BuzzerBeater Forums

Let's say Boykin is player #13, which I choose only because he wasn't in the 12 against Guatemala. If:

- He was to be injured in this week's cup game; or
- His owner was banned for operating many teams and didn't have him in his default lineup; or
- His owner was banned for operating many teams and did have him in his default lineup, starting

Would he really be added to the team within three weeks?

What I don't care for is a lack of understanding when I try to address and issue.

What is it you feel I don't understand? You position is perfectly clear. The issue for me is that when you are asked why not add the player later just in case, you go off about how I don't understand.

Here it is nice and clear for you. There are two options, add the player now or later. Adding the player now is almost surely fine but has a 1/10000000 chance of causing a problem. Adding the player later cannot possibly cause a problem. That makes the second option the better one.

Rather than accept that basic logic you've gone on about how I must not understand you. I've even repeated your position back to you and nothing you have said since changes anything.

I UNDERSTAND that there is almost no chance of it causing a problem. I UNDERSTAND that you are aware of the players available. I UNDERSTAND that the team has pretty much zero flexibility.

My point is, even if you DO know exactly what will happen why not do things properly just in case you are wrong.

How does that point indicates a lack of understanding.

It is inevitable that the 13th player would've been added within three weeks of the start of the season. No exceptions.

That still means the exact same thing. I'm not sure what you believe you're adding.

I don't think this is very constructive right now so please stop.
The 13th player is already in the roster. It's done. There is no point in arguing about it now.
I'm sure that if something were to happen that would cause a problem, RiP would be the first one to slap his forehead really hard.

So let's just find another topic, a much more constructive one, to chat about. I'm sure there are plenty of them to keep us busy for a very long time.

why not just have him added so more tactical options are available at an earlier date?

Taaadaaaa! Was that so hard?

I wasn't complaining, I wanted to know your reasoning, and your constantly pointing out that it wouldn't make a difference hardly counts as reasoning. At least with the above statement I can see where you're coming from.

Though I should point out that, although you consider it an "extremely unnecessary", he wasn't going to be used for that game so there really wasn't any reason to add him now other than that you plan to use him later. Why not add him when you are going to use him? I mean reasons other than refusing to bend to such an unnecessary precaution.

In fact, by this line of thinking wouldn't it make sense to only have 10 players on the roster for the whole season? There would be no point in having any more at any time unless an injury occured.

This is just intentionally obtuse.

but if you have any comments on the actual games (tactics, positions etc.) feel free to chime in.

Thank you for so graciously allowing me to participate in the forums.

Do you mean to say you couldn't care less? Saying you could care less suggests you do care.

Are you an English major or something? This is a really annoying habit of yours. Sometimes I think you add these little tidbits just to antagonize.

Piling on?

Maybe not piling on but extremely unnecessary and really not helpful to the NT or the community in general.

Is that more clear, my friendly English major? (man, I'm going to have to double spell-check everything that I type in the Canadian forums from now on)

I figured it was almost common sense that the 11th through 13th player were there for strategy reasons. Apparently not.

How can it be common sense to include a 13th player as a strategic move in the first game when you can only dress 12? Any strategic implication the 13th player has is in future games.

I went about explaining what each player was there for on the team

Which only means anything in this context as far as it explains why the 13th would be called eventually. Not what he was needed for at this point.

This is a really annoying habit of yours.

Habit? In the time I've been playing BB I have corrected a person on their grammar exactly twice. Two times is not a habit.

Mostly I add "these little tidbits" when a person does something like take on a superior tone but then makes up words or says the exact opposite of what he means. :)

Why do people automatically cry "English major" when someone prefers people to say what they mean? Anyways, don't worry about your spell check, just say what you mean instead of trying to sound smart or something.

Relax, it's a game. Arguing is fun for me. I do it for a living. If it isn't fun for you then leave the conversation because I am unlikely to stop because I find it tremendously amusing.