Recent posts by biguglyorc on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Like I mentioned above, my only issue with all this energy put toward the regulations of SD moderation, I think we’re missing a huge developmental white space in how we (SD community, as it were, and the mods) can reinforce and reward desired behavior amongst ourselves AND to newcomers. That’s it. Simple idea.

Regulations without reward is a security guard for an empty building.

Well, honestly – not sure if you’re still around to read this, but I agree with this. The thing is, this area was actually addressed a few pages ago: pointing out rhetorical misconceptions and mistakes, or admitting to making them oneself is, the way I see it, an attempt at improving one’s posting style. We can address it some more, but – in my opinion – it’s useless if there’s no assurance that it goes anywhere, as some users just refuse to improve, even though their actions affect the whole forum and its reception.

Kind of like your earlier analogy, with online communities being like families – nobody appreciates uncle Jerry’s behaviour, so he’s told to change it or else he won’t join everyone else at the table. Certain behaviours need to be coerced and don doesn’t have the power to coerce them: as it is now, good uncle Jerry might just as well take a shit right on the table and someone will just remove it – sooner or later, anyway; no-one can throw him out (except for admins, but there isn’t one that would be a regular here at the same time).


Although this idea may be rather infantile, I think it would be helpful if certain threads were summarised every couple of pages. This one could use that, for instance: what the current consensus is, where people disagree, what still needs to be addressed. School-style, I know, but otherwise there’s always this one guy who comes off as patronising, even though threads often need such guidance. Or worse yet, there is no guy like that or he’s ignored/misinterpreted and things like this last page happen.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

The problem is, as vika pointed out, morality is ambiguous – each culture has its own morality, and even then it isn’t explicit. In some circles, adultery is a fairly acceptable thing, for instance, even if they’re of Christian background – so there goes the Ninth Commandment.

You can codify SD guidelines and make them actual rules, breaking which would result in being suitably punished. But in order to make that happen, don must complete his little putsch to be able to enforce that system. A system based purely on honour is unreliable, as there already are some unwritten – and even unspoken – rules that are perpetually broken by some more persistent (or just outright classless) users. Then there are also those who are unaware of the unwritten rules, and have the right to be unaware of them, because they have different cultural background.

I guess, sadly, it all boils down to bureaucracy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / PotUS' SotUA

Erm, I guess that’s still on-topic, so I’ll just ask…

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Killed Osama Bin Laden.
This is an accomplishment for you? Why?

/edit
I don’t mean to start a discussion on ethics, just curious why that’s a positive thing for you, of all people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Aaaanyway…

Originally posted by vikaTae:
don, I also think it would be a good idea if you as our resident ‘deranged mod’, decided to step in when we’re hurling insults against one another more than we’re addressing the actual topic.
Not sure how obvious that is, but I guess it would help if threads that require mods’ attention were flagged. Chances are, don doesn’t read all posts in every thread – I know I don’t, at least.

So if it feels like a thread’s getting derailed – flag and explain what needs to be looked out for.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

An unexpected turn of events…

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
cheers! Doubly so for the rhetoric site. Here’s mine.
Heh, something tells me I’ll be linking that site every once in a while.

More on-topic, although it isn’t really a problem: “lazy quoting”, as – I gather – it’s called. It’s usually clearer when a quote can be at once assigned to its author, especially when a post addresses several people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
YOU are one of, if not the MOST, vile posters on SD.

In all honesty, I strongly disagree. Sure, he lashes out at people, but, ironically, usually so when they try to troll or otherwise break the rules/make discussions impossible, be they reg or foe. So to speak.

I’m sure I’ve said a few things he disagreed with me on, or even thought me a fool for, but I think the closest thing to a jab he ever had at me was when he once, long ago, compared me to MRA activists, which I actually found amusing. Mini-modding it may be, but it works – it does show what sort of behaviour is appreciated and which is not, and gives noobs a chance: that, despite facing a wall of text with fancy-shmancy words a plethora of which might instill a severe case of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (right back at you, OP), they are, in fact, free to present their view.

