JaschaJoin Date: 2009-06-19
Post Count: 1447 |
@spikeman168
:l Well as long as you don't hate Obama for the color of his skin then you shouldn't be considered a racist because race takes no part in it then.
But still I'm sort of curious as to why you hate Obama. I mean, I don't really buy into politics, but I'm still intrigued. |
|
|
I'm kind of having a hard time staying on this thread.
I mean, don't get me wrong I love this idea and always will, but...
this thread has been completely contaminated with flamebait and flame wars.
So I dunno maybe you should repost this thread goldfish. I swear to God I'll ignore the flamebait this time around.
I mean if this doesn't work out and there's still bait like a page from now that is. |
|
|
@Lucario1236
I actually have been thinking about it for a week now.
It's just that I'm torn because I don't want to lose all these supports and a month of progress.
I dunno I'm sure this will die out soon.
Maybe FigureSix will come around and start giving his views on the suggestion, because this is pretty OT. |
|
ruin3DsJoin Date: 2013-10-20
Post Count: 1237 |
@goldfish
Re.post.the.thread.
I'm so serious right now.
CHEEZE set the tone.
Now any discussions we try to have will turn into off-topic flame in protection of our egos.
I mean I really miss the first thread. Because that was when your idea had legitimate flaws that people could point out and discuss without completely hating the thread for no reason, and now instead we're just going to have to argue about flaws that aren't really there or aren't really flaws with some guy who hated this thread from the very start.
To sum it up, your OP didn't work.
I'm sick of it.
Why does everyone have to be so destructive and negative all the time? |
|
|
I'm not that pessimistic about it, though.
I'll reply to anyone who wants to legitimately discuss points of the thread and not just flame it.
But until then it should just be:
"Support" and leave.
"No support" and leave.
"Bump" if you want to stay on the thread and talk.
You know that kind of thing.
I'm not talking to "No supporters." who won't be swayed anymore.
Or any sort of flamebait into a heated argument.
That's why we have nine pages of this crap. |
|
FigureSixJoin Date: 2013-11-05
Post Count: 51 |
Goldfish
I am asking you to PLEASE DO NOT REPOST THE THREAD! It will only cause another flame war, and imagine all of this, all over again.
Besides that, there isn't any really good reason to repost. |
|
|
@FigureSix
Well, the only reason there was even a flame war was because we were at an infinite stalemate.
Each side was at an impasse and couldn't get past it.
I'm sure that we'll come across more convincable characters soon, but I'ma give this thread a chance to get past this ugliness.
But before I do, I have some serious questions for you:
1. What is your actual opinion on the idea?
2. Why are you siding with CHEEZE?
I'm curious. I sort of want to make a discussion out of your answers to that question, and yeah I probably will protect my thread, but only because it's my work, and I won't try to cover up any gaping holes.
Just, what do you think about this actual idea instead of what you think of my thread defenders (because I'm pretty sure they stopped investing in your posts. And no I highly doubt they'll leave and I don't really want them to considering they've been supporters for months now). |
|
FigureSixJoin Date: 2013-11-05
Post Count: 51 |
1. My opinion on this idea? I'm not sure I really like the idea of replacing BC, because it would probably cause a riot, even worse than the price floors. Some people pay $400 to have it, and to get rid of it just seems unfair.
Also, what is deflating currency?
2. I'm siding with Cheeze because what the others did was unacceptable. He gave legit reasons as to why he didn't like the idea, and they attacked him, and you know why? All because they like the idea, and wanted to defend it!
Imagine this: You buy apple's new iPhone 6, somebody says why they don't like it, and then you verbally attack them. Am I the only person who thinks that that is the most idiotic reason to hate someone?
At least you're going to be fair about it. The others tried to make what they did as nice as possible, and that's just as bad, if not worse. |
|
|
@FigureSix
That last post you made, man, it was full of retorts, and you act like your itching to find faults in people's posts and it looks to me like your trying to hard.
I really have some problems with your arguing style.
So I'ma take look myself:
""@FigureSix
Oh my god... we were JUST starting to get over it."
How can you say that, yet you're still replying? If you were JUST starting to get over it, you would have stopped checking the thread, and would have taken it off your Tracked threads list.
It works both ways. I was starting to get over it, yet you keep on replying."
He's replying to what you replied to. And I really don't understand this argument:
"If you were JUST starting to get over it, you would have stopped checking the thread, and would have taken it off your Tracked threads list."
He tracked the thread, not the flame war. And as long as you're posting those sort of posts where you just reply to every small part of what he said and twist it around and throw it back at him we won't get anywhere. I mean, come on? You're trying to nitpick faults in him when we can clearly understand what he was saying. Which brings me to this:
""Then in that case, YOU didn't explain yourself, even though you get after cheeze for not explaining.
