No sorry that is certainly your position though.
Please feel free to not reply.
2 Likes
Interesting to hear such things from someone, Ms Geten, who probably broke the âflagâ button recently due to their âdispleasureâ with othersâ comments.
Talk about hypocritical. 
1 Like
Citation needed, every time Iâve seen a jester referred to historically it was as an entertainer in medieval courts, not as a person whose job it was to remind the king of his place; which incidentally would probably have ended badly for anybody, let alone a jester.
IIRC it was the Romans that had the practice of a slave being employed to remind Generals that they were mortal during a triumph parade; you may be confusing the two.
2 Likes
Yeah, it sounds like someone is confusing two separate things.
I took a quick look and the only thing I found on Court Jesters was primarily the entertainment aspects.
What I meant is that he was the only one allowed to not respect the rules - for example by putting the joke on his lord, which vassals should not.
âsupposed toâ meaning it was one of the things he was doing - not that it was his sole goal. Maybe âallowed toâ would be better
By âdefinition no correctâ I mean I used buffoon on the first place but it seems that term is not adequate (I was referring to the âyour majestyâ). The term âbuffoonâ I used, after looking at the definition, conveys too much of a bad meaning while I was just following the joke or ramona (so not trying to be insulting)
And yes I may be confusing the two. Did not know Romans had this practice though.
source : Fools Are Everywhere: The Court Jester Around the World - Beatrice K. Otto - Google Livres
George Buchanan paragraph
1 Like
4 Likes
Look familiar.
Iâm sorry, I havenât actually seen your argument - can you repost it here in a reply to me? Please explain why this is wrong? Iâm still under the impression that killing ânewbrosâ (as you call them) is very much a good thing.
When I was a new player, I got killed by a smartbomber on a gate. I was starting to get bored with the game, after two weeks of high sec invulnerability, and I was rather pleased to discover that there was indeed a bit of difficulty after all. I had no idea what happened, I didnât even know such a thing could happen. I loved it. Iâm consequently under the impression that new players want to play a PvP game, and they deserve PvP.
1 Like
Youâll notice I did not say killing newbros is / is not a good thing.
I said that CCP did not prove, nor did they affirm, such a relation.
If you want an explanation, there is one in another CCP vid where he exactly says âcorrelation is not a causation, thus we canât affirm that killing people make them stick to the game.â. Yet strangely thatâs not the vid you link everywhere⌠Instead you distort what CCP said in another vid to make them say something they actually did not say.
Ok, let me know when you actually take a stance on something, and commit yourself to an actual idea - you should really stop posting until you make up your mind.
Uh, yah we can. I donât live in a confused state of uncertainty, where I have no opinions and am unable to believe or disbelieve anything.
2 Likes
I do. I say you affirmations are wrong.
Sorry for not taking a stance when I donât have information on a topic. I know you like it, but the scientific name of this activity is âspreadicus bullshitusâ.
Actually you do live in a state of dishonesty. So yes you enjoy spreading misinformation, lies, etcaetera.
You said that you have an experience that makes you believe things. And Iâm totally okay with that. What is not okay, is claiming CCP proved something they did not prove.
1 Like
Look hun, you canât simultaneously insist that I am wrong, about the fact that killing new players is a good thing - and at the same time, insist that you have no idea whether or not it is a good thing. You donât get to make both claims. You have to pick one. You canât just weasel your way around the forum, arguing with everything people post, and contradicting your own statements. Thatâs what knowledgeminer might describe as âintellectual dishonestyâ.
1 Like
Well I donât. You are wrong when claiming that CCP proved it, and also when claiming this is truth without any evidence.
You are correct when claiming your experience makes you believe it.
1 Like
Hereâs a great video, in which CCP acknowledges that new players who die are more likely to continue playing the game:
https://youtu.be/A92Ge2S8M1Y?list=FLlmHZ6iH--_BDdIkSnyq5ow&t=71
Indeed, this is not surprising. Very few people would want to play a PvP game in which they encounter no challenge or difficulty.
1 Like
They donât.
Again, you misuse a correlation for a causation.
There is no proof that they specifically continue playing, because they died.
1 Like
Please watch the video above. There is âevidenceâ to support my claim. You however, have no place to tell me that I am wrong. You have already said this:
I did not say killing newbros is / is not a good thing.
Therefore, you have no opinion on the matter. You can remove yourself from the discussion.
1 Like
Except there is literally zero evidence to back your claim in the video you linked.
But I have evidence that what you claimed is false. So I can just point out how you are claiming lies.
1 Like
We donât need proof. We are not robots that need to be programmed with a mathematical equation in order to think. We can surmise and apply common sense. New players want PvP, and they deserve PvP. We will continue to act on this conclusion, until such time as you provide evidence to support your own claims to the contrary.
2 Likes
Whatâs your evidence? Anything?
1 Like
They literally say your claim are false.
You donât need prof to spread bullshÂĄt. Thatâs true. Thatâs also why I can calmly say that you are full of shÂĄt when you are claiming general notions.
1 Like