When I do that, I usually turn out to be too subtle for people to pick up on that, so his methods are apparently more effective. To me, more important is that he shouldn’t have to do that in the first place, than the fact that he does it.

A lot of (most?) your vile posts get removed

You know… In the past year, since 20.01.14, your posts have been removed exactly 90 times. Out of ~1700 or so. That’s 5.3%. With a generous extrapolation (since people like jhco or issendorf haven’t really given you the chance to flame them during this time due to them being gone), that makes it 423 removed posts total. This calculation also disregards your recent vigilante spam mods felt was better off left untouched, but in locked threads. And it doesn’t speak of the shitstorms your posts caused – which, actually, is the most damaging thing: to threads, to the forum, or this community in general.

My point is, karma, look at your own actions, because – while you’ve never claimed to be a saint – you seem to be the only one unwilling to improve, and the only argument you have when people call you out on this is “no u”. Welp.

That being said, I personally had some interesting discussions with you – so it’s not that I aim to trash you – but they just aren’t fun when you get emotionally invested. For someone who eagerly sums up others, you’re rather oversensitive.


Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
off-topic: how do you make line breaks to separate posts aimed at different people?

<hr/>
I think it’s quite on-topic, actually – this could be stickied, I guess, since proper formatting generally helps in quality posting.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
That’s probably enough to put a perspective on the concept of SD regs being the sole ppl (vs. the noob) bringing heat to the discussion, at least for some ppl some of the time in varying degrees.

You know, while pete had his share of inexcusable retorts, you did provoke him. As a matter of fact, I did too, although – how ever dismissive of my own behaviour it may be – I blame it on communication barriers, because that wasn’t really my intention there. Likely, neither was it yours, but with your total war arguing style, I can’t blame pete for losing his shit there. How he decided to show his angst is another story, not really related to this subject yet, I think.

I usually ignore the more provocative parts of posts, or try to treat them as actual arguments, but it often is difficult to tell when you, karma, are trying to bring something to the table and when you’re being a cherry-picking dick. Kinda like here, you know. On one hand you are presenting a long-time SD reg’s version of how things are, on the other – you completely ignore what other people say about taking feuds from one thread to another and proceed to quote pete on what he said four months ago, in another thread, just to say “you’re not a saint yourself”.

Either way, pete isn’t really the best example of how destructive that whole “trial by flame” initiation thing is – he’s still here, after all, and is a grown, educated man. I guess when I’m talking about shutting down greenies, I mean situations like this, where hamuka, whose post is on page 2, was basically told to shut up because they’re apparently too young to discuss things (even though each argument of theirs was valid, the tone was right and the attitude – humble). That annoys me. It’s like shooting down easiest targets to win something.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I think that the initiation and orientation period that you describe is particularly abrasive in this forum (compared to other forums I’ve experienced), and that it’s much more abrasive than one might expect from a casual gaming site.

It hasn’t always been like that, though. I’d lurked here quite a while (like, several years) before I started posting – as I was, and actually still am, more interested in reading than posting – and when I eventually did engage in a thread, it wasn’t really rough for me at all. My welcome party maybe wasn’t as warm as Jan’s – but I do keep my profile private after all.

You, on the other hand, had this misfortune to get karma’d in your first “serious” argument (and, looking back, I’m sure my own inquiries didn’t help that), but also another thing is that it was about your own beliefs/views, not something you could’ve approached objectively – which is what I, until recently, had stayed the hell away from, because debates like that are handled worse and worse every month here.

Hence my more and more frequent bitching about it – it’s pretty easy to fix, while it causes a lot of damage.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Maybe I should say that when I mentioned communication barriers, I meant to point out that they’re, to a certain degree, to be expected. You can partly bypass that with more precise wording on the speaker part, and on the receiver one – “less precise understanding”, since there’s usually a whole spectrum (with varying degrees of emphases on every point) of interpretations of a single statement, even in the intended context. So, well, one should give that a thought before engaging in an argument.

