubtedly a form of intellectual dishonesty (to answer your earlier question, he deceived all his patrons. You are essentially arguing that a lie of emission is not still a lie), look at this:
Bad Faith.
Cambridge Dictionary: "Dishonest or unacceptable behaviour."
Oxford Dictionary: "Intent to deceive; insincerity; dishonesty; faithlessness; disloyalty or treachery. / self-deception practised in order to avoid absolute responsibility for one's own actions."
Mmm, look at all those tasty semicolons.
and we'll name it the KeithD principle
Wasn't him who inspired me thoughand we'll name it the KeithD principle
#12-Thou shalt freely admit to being a snarky troll. AKA The LC68 self-aware shit stir.Wasn't him who inspired me though
Ohh sweetie, this again?
Shouting "strawman!" from the rooftops without clarifying what part of my point you think is fallacious? Nicely done.
Your whole point was fallacious. Nice attempt at deflection!Shouting "strawman!" from the rooftops without clarifying what part of my point you think is fallacious? Nicely done.
