Zeroberon wrote:And that is where you are failing, because as is the fault of many poor arguments in the past, you are applying our world's logic to A GAME.
No, I'm just applying logic. The fact that this is a game doesn't suddenly mean that the words "fuzzy memory" are somehow tied to your made up mechanic that whomever speaks it has lost some precise amount of memory.
I notice you dodged all of my questions on the subject. I'll repost them for your convenience:
"My memory is fuzzy" is a subjective statement, no matter how much you deny it. Or I'll await your proof that it is not. Here, I'll help: Did the person who said that remember 99% of the experience? Or was it 1% of the experience? Or does that number lie somewhere in between? SUBJECTIVE. Look up the word, you might learn something. If a second person were to say those exact same words, would you insist that their amount of memory of the experience must therefore be exactly equal?
Zeroberon wrote:We have been provided with 2 instances that concretely support the "participants in tri-links can't remember the spells they cast" mechanic, [...]
Actually, only you
have provided two instances of this. But you haven't cited your source for Vanna. Still waiting!
Zeroberon wrote:All that remains is to figure out if Vanna experienced the same thing.
So what we have here is you
deciding that Vanna experienced the same thing, and then using a LOT OF CAPS to insist that this translates into a game mechanic. You are classic!
Zeroberon wrote:The quote I already provided, in my opinion, does that because as I say above, there isn't a "middle ground" so her lack of ability to describe it clearly indicates poor memory.
And here is where you've decided what the outcome has to be, and then interpreted the evidence to make it support your conclusion. Even your use of the word "opinion" should tell you something here: This is how you want it to be, not how any evidence proves it to be.
Both of those sentences are untrue statements. You
Zeroberon wrote:Vanna had a fuzzy memory of Kingworld, therefore we know she was tri-linked to perform it. THIS is hard evidence.
think that a trimancer link has to involve memory loss always, and so when Vanna said "That was like, whoa. Intense. You know?" you
decided it had to mean that she suffered from memory loss. This is not "hard evidence", it's you trying to make the facts fit your preconceptions. Could it perhaps mean that it was an intense experience which did not involve memory loss? Could it perhaps mean that it was something she hadn't experienced before, and therefore had trouble finding the words to describe it? Could it perhaps mean that she is a bit of a space cadet, and just talks like that all the time? Not to you, to you this is conclusive evidence of memory loss. HIIII-larious.
Don't ever become a researcher. You have no capability to separate the facts as you see them from the facts as you want them to appear. You remind me of the pair of researchers who developed an ingenious test to prove the existence of "ether", who after their experiment disproved it instead, decided that they must have done something wrong. They refused (for a while) to believe the facts they had collected because they didn't fit in with their preconceptions of what the test results would show.
You have an opinion about how trimancer links work with regards to memory loss, and another opinion about the Kingworld (*Ptui!*) link being a trimancer link. That's all. And you're welcome to your own opinions. But don't try to claim that there is "hard evidence" which supports either of those opinions. You could be proven correct in the future, or you could be proven incorrect, or these things could remain unrevealed forever. But right now all you have is a pair of opinions.