I generally try to follow that rule to avoid getting caught up in a heated debate with many more paragraphs than actual on-topic points – which, sadly, often results either in, I imagine, me sounding apologetic/defensive, or me writing a text-wall at an attempt to explain what I mean (which I honestly hate doing); and the latter often ending up quartered one sentence at a time in following counter text-walls… and from that point, it goes on, and on, until someone gives in.

I guess my point is, a debate is only fair when both parties participate in it on the same terms. In this forum, from a passive observer point of view, it often looks like a newcomer has to face a commission (I’m kind of relating it to what Jan said earlier) before everyone can exchange positions on equal terms. Maybe I’m alone on this, but I personally find unfair discussions uninteresting.

I think the healthiest thing to do when that happens in a thread, is to take into consideration a passing by mitigator’s point (be it a mod or a user), and let the greenie out of the trench – if there’s no better reason, just to see if there’s anything left of them to shoot at. Otherwise, well… this comes to mind.

/edit
…just to be sure, I’ll also add that it shouldn’t happen in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I think it’s all about finding the golden mean between explaining rhetorical structures used instead of presenting a position and getting derailed subjects back on their tracks – or to be more precise, relating actual problems that come with certain rhetorical structures by default (like noticing differences between dismissing points and refuting them) to on-going discussions, since even those who know that a statement’s interpretation relies mainly on how it is perceived, often ignore or forget that.

Vika every now and then points out that there are culture/language barriers that tend to hinder communication on a basic level (different phrasing, or phraseology in general) – although, while it’s true, I think another problem is also that some people just don’t want to understand what their adversaries want to convey. That, unfortunately, is a barrier you can’t really go around, because there is no-one waiting on the other side, so it’s pointless even if you do manage to go around it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
sorry biguglyorc!

Heh, no problem.

I have to stop myself from yammering on about the various rhetorical schemas used in SD to bedazzle or obfuscate.
Well, I may not be objective on this, since I know a thing or two about rhetoric myself (and I like the subject in general), but I think it is worth an occasional mention, especially if an otherwise interesting thread’s going to shit simply because there’s no actual communication between the parties, and they both focus on eristic. And… well, that happens too often here to just let it go, in my opinion. I mean, Schopenhauer showed eristic can be an art, but this is a forum meant to discuss things, after all, and the fussing and fighting hardly ever seems like fun – or art – even to the fussers and fighters, while it usually repels any outsiders.

You guys have shed so much blood here, this place needs a transfusion, so let some fresh blood stick around long enough for that to happen, before you spook them away :p

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The panik button.

Sorry for the length, but I dislike triple-posting.
@pete
People who haven’t read the guidelines and got their posts removed usually don’t whine about them being removed. It’s when you consult the guidelines and see your posts were valid, that you earn the actual right to argue. Other than that, “no flaming” or “no derailing threads” are rather obvious rules, especially so on a “serious” forum, aren’t they?

Originally posted by donseptico:
and have been turned down flat each time…

On what grounds?

@karma
Eh, having reread my following response, I’ll maybe add a disclaimer, that whenever there’s a “you”, it’s not “you, and only you, karma”.

Trolls are only a part of the problem – and, in my opinion, a minor one at that: once you identify a troll, you just ignore them, and that’s about it. It’s that this forum is often – maybe even most of the time – hostile. There are many, many, threads that people find interesting, but they don’t post there, because they don’t want to waste their time presenting a view just for it to be flamed. You’d be surprised how often this topic is brought up in OT.

