Yes they are. You really have comprehension issues.
What’s more you are just affirming things without any argument to back them up. Just “it’s magical I’m right and I can say you do this or that”. Again that’s just insulting. I’m fed up of your constant insults.
Now if you want to explain how those two definitions differ, I’m all ear. But just saying they don’t is a waste of my time.
Nope I did not affirm such a thing.
Again, you have issues reading things.
That’s literally a strawman - again.
I have no idea why you want the age of the declaration to be important - maybe because otherwise you can’t accept to be corrected and need to distort what I wrote ?
That’s especially false since my argument was about something else yet you claim the age is “all we should care about”.
I do hope you are not holding up this opinion as proof. It’s an interesting article but as with the other articles by this author, I hold to different opinions.
You made that very same assertion in a previous post, but when I replied to the “example” you provided of me doing that, showing your claim was an outright lie, you simply dodged the issue in your reply, only to repeat the same false accusation again now. You don’t see a problem with you doing crap like that all the time, do you?
Oh, really? So you do actually insult people all the time, here and elsewhere, not by merely talking to them in a way that might make them “feel insulted” (which you also do), but by actually calling them names too… and you don’t see a problem with that… But you claim I’m insulting you… because… why exactly?
Ah wait, it’s not that I’m insulting you, it’s that you want to make it look like I do, so you have an excuse to flag my posts, right? OK, got it. Please, feel free to keep systematically flagging all the posts you want, but don’t expect me to feel sorry or anything about you “feeling insulted”, and don’t be surprised if I simply ignore any comments like this that you make from now on, OK?
LOL. What? And you have the bollocks to say that in the very same post where you say this?
Let me get this straight… You want someone… that has “comprehension issues”… to explain what’s wrong with your definition of what a strawman is… to you ? OK, I’ll bite. This is gonna be fun…
A strawman misrepresents the opponent’s argument to try to make it look like the opponent was defending a position he wasn’t really defending, but that’s easier to refute than the actual argument that was made. Too bad such misrepresentation is hardly compatible with the opponent’s argument being meant or implied in any way by what he did actually say, which is what you claim a strawman is, eh?
I’m really curious what are you gonna do now… Claim you knew this already and still think there is no difference with your definition? Claim that your definition of strawman was correct and I’m wrong? Play some word games I cannot think of atm? Completely dodge the issue?
Could you elaborate, please? Because of my reading and comprehension issues, I have a hard time seeing how did you not say that the statement being 10 years old makes it no longer valid when you said “It does invalidate however the idea that this statement still stands”…
Really? Was it me who qualified it as being 10 years old the times I referred to it for some reason, or was it someone else? And who was it that said “It does invalidate however the idea that this statement still stands” in reply to me saying the statement being 10 years old doesn’t invalidate it in any way?
Yeah, must be that… What exactly did I “distort”, btw?
If only you would care to say what that other argument was…
Wait, what? That’s not what you were referring to when you said you didn’t affirm such a thing or when you said your argument was about something else above, is it?
I mean, even someone with the reading and comprehension issues that I have would have easily realised that was sarcasm and I wasn’t really claiming you had actually said that…
I knew this topic was going to be volatile from the moment I saw the title, and boy, was I ever right! Let’s see if there’s something positive to be had from this…
Can you explain why to me? I hear a lot of quick arguments thrown around, but no one ever seems to go into the details.
Those both sound reasonable to me, though I’m wondering if that’s because I’m viewing it from a logical cause-and-effect perspective instead of an in-game ecosystem perspective. I’m entirely unashamed to admit there’s a lot I don’t know.
Can you explain these nerfs to me and why suicide-ganking is hard?
I think these need to get mentioned during the tutorial, especially the part about never hauling too much in a single ship, a mistake I made exactly once, and it cost me >500 mil. Never again. I think hammering the potential dangers into new players’ skulls is a desperately needed addition to the NPE.