Hypocrite much?"
Explain what? What do you want me to explain?"
*sigh*"
I for one don't understand what you wanted him to explain. Because in the post you took that from he was saying you were talking about how he needs to explain that sarcastic remark when he said he already did before then and that he doesn't understand why he has to explain it if you already understand. And you're little *sigh* like he's a lost cause isn't helping you. And yeah, I'd agree that that's acting pretty condescending as if you're better than him just because he doesn't get it.
" We were telling CHEEZE to explain because he was just naming issues. They weren't strong because he didn't support them. He didn't expand on any of his arguments. He just named more or the same ones in the same way he did before--with 1-2 sentences telling us what they were."
1. He DID expand. This is another example of you blatantly dis-regarding him."
Can you explain how he expanded? He made a lot of posts, but a lot of them were just him taking quotes from our posts and replying with retorts. And you keep on saying we're disregarding him, and not saying why? What it wasn't obvious that we didn't understand how we were disregarding him? We replied to everything that CHEEZE had ever said and made entire posts dedicated to his arguments and why it didn't sit with us. Exhibit A:
"ruin3ds said:
1. You say that ROBLOX will never add this.
-- It's been made obvious that no one will really be broken-hearted if this isn't considered. They support because it's a good idea, introduces entirely new concepts, and his threads give revelations about ROBLOX. There is a sense of urgency in this, he isn't suggesting this for chuckles; he's fixing problems that we consider to be deadly, which gives off a "Live or die. Your choice." sort of vibe. Does it matter if they don't add this? No, not really. Do people think this is worth considering? I would say yes. It's fine if you don't, but keep that in mind...
2. How can people play ROBLOX offsite?
-- I really don't think you read the idea now. I'm starting to think that you just stopped once you thought the idea was bad. That's being inconsiderate and misguided. You think you can judge an idea you aren't trying to understand? Major disrespect.
And yes, most new players will find out offsite, so most new players won't make an account. He's catering to these players because they would become a bigger influence. It makes perfect sense. Give them loadout options and disposable usernames. Why not if they'll help our product greatly in the long run? It's return on investment, which is a big concept in this idea.
3. Inflation cannot be solved that simply.
-- In video games there usually isn't inflation. In ROBLOX the inflation cuts directly into the gaming experience, which goldfish found a way to solve. Video game currency inflation can easily be solved because the flexible dimensions of it, unlike in the real world. I really think you should read "The Movement" post if you're gonna stay, because that'll really be an eye opener for you. Here, I'll even link it:
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=145756327
4. The paid membership argument.
-- Dev+ is not a membership, it's an entirely free offer. And the current DevEx already has a qualification you must pay for-OBC. Neo DevEx is no different. For one thing it's to make sure users actually have CCs and secondly it's to make sure that you can use DevEx properly. It's entirely reasonable and it's just one payment. The only paid membership is hard hat memberships and it's only there because the BC purchase was removed (in fact, that is the BC purchase; just presented differently).
He did not add any new memberships; he changed old ones. If he isn't adding anything then it isn't breaking the WNTS because technically adding a new paid membership is against the WNTS, not changing an old one. I could nitpick all day."
Exhibit B:
""KudosYouCanRead said:
Your first post was a simple "No support with a few sentences."
And to be honest if they ignored you then this probably wouldn't have gotten so ridiculously long.
But you had 3 points in your "No support.":
- You have to purchase DevEx, making it a paid membership.
- Guests naming themselves isn't helpful.
- There is no easy fix to inflation.
You completely forgot about the latter two while focusing on the DevEx one, and even after it was closed it's still being talked about. I've noticed since page 15 they've been trying to go to you inflation argument, which I think makes sense. They lost the paid membership argument, but your original argument about purchasing DevEx making it a paid membership was disproven. Those are old.
The guests thing was closed by ruin3ds 4 pages ago, so yeah I think the inflation argument is a good next step. The problem is.... You struggle.
You're not really responding to their arguments about inflation as well as they referred you to "The Movement" post by goldfishmemories, which pretty much disproves your argument if you read it. So basically this is how the current argument stands in my POV:
- "You have to purchase DevEx, making it a paid membership." <-- Extremely sore subject (especially for CHEEZE), the thread defenders have been trying to close it for a solid three pages, but yet it's still being brought up.
- "Guests naming themselves isn't helpful." <-- Disproven and never brought up again. My view is that the guests need a better experience because there would be more offsite players on ROBLOX due to the BCEx, players that would not make an account. And goldfish said the "Guest loadouts and monikers" was to cater to those players because they would be in the majority, and players that aren't playing with a commitment like an account, but still come back are very very profitable. If there more guests than accounts than ROBLOX would be making a lot of money. And I'm sure the new type of player that would arise would be dissatisfied with ROBLOX's current guest system, so a guest system rehaul is completely valid to me. Your thoughts, CHEEZE?