Yeah, there are also those inexperienced in debates, who just don’t know how to state what they want stated, but there are also those who know how to debate, and choose not to participate at all, because – generally speaking – there aren’t many threads here that are set in the tone of a good debate. Honestly, I don’t blame them, seeing as anyone who isn’t as eloquent as the average SD-er gets flamed into oblivion if they don’t wish to cooperate the way you want them to.

I looked up Vangaurde when he (re)appeared last time, and well… Here is one of his first threads (AD 2008) – it’s similar to the ones he’s been spamming SD with recently. Have a look, however, at JohannasGarden’s fantastic post therein: it invites to an actual discussion on the issue. If such thread were to be made now, not only OP would be insulted and the thread consequently locked for being derailed, but also Johannas – well, if she weren’t an admin – would, likely, have to face a page of walls of text for stating her opinion. When a claim is made, it should be backed up, but taking apart every sentence of a post is disruptive to any form of “epistolary” communication.

I’ll quote Vanguarde’s response in that thread – not as an argument, but maybe food for thought:

Originally posted by Vanguarde:

I am thrilled that my sense of this forum as being at this time populated with lots of mature talkers was right. No one flamed anyone – an amazing feat to witness when you have been online as long as I have!


I intend to bring many topics that are like this, fresh and new and worth the time to chime in!~


Thanks for understanding me..!


Psychotic or not, he still wants (or wanted) to contribute to the forum. When he reappeared a couple months ago, he followed the guidelines, or at least tried to, yet he was met with aggression. Normally, newcomers just leave this place when that happens, but he went mental and a shitstorm ensued. Again.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The panik button.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
The remnants of a removed post is a constant reminder to all forum users that they are subject to the potentially arbitrary editorial discretion of the moderators. It’s not clear to new users who those moderators are or what rules and guidelines they’re following when the offending post is removed (from public view) and the placeholder remains.

No, it’s perfectly clear. You’re supposed to get familiar with those rules before you post.

Don’t flame, don’t derail threads, don’t spam, and your post will be untouched. It’s really that simple. Such posts should be removed. The bigger problem is that they’re made. Like this thread, for instance… Two pages of completely off-topic discussion, and still going. Sure, it’s interesting, yet it’s all a response to a troll, who just baits and waits for you to derail threads for him – as you can see, he doesn’t even need patience.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The panik button.

Originally posted by donseptico:
What can be done?

Not feeding the trolls seems like a good start. Or staying on-topic. Possibly both?

/edit
Well, that’s for user-side. As for Kong – until not long ago, you had to earn a badge to be able to post; I highly recommend a similar system, but based on account level, not badges. Level 5 as a minimum requirement would do nicely, I think. Any alts/spammers would need to waste those two hours or so. That’s the easiest solution, for all boards.

A more complicated one would involve rebuilding registration system, so that it would require email confirmation (of course, one email address could be used only once), and a mod’s approval before the new user could post on the main – Kong/The Arts/Tech support/SD/OT – fora. With detailed requirements (activity, chat and game-forum behaviour – based on eg the number of times the user has been silenced/amount of posts removed), it wouldn’t be that much work for mods, since most accounts on Kong don’t even make it to level 5.

With those two, it’s all about laying the banhammer on the right kind of people, and it shouldn’t be too much swinging.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Cultural drift, circa 2115 AD

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I think Islamisation of both Europe and North America is another very possible, if not certain, thing that might happen, but that’s probably too macropolitical for the AX

Perhaps. What makes you say that?

Heh, apparently it’s difficult to find relatively unbiased statistics. It’s sad, but also – kind of – an argument on its own.

Most of the links I found were from sites like “STOP MUSLIMS”, but this seems rather reliable. It’s not the numbers that are the problem, though, but how assimilation of orthodox Muslims and neophytes is carried – it isn’t. That article seems to cover it.

I honestly have no clue how it looks in Canada, but a quick skim through Google search results tells me anti-Islamic notions are at least noticeable.

