Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
Why does the GDC seem to try to be coy?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharat Nain
I can't help but wonder if someone answering these Q & A's gives out a really long hard evil laugh everytime an answer is posted because they are having so much fun messing with our brains.
|
This is the part that really grinds my gears. Not to dig on my childhood hero Dave, but every time I read something like "the answer does not make any assumptions about what was implied", I hear a voice in my head going "HAHA GOTCHA!", and each occurrence is more infuriating than the last.
Instead of simply saying "Additional batteries do not need to be considered part of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE", why not add "unless your batteries have been assembled into a MECHANISM"? It's not like this is an obscure scenario... when it's obvious that the blanket "yes" answer is incorrect for the device that many teams would consider to be a "battery", it's insane for the GDC to withhold the complete answer until somebody strings together a more precise set of words. It's a huge hassle for askers and answerers alike. If that's the rule, then just lay it on the table. Let's not play games.
(Hm, maybe I should see a doctor about those voices...)