I have to say that from a lore perspective, that doesn’t really make sense. Habitual offenders would, logically, have their named flagged in CONCORD’s databases and eventually get themselves locked out of trade hubs, hisec, or even empire space in its entirety. The problem with that is how it doesn’t make for a fun game when EvE is supposed to be about a bunch of people in one giant sandbox playing how they want as long as they’ll accept the consequences of their actions.
At some point, logic and realism have to take a backseat to fun, and even though I have little love for hisec gankers I fully understand that their style of play is just as legitimate as any other.
Jesus Christ, what were they thinking?
{looks up EvE shortcuts}
[sees nothing for ctrl-A]
What’s that command supposed to do?
Not if it causes them to quit the game in a rage. I think there need to be more warnings about gankers implemented in the NPE so if/when they finally run afoul of gankers like yourself it doesn’t kill their interest along with their ship.
This, right here, is the best explanation for allowing ganking that I’ve ever heard, and it ought to be one of the examples people are shown when they wonder why it’s allowed. I used to be firmly against it because I thought it was a bad thing, but after reading several well-reasoned arguments like your own I’ve reversed my opinion on the matter. I doubt I will ever like ganking, but I can accept it as part of the game I choose to play.
There needs to be a manual for stuff like that, one that’s constantly updated and tells a player all these tips and tricks in a clear and concise manner. I’d volunteer to do it myself, but I doubt my skills in that area are up to snuff.
Really? could you give me details on that?
Oh god, yeah. That would suck.
Aren’t you the one doing the crime?
Nah, they can stay. There’s no real harm to them so long as they keep things from going too far, and AFAIK many of them are perfectly happy to give people tips on how to play even after ganking them.
This, right here, is something that interests me. How do you tank an industrial to survive multiple Tornadoes shooting it? How do you calculate the payout for killrights?
I may roll my eyes at the whole “noble CODE.” spiel, but I can heartily agree that the people who send death threats, rape threats, and other such nonsense are crossing a line. Yeah, I’d be pissed off if I got ganked by you lot, but at least I know it’s a freaking game! Some people…
As the saying goes: " Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they’re in good company."
Okay, this right here? This is going too far. Aiko may be so into the CODE. manifesto that she never drops character, but from past interactions with her I’m pretty sure that’s because she’s a troll who enjoys pissing people off. As aggravating as this behavior might be, it’s not something worth having someone put in a 72-hour psych hold for!
When you go dig in hisec it is pvp - you need to watch gankers
When you rat it is pvp - you need to watch gankers and if you have war this is out of question
when you sit in station and do market job - it is pvp - you make price better then other players to sell stuff
…
when you go to 0.0 and dig in rorqual - you always have eyes, alt with cyno, fleet ect and many people are ready to start fight when it is needed - clearly pvp. And what are drone thief if not pvp, all type of campers ect. So even hated digger is pvper in eve - he may not be aggressive one but he is one,
even when he cant defend himself - and when he can - people says - game is unbalanced they have titans, and we cant kill them and we are only true pvpers. you are just aggressive one not passive ones and it is good.
your claim is so insane it can be shock - even abbysals are pvp - sure you enter it and you can only pve, but after 20 minutes you need to exit and exit may be camped by suiciders or just hosts. clearly pvp.
there is NO single pure pve action in eve - but in wow there are a lot pure pve stuff.
this pvp should be higher quality to attract more people, for example suicide ganking and camping in cloak is not the highest form of pvp - called harassment, in many games banned activity because it lower game population - but it is pvp for sure.
There are tutorials for stuff like that. The EVE uni wiki is a very good source. Also people can just ask here, which is even more convenient, as we are always willing o help.
And some may even find it part of the game to figure this stuff out on their own. I mean isn’t that part of the fun of a computer game?
rly? you rly think i “cry” and shitty people like suicide hisec gankers can do anythink to so old player like i am? are u so stupid ? my diagnose is just right - and what will happen will happen - it cant hit me.
eve can be better game, can have more online people if ccp stop push so hard to low of the lowest form of pvp - harashment of new players. It cant hit me for long time personlay - so take this clip print it on 1000 a4 pages and put it in your ass.
lie.