In USA, as usual, it’s not about how many people convert, but which ones. An interesting link, I think – looks like a thinly veiled recruitment site for some radical group. More seriously, though, apparently there aren’t any reliable statistics.



If you asked what I thought was the reason for that – perhaps it’s the feeling of stability or some deeper meaning Islam has to it. It’s rather strict compared to other religions, so it might give some sense of direction: the distinctions between right and wrong are usually clear, and it finds its demographic in the young easily. Probably that’s one of the reasons. Another is, many people find EU’s policies dumb at best – Islam, as it’s perceived as hostile, can make a good rebellious gesture for youths to show everyone what they think about how their countries are run or what they think about their societies, and maybe a part of them just stick to it.

Either way, converting to Islam seems like a growing trend, as compared to, say, 10 years ago.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Cultural drift, circa 2115 AD

Maybe another thing would be literature itself. With illiteracy being a thing of the past for the countries in question, there’s now many more authors, who – to put it euphemistically – don’t do too well in known/respected literary genres, so they often make up their own (as much as those who just want to create something new), although they aren’t always aware of it. I think a prediction that there are going to be entirely new genres seems fair.

To give an example – authors such as Cormac McCarthy already experiment with transgressive writing, creating (sometimes interesting) hybrids of drama and prose.

Personally, I’d say art in general is going in the wrong direction, as too much attention and/or credit is given to those who scream for it loud enough – so I’m not sure if it would happen in just one hundred years or a few decades later than that, but I would predict a rebirth of classical (or simply less abstract) painting/sculpture. There are artists who do that already, but they aren’t very numerous or are unknown.



I think Islamisation of both Europe and North America is another very possible, if not certain, thing that might happen, but that’s probably too macropolitical for the AX, and I guess you would be more accurate in estimating how that would turn out anyway.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Cultural drift, circa 2115 AD

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I guess the question I’m scratching at though is, is this necessarily a problem, or just a change? Many of the older generations today might view it as a problem, but our kids don’t. It may simply be a shift in values, or merely placing less emphasis on personal interactions.

I think the problem is, it’s hard to relate it to previous recurring generation conflicts. Technological advancement of our civilization over the last 40 years surpasses that up to the point that it’s the young who teach the old about the world now. For most people born before or during WW2, this world seems like real life sci-fi, and they often need guidance – in such arrangement, there’s little room for “respect your elders” and the like, which in the end creates a civilization precipice, not a regular gap between generations.

Yeah, millenials (or maybe these kids, since there’s a large difference between the two) are the future, but they’re the first generation ever to be just disconnected from the previous ones. I don’t think Internet culture can be comparable to the hippies or the beatniks, or other rebellious movements – it’s a world in and of itself, with its own societies and sub-cultures. The Z generation is the first one ever to grow up and experience the world (real or online) without a parent’s guidance. I’m kinda exaggerating here, but Lord of the Flies seems like some cultural reference – the reason I say “kinda” is because of countless cases of cyberbullying ending up with dead kids. Piggy’s death seems like a fair comparison in this context.

If you take such reshaping of society in general into consideration, a hundred years into the future doesn’t seem very bright.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Cultural drift, circa 2115 AD

@OP
Do you wish to include societal changes in macro scale? As in: entire NA/EU societies or nations, or just family units (most basic human interaction)?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

For a current example, think about watching TV at home; a lot of younger people seem to be switching over to watching TV on their PCs or tablets. One change to our culture is that this diminishes the group dynamic of watching news / sports / movies with others [family, friends etc] on a daily basis.

The way I see it, companies providing forms of entertainment, but also advertising in general, aim to approach their marketing targets individually, while people as such these days usually hide behind proxies – contacting peers via social media is preferred to real life meet-ups; suing someone is now an acceptable alternative to trying to solve problems directly with them, etc. I’d also go as far as to say modern combat follows a similar trend (eg drones, ballistic missiles, etc.) – but I’m not sure if it’s that much on topic.

