The fact that it can (sort of) pin is a bad feature of the card. That it rarely gets out of hand (in 2p games) isn't a solution to that. And the possibility of pin is an issue aside from its strength overall. Empirical evidence shows that games with Saboteur pins are a really bad experience.
How the hell can you quantify whether Saboteur pins games are a good or a bad experiences? Some people enjoy such games, some don't. You might not enjoy them, I personally do.
Also, please point out where Donald said that deck trashers like Saboteur or Knights are a grave mistake or that deck trashing pins are an unintended feature of these cards. That you hate them is totally fine as long as you don't pretend that your personal preferences are more than that.
- Tons of new players who don't know better play a 3+ player game with Saboteur where everything anybody buys gets trashed almost immediately by another player. Then they go online and complain about how broken and unfun Saboteur is.
- Likewise, tons of players including it in their list of cards to ban for the same reason.
- Numerous players who, after playing a game where they pin an opponent, opt to apologize in chat and/or in the "Sorry..." game reports thread in these forums. Because they have empathy and realize how unfun that would have been for their helpless opponent.
- The KC-Goons-Masquerade pin was acknowledged by Donald as a problem that slipped through playtesting which, if caught, would have been addressed. I'm not going to bother looking for the quote this time. Last time you asked for a source and I provided it, you immediately dismissed it. Why should I bother?
See how he quoted you there? That quote of yours, which he was responding to specifically? I bolded the important bit that you deliberately left out, which directly connects his statement to what you said earlier.
Reading skills are essential.
I made a general statement about you arguing from authority and did not call exclusion testing nonsense.
As usual it is pointless to engage with your distortions.
If you meant something else, it's a problem with your
writing skills. The post history is here. Let me provide you with the context that you so love to ignore.
You're using this as an argument against exclusion testing in Dominion when diligent Dominion fan card designers, actual Dominion playtesters and Donald himself have all spoken to its usefulness. Your hypocrisy here is astounding.
Unlike you I never argue from authority. I couldn't care less about what Donald or Stefan or some fan card designer says, if [exclusion testing] is nonsense it is nonsense.
Are you now saying that what you meant was, "if [argument from authority] is nonsense, it is nonsense"? Doesn't really make sense in context.
And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. Not that these were arguments from authority -- these were arguments from experience, just like yours, except their experience is more relevant.
I think I'm done for today. Feel free to take the last word. I'll take Asper and LF's advice.