exactly. if you want to duel with certain restrictions, and CALL it "melee dueling", then that's fine. but by the dictionary definition, and the blizzard definition, there's no reason they aren't melee. as i've said, exclude who you want, but realize that just because you call it "melee dueling", doesn't mean that's the actual definition of melee.

The point is people confuse melee with Gm melee.

stop talking to them. It may seem like you can reason with them but their goals aren't to reason, it's to troll and misinform

Are you saying that Zealots should be dueling smiters? WW barbs should be dueling conc barbs?

Seriously, Lets think about this one.

I thought we established that you cant use the dictionary definition lol and if by "blizzard definition" you mean thorns/im that doesn't work because zerk is obviously melee, no one has contested this, and it is not effected by either. I still don't think that fireclaw is effected but I can't prove otherwise so ill leave that one alone lol.

Our Goal is to Troll ? I havent seen you post one good opinion in this thread.

that i can agree with.

melee = any attack that requires being in contact with the person.
gm melee = no ww, no smite, etc.

I think im making valid points, you can't have a definition that defines only a few of the melee skills, a definition must define all of them. That is a fact, and i dont see anyone telling me im wrong.

well imo smite and ww are obviously melee.

see my above post tho.

Exactly.

This is why the best GM melee have private games and tournaments. So the confused kids dont come bm Good Mannered melee games.