An obvious observation, although perhaps worth mentioning, is that it also affects sports: kids prefer to fool around in front of a Wii U console rather than to go out and play ball, even if both exercises are similar.

I do believe that, at this rate and with such axioms, social interaction in today’s first world countries is going to worsen in one hundred years. Philip K. Dick, I think, described the risks (not: literal consequences) quite accurately in his books. All in all, a future citizen may actually have more interaction with a company than with another human being.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Alright… First off, I did link a summary of Leibniz’s approach. It’s odd no-one decided to compare it to wargamer’s attempt (yes, it was a poor one) at explaining his beliefs, since the similarities seem rather obvious – both in composition and in choice of words.

While I agree on your points regarding quality discussions, this is not the thread for such in-depth analysis – which is the reason why I continued the conversation in private messages. Considering you’re (as you’re phrasing it) chastising me also about being off-topic in your post, I find it rather ironic you didn’t PM me all this, and proceeded to derail this thread instead.

On the other hand, you (mis)quoting my responses from another thread is just childish – also because you’re taking the quotes out of their contexts – and it only further derails this thread, so I’m not going to address it more than I just did.

To return the favour and quote you on one of your many lines:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
If you can’t say anything nice; don’t say anything at all.

That being said, PM me what you want heard and/or have a go at Leibniz if you feel like it, but stop with the ad hominem, I’m tired of it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by 404WindStalker:

biguglyorc: To publicly assert one’s beliefs opens them to scrutiny. I find it highly disrespectful to expect freedom from criticism while launching same at those disagreeing with you. I might let such issues lie while enjoying holiday meals with family and close friends, but this is a forum thread on a website; all within the bounds set by the webmaster(s) is permissible.

Yes, criticism is expected, or even encouraged, but how it’s served also matters, as it defines the quality of a discussion. That’s pretty much the only point I was trying to make.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I’m familiar with (not all) your posts in this thread, and as much as I did enjoy your and, at one point or another, vika’s hacking away at deism and other stances (around page 75, was it?), my point is that the general tone of this thread excludes those unwilling to explain their beliefs more than they do. What I think you’ve overlooked (although take it as an observation, rather than a “riposte” of sorts to your own beliefs), is that your beliefs allow you to approach the subject objectively, they are – rhetorically, only – convenient in the sense that they give you some room to operate within. A Catholic, for instance, doesn’t have this luxury: denying Catholic dogmas makes you a sinner. A pious Catholic will never doubt Mother Mary’s virginity, because doubting it is against their beliefs.

Any belief system reaches a point where treating it as a whole literally is absurd, but so does “debunking” said system – because “debunking” it mimics its logic, just in a semi (or pseudo) rational way. Such was the case with your counter-retorts on page 141, where – ironically or not – you engaged in treating Genesis literally. To be clearer, I’ll just quote an example, if you don’t mind:

Your reading comprehension skills are pretty low if you think I actually believe two people lived in a garden and our universal and undefined Father that created everything but specifically likes to talk to us kicked us out of because we ate fruit a talking snake was pushing.
Belittling people’s beliefs (how ever literally they follow the book) by pointing out their irrationality is not an argument.

Or, to say it differently:

Originally posted by TheBSG:

He’s using the concepts of logic and rationality like toy blocks. He doesn’t actually want to know anything about the universe or learn anything or posit anything interesting, he just wants his fairy tales to be true.

I imagine you diagnosed his inability to explain his beliefs rather early. Why pick on him because he doesn’t have your erudition and his beliefs have little to do with science? Now not only he, but also anyone who doesn’t know how to precisely state what they believe in, starts from a defensive position, because they know anything they say can be just shot down with “lol thats stupid”.

