I admire your stamina. I had this discussion with her before and have her blocked for the very same reason. lol. There comes a point where it is simply a waste of time to argue with someone.
Also holy ■■■■ is she abusive all the time. No idea why she still has her forum posting privilege.
Even some first year student could easily see that if someone makes a claim like “ganking is bad for new player retention” and then the data shows that a) new players get almost never ganked and b) the retention rate among ganked players is the highest of all groups, that then your premise is just completely wrong, your carebear hypothesis got falsified…
Not with Anderson, she somehow thinks that every line of reasoning can simply be countered with “correlation is not causation” not understanding where that is relevant and where not. The same way she probably thinks arguments she didn’t like will vanish if she flags them.
There are actually valid reasons why the data could say that even if ganking actually decreases retention.
However lack of decrease is not proof it increases retention.
And correlation is not causation is totally valid to ally to this particular use case when there are numerous other sensible reasons why the data could look how it does.
And as for personal comments on people… man, the way you are abusing people as well…
Yeah, that does sound hilarious, I need to use it in my fanfic I’m writing. Capsuleers frakking with SW normies for the lulz, god there is so much potential there…
Hey. Hey Anderson.
You ever watch NCIS? Because if you do, then you know what’s inside this little folder here:
lol
“this is right but this is wrong”. That is dishonest.
The definition I use is correct, and thus you are wrong when you claim my definition does not match the one you use. How dare you even claim to understand, and thus to be able to prove anything about, my posts when you fail so bad at understanding basic things ?
I use the term for exactly what it means : what you did was a strawman, making me claim something different from what I actyually claim in order to not address my point but random ■■■■■■■■ you made on the spot.
Again, you have comprehension issues.
What you wrote is wrong, once more :
You are NOT giving any explanation.
You are distorting my claim, therefore you are missing my points.
Your comprehension of my posts being lacking, you therefore are not proving ANYTHING about them.
What you are fighting against, is ideas or arguments I did NOT claim. Thus you are fighting a strawman.
You can repeat your arguments every time. They are wrong because you are not understanding what I actually claimed. Thus I tell you ONCE why you are wrong, and when you repeat them again, with personal attacks added, I just ignore them.
This is actually the very reason to not ignore her and let everybody see to what extent she abuses the system (and why), yet she seems to not see a problem with doing it…
The Gibbs Slap, a particularly effective way of telling someone who’s being particularly asinine to knock it off. Naturally, it’s nowhere near as effective in .gif form, but the world has yet to invent a method which allows a smack upside the head to be sent over standard TCP/IP.
I’d like to take this moment to remind everyone that logic is a method of language and communication and not some sort of Holy Concept that renders your debate opponents fallacious when invoked. Correlation does not NECESSARILY imply causation, but you better believe that you will find correlations upon discovering causation.
Anderson sounds like she gets all her debate tactics from little Benny Shapiro, King of the Internet Pedants.
Not reading that whole thread, but the OP’s idea about signing up the baddies is probs what the standings and bounty system failed to do
Would it not be terribly simple to allow people to sign upto be baddies? So we can see each other? The standing system is garbage and is not helping at this point, feels like a relic of UO.
We could then only be allowed to have the glorious WANTED sign, maybe flowing hair like Kane etc (reserved), ships, skins, and a chance to play with each other without the snivelling.
Ed. I just realised I’m pushing for personal choice to override group (which might be a bigger debate). But tbh, if you unleashed a standings rework that allowed personal standings to kick in, above corp or alliance. More fights would happen,
and tbh it would be a glorious shitshow of hilarity for the diplos and lead attempting (and likely failing, long term) to assert control.
Your standings systems and mechanics are one aspect that have caused blobbling, so if you want real chaos, let the people fight/steal and cartwheel. At a personal level. That bit needs reinstating. Obviously the main boring-as-■■■■ groups will grind on. But not in the same way.
Tempt the rest into the life with activity, rewards, and tbh there is no difference ganking in any sec for malice - as long as you can hit back (which NPSI and non sov holders are artfully dodging). Or whaling. Yep, killing Rorqs is now ‘notable’ aaar.
Turn non-consensual PVP back on and make it opt-in.
You know you can literally click a tick box to make personal standings show above Corp standings right. Or something that simple. Its under overview settings.
If they are willing it’s not non consensual.
I think you might want to pause for a moment and consider what you actually want here because you are contradicting yourself.
As for the rest of your complaints, most are subjective, and none of those are anything to do with turning non consensual PvP off.
No. What’s dishonest is pretending I said or implied that. Even if you got that part right, you still don’t know what a strawman is, as illustrated by the use you make of the term in practice and by the very example you provided yourself, which is not a strawman:
No, because that was only one of the things that was wrong about your definition. You still got wrong the part of how the strawman has to be used for it to be a strawman, which is precisely one of the reasons you use the term incorrectly in practice.
No, you don’t, and I showed you were wrong the two times you claimed I had made a strawman. You simply dodged the issue after being proved wrong both times, like you always do.
As I said in my previous reply to you, you don’t get to make those explanations disappear by merely ignoring them. You may claim they’re not there all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are and you’re simply dodging them.
You saying this and it being true are two different things. You “seeing” others do the things you do is your problem too.
Not sure what you mean by “fighting against”, but where have I replied to you about anything you did’t say?
LOL. Except that’s not what happens. A recent post of mine that clearly shows you’re not even able to understand sarcasm and other crap you regularly do, perfectly illustrates what it is that really happens every time. That’s not something you may make disappear as if it never happened by simply ignoring it…
Personal standings do not supersede corp or alliance. You quite literally failed to read or interpret what I said. Anyone with a brain knows that alliance>corp>individual based upon current standings. Invert that, and strip out the ESI to allow personal freedom.
NEVYN is a character in a sequence of books by K Kerr, who is forced to reincarnate, and chose the name to denote humility, whilst he watches incarnations of his loves for several centuries die. He picked the name because it meant ‘no-one’ and he shut the ■■■■ up when things went bad, because it was part of the re-incarnation loop he was stuck in as penance.
You do shame that character name, because he had sly humour, and was rude with purpose.
You did. Your only argument for me not knowing what a strawman is, was that the terms I used did not match the definition of wikipedia - which they actually do.
So yes you were wrong.
My definition was correct - unless you now affirm that the definition you used was also wrong.
That’s bullsht.
You claim “I did this” - but you are not providing any evidence.
All your posts are based upon misunderstanding from yourself.
All you did show was, how bad you are at both logic and comprehension.
You just showed that you have no idea what I am talking bout, yet need to blabber about how you are right and I am wrong wrong, while actually proving the opposite.
I repeat : the only issues you proved are yours, the only mistakes you showed were yours.
Your whole intervention was a complete waste of time. You did not understand a single of the points I made, and answered to something completely different that I thus don’t even need to ague about.
Then you spout nonsense and complain that I don’t answer it. But I don’t because it’s just nonsense. I don’t answer to every dog that barks. I already answered once to every of your complains : I don’t need to answer twice to it, because if you really wanted that answer you would actually read it.
So far every one of your arguments is either without any basis, so basically an insult since it reeks of aggression, or based on mistakes from your part. There is just nothing of value in your posts, nothing of interest, nothing to remember, but the facts that used stupid claims and strawmen as a way to evacuate your insecurities.
Your mistakes, your issues.
