I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.
You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong.
But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least?
Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following:
The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.
Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map
ideas; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context.
Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again).
Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".