No source => no argument.
Whatever you refer to, it’s lost in al the blabbering, the lies and the stupidity you posted before.
No it’s you refering it as being the only thing that matter.
While I did not say it matters.
That’s why you are making a strawman. You are completely dodging my point.
you literally claimed :
That is where you distort what I wrote, again.
Lie, again.
I quote your source :
“giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”
I quote my definition :
“answers to an argument by making it say something else that it meant in the first place.”
something else => argument that was not presented.
answer=> giving the impression of refuting.
OMFG it’s almost the same thing !
You are saying something stupid, again.
I don’t. I explain you where you are wrong every time. I called out your post stupid when you were using a stupid argument, and then I called you stupid because you keep claiming that something was not stupid and later that it does not invalidate your post - while it does.
Indeed. But just because they feel insulted when I say what they wrote is stupid, does not mean I actually insulted them . Because it was stupid, KM already acknowledged it was a mistake from him.
But yeah, he wrote something stupid, which was pointed as such (remember at first I said what he wrote was stupid, not him) and thus feels insulted, like I wrote before “because the reality does not fit his vision”.
Then instead of saying" I made a mistake, let’s do the argument again without that mistake" he keeps claiming that him relying on a mistake in his argument does not invalidate his argument. At this point of lying there is nothing else to be said, because that’s the exact opposition of logic.
We can’t just allow the playerbase to get fat and lazy. It’s not good for the market and it doesn’t make for an interesting game. Look at what happened when we allowed nullsec to get fat and lazy. And realise that 70% of players are in hi-sec.
The market requires destruction to work. War deccing and duelling are woefully ineffective at providing destruction becuase they are entirely consensual and come with plenty of warning. No one who’s paying a modicum of attention is risking their freighters in a wardec or a duel. Without ganking they are effectively un-killable in hi-sec. Same as everyone’s blinged mission/incursion ship.
Other than ganking, what mechanics are there to provide the necessary destruction in hi-sec. What dangers are there to peoples stuff?
Warp begins when you are aligned at ~75% max velocity. Webbing a target lowers its max velocity. Max velocity can be lowered enough by webs such that freighters can near insta-warp. This makes them very hard to bump and gank.
They don’t feel insulted. They realize they were wrong and it just hurts their ego.
What they call “being insulted” is actually “being told what his place is”.
Just like I explained why the argument that “CCP proved that killing newbros make them stick to the game” is wrong. And all the people who kept using this argument suddenly realized they were very stupid - not because they made mistake but because they were judgmental towards people on the forum based on this wrong affirmation.
Just like DMC could not accept that you could share the epic rewards and started insulting me, while all I claimed was facts, proven, and ask to CCP . And then later on he fiunally DID the effort to ask CCP and it was revealed that I was right, and he was wrong, and all this insults were baseless and free venting of anger to realize he was wrong. Again, the reality did not fit his vision, so he felt insulted.
I have many more examples, those are the two I have where people insult me, but CCP says they are wrong - in the case of newbro retention, literally.
Those people are the trolls of the forum, they don’t come to participate and need to go all-personal when proven they are wrong.
Spoiled kids will never grow.
Because I’m not talking bout them at first. I talk about their argument.
And they go all-barking when their argument is shown stupid/contradictory/bad/wrong/whatever.
It just tells them that they can make mistake and should not judge people to fast. And that they don’t like.
Because their whole position on the forum relies on “I am better than the other, which justifies me behaving like a d¡ck”.
When they are proven wrong(and thus as bad as any body on the forum), all remains is them being majestual d¡cks.
Thank you for your participation, my dear Jester. (Just checked and the definition is not correct. In the middle ages, the buffoon jester was supposed to remind the king of his own place and to put the joke on him, while vassals would not be allowed to do so)
they have titans, and we cant kill them and we are only true pvpers. you are just aggressive one not passive ones and it is good.
