There are 8-10 frequent posters who pretty much exist just to show that the toxic and abusive portion of the EVE community extends outside the game. They don’t really discriminate as to which threads they are being toxic in, since all they’re looking for is an opportunity to toss out a derogatory post.
Fortunately they are a minority, but a loud and mouthy one. Apparently affected by ‘small dog’ syndrome.
It’s not really worth the trouble of flagging their posts as off-topic, since it’s easier to just ignore any post they make without wasting time reading them. In Nicolai’s case, if you skip any post that starts with his name, you can be confident you won’t miss anything useful or constructive.
He’s not putting you down. He’s respectfully and constructively pointing out that the rokh and the naga are not the same thing. The rokh is not intended to have high DPS, it’s intended to have high range and high tank. The Naga, on the other hand, is a glass cannon.
The fact that you don’t already know that suggests that your criticisms are based on a lack of understanding the intended game design. Which is certainly a fair suggestion.
I’m not saying that the Rokh is in a perfect place, by any stretch, but to compare it to a Naga is plainly wrong. You’d be far better off comparing it to other battleships, and even better off comparing it to similar platforms within such as a beam apoc.
He was not being respectful at all, there are ways to write things that could be considered respectful and constructive; writing is such fashion as scoot does is designed (perhaps not purposely who knows) to aggravate its intended target, for example
Is merely a long winded way of writing “your an idiot” and, completely unnecessary.
Especially as he is in fact, in the same boat (so to speak)
In short, scoots is abrasive, insulting and mostly toxic… but y’know; test alliance breed these sorts of individuals.
And yet, not a single part of what he said was incorrect. He didn’t use hostile language, he didn’t insult the OP. He merely pointed out that the OP failed to consider what most of us would see as obvious game design. If that’s literally all it takes for someone to get offended, they’re clearly in dire need of a much thicker skin.
I’m not speaking about Scoots in particular, I’m speaking about what he said. I’ve been FAR more abrasive and insulting than that and rarely do I get called on that.
And that part was not what you quoted, was it? Yes, he was wrong about the midslots. He admitted that. What he was not wrong about, was that a battleship and an ABC have no relevant comparrisons between each other. They’re different platforms, with different strengths and weaknesses.
Allow me to rephrase what he said, in a toxic way, and illustrate what a hostile and insulting answer that was not constructive would look like:
OP, that’s retarded. Nagas are not Rokhs. The fact that you need to be told this is ■■■■■■■ depressing.
That uses hostile language, offers nothing valuable to the conversation, and is deprecating to the OP. Scoots post, the quoted text you used in your example, does none of those things.
So… you’re allowed to talk about him and he’s expected to sit quietly and ignore the conversation where he is literally the subject?
And I’m not going to argue that. A huge number of people (myself included) can get pretty toxic when we want to be. But if you’re going to be criticizing someone for being toxic, it’s pretty hypocritical to be toxic towards them yourself.
Is it not effectively toxic though, to insult someone (falsely accusing them to be toxic in this case), and expect them to grin and bear it silently? Lets try.
You aren’t allowed to answer me because I don’t want to have a conversation with you anymore. Just the same, I think you’re toxic. Don’t bother arguing, it may be a public forum but I’m not interested in your opinion.
…was that not toxic?
Scoots posting in general, sure, toxic. I’ve never really paid enough attention to it to assert either way. But there was nothing condescending, rude, arrogant, or unconstructive about the text you quoted. It was a truthful statement, and your “reading between the lines” for a hidden insult is clearly biased.
Thats fine, i mean your completely wrong anyway so the conversation is pretty much over the moment you decided that insulting someone who hasnt played in a while; and who felt insulted themselves - was not insulting.
I mean its hardly viable to educate someone when they wont even look at the proof in front of their eyes.
An imagined slight is still imagined. You assert that his post was hostile, without any quantification of what was hostile about it or how it should have been worded differently to be less hostile.
What proof? You quoted his statement, and then you said:
Those are YOUR words, not his. His words, which you clearly quoted, said nothing of the sort. You choose to read between the lines and see hostility where there was none. If you’re going to put words in his mouth, all it’s going to do is make you look like an idiot.
There is no proof, but for the proof you fabricated out of thin air. So again, I ask you. What part of what he said was hostile or toxic, and how would it have been phrased differently to avoid this?