Atheism, deism, agnosticism, pantheism – they’re all easily defensible, as they’re either vaguely absolute (no means no, because logic) or absolutely vague (“yeah man, I believe, I just don’t know what I believe in”). It’s different with followers of specific religions.
Everyone wants their fairy tales to be true, just different people have different definitions of “fairy tale”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I always avoid threads like this one, simply because they’re just more or less conspicuous flamewars. For some reason, people equate logic with faith and then use it as an argument on its own, which only proves their ignorance. There’s always a raging Christian pulling a Ben-Hur and an atheist-ish guy with foam dripping from his mouth whose only contribution is that other people’s beliefs are laughable.

Faith and reason are two mutually-exclusive things. Investigating one’s beliefs with pure rationalism is just as irrational as committing a factual event to a belief. If a self-proclaimed rationalist ventures so deeply into others’ beliefs, he or she loses the badge. Rationalists who notoriously act irrationally are just as hypocritical/stupid/name your epithet as theists or otherwise ideological people imposing their beliefs on others.

You can approach belief systems rationally; not directly – as in: opposing them with pure reason – but conceptually. Here, an example of one of the founders of modern mathematics who desperately sought means of understanding his beliefs. And in his search, he doesn’t aim to insult anyone, which is what most people here are focused on doing.

Note that Leibniz’s approach (as opposed to e.g. Pascal’s) is still arguable, leaves room for discussion and by no means does it reek of the “lol ur all stupid if u dont see it” shit this thread is full of.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Gravitee Wars Online / Suggestions megathread

1. You haven’t presented a single valid argument regarding anything. All you do is try to defend cheapest moves you can make in this game that are going to be nerfed one way or another anyway.
2. Then don’t kill the fun for others. Blowing up entire maps with a single shot is neither skillful, nor fun.
3. This is just another stupid rebuttal, even more so considering this is a thread for suggestions, naming problems and attempting to solve them.

I’m not asking you to leave, you’ve already shown your points don’t need to be taken seriously, so I rest my case.


Originally posted by towerator:
Originally posted by biguglyorc:

Stop derailing this thread. Customs are overpowered and they need a nerf. Whatever rights you think you have for being a farmer, they don’t apply here.

Customs aren’t that much. If you have a high level, it’s fine to have good weapons, right? The real op is nukes and radiation in general.

Eh, super-clusters are OP, I don’t think any other kind of custom needs a nerf as of now.

While radiation is much easier to deal with once you have some decent HP and detox, yeah, I agree it’s still a bit too much. If it lasted a fixed amount of turns, it would be alright, but as it is now, it can potentially deal an infinite amount of damage to anyone on the irradiated planet. Say, 10 turns is much more than enough (so max 150 damage to everyone on the planet with level 3 rad custom). Maybe make it two or three full rounds (either 8 or 12 turns in a 4-player match) to be more predictable, since the tenth turn would end in the middle of the round.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Gravitee Wars Online / Suggestions megathread

Stop derailing this thread. Customs are overpowered and they need a nerf. Whatever rights you think you have for being a farmer, they don’t apply here.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Gravitee Wars Online / Player Feedback: Bots

First off, bots are already used for farming. They’re farmed in level filtered 1v1 matches (it’s a glitch) and on non-filtered 3-player maps.

Secondly, I don’t know if their difficulty comes from their level, but a level 72 bot is better than the average player, which I find amusing, although I like it a lot. They often take risky shots and succeed, sometimes they’re so precise it makes me wonder if they can “extend” their tracers with actual mathematical formulas, but it’s all good nonetheless. On the other hand, I’ve seen them fail miserably with rather easy shots and kill their teammates. In my experience, they succeed with their shots more often than they fail.

They almost never move unless there is a box on their planet, so they always take most efficient shots from whatever position they’re currently in, even if moving a bit would allow them more efficiency. You might wanna change that, also because they tend to ball up and make easy targets then.

As for their crashing the game – yup, happens quite frequently. It’s mostly the portal bug.

/edit
Also, kudos on “teaching” them how to destroy shields with a single meteor strike.