- "There is no easy fix to inflation." <-- Countered and currently disproven as CHEEZE has not replied or made excuses to why he doesn't have to. My view is that inflation can be solved using deflation. And when we say inflation we mean R$ inflation, which can only exist because of the real money inflation that was brought into it when they started selling R$ for real money, giving it a conversion factor and tying its value with real money, limiting it. So deflating it, or removing its real life value by taking away that conversion factor would fix it by stopping inflation at the source logically. It makes perfect sense and I really, really recommend "The Movement" to you because it speaks on this subject in way more detail and has a good delivery. And since this is a video game currency we're talking about it will have positive effects because the resources its distributing are infinite. There's no limit in ROBLOX items, hats, or purchases like in the real world. So that's my take."
Exhibit C:
"Lucario1236 said:
I'm not going to sit here like these guys trying to explain why this idea doesn't break the WNTS. Because it does. On one prominent occasion--the BCEx. It is a complete WNTS. Goldfish even said that this was a WNTS. I'm not here to prove why this isn't a WNTS, and neither were they (except... maybe spikeman idk). They agreed with you on that. But here's what they said and what I'm saying now...
So what?
SuperHero said that it's WNTS, and Dev+ can be considered a paid membership. He agrees with you. But so.... what...? Only two people seemed to really care that it was WNTS. And using WNTS to judge an idea is wrong. Especially this one. Why?
- Because it isn't a suggestion to current ROBLOX: There is a reason the WNTS is up there. It's for ideas that wouldn't be beneficial to current ROBLOX. THIS SUGGESTION IS FOR AN ENTIRELY NEW ROBLOX. It's not an add-on to current ROBLOX. He's not suggesting "Add a Super BC." or "Remove BC." He's suggesting a way to fix ROBLOX's R$ and ticket inflation and make everyone happy. That's the only reason he suggested the things he did. To work to that goal. So what's it matter if he's breaking WNTS? They make exceptions in judging ideas. Rules are technicalities that don't work in every situation. Look at our judicial system--we have laws, but we have trials when they are compromised. Because they're on paper to dictate how you should act. They would consider this--because even if it is a WNTS, it is not and I repeat NOT this:
"You guys should remove BC and add super BC and mega BC because..."
It's this.
"I have a suggestion that could fix inflation and benefit everyone. Will you please hear me out?"
- He isn't blatantly disobeying the WNTS: His idea wasn't so a new BC could be added. It was to fix ROBLOX's flaws and strengthen their pros. He had a break a few rules to do it. Whatver. No genuis ever did anything great by playing by society's rules. Especially when they were trying to change society. That's how it's always been. Just because we're on the internet now doesn't mean that fact changes. And if it has a positive effect it would be considered. Not right now, because like goldfish said, this is a concept and isn't ready to be put into play. He released it for FEEDBACK. So people could talk about it. Not so people could say "It's WNTS!" because HE KNOWS. He already said it. And he said if that's all you care about then you shouldn't have even read it. I'm wondering if you skipped that part so I'll just post it here:
"- This thread does have WNTS elements in it. They are more of technicalities though and don't blatantly disobey the WNTS. But if you rep to WNTS, this idea will make you rage, flame, and curse at me and everyone who agrees, and I don't want to see you that worked up partly because it just causes and a scene and just because it isn't healthy to get that worked up. So if anything WNTS really upsets you, then my suggestion to you is to pay no attention to this thread ever again and just leave. Thank you."
This was in his OP towards the end. Find it again if you need to.
We don't care that it's WNTS. Everyone who cared should've left before they read this. That's our point. It's not relevant to this idea because it's a more of a concept than a suggestion. Ok? Ok? You get it. It's WNTS. But he isn't suggesting as much as it is a concept. So we think this would be a great system. How it should've been from the beginning, and if goldfish was a staff member back in 2004 then things would've been way different. But this is how it is, and this would be great, but a big adjustment.
If you post one more damn reply about how this thread is WNTS, I swear to God I'ma party chat you.
AND YOU, THREAD DEFENDERS! I'M ASHAMED!
@everyone else (Super, ruin, spikeman, ragemagick, etc)
How are you going to argue that this isn't WNTS, when goldfish ADMITTED it was WNTS from the beginning? That's one damn reason why this has gone on so long. Because you're too stubborn to. You shouldn't have replied to this arguments because both you guys and CHEEZE feel the need to not leave anything uncountered. It's annoying. All of you! You were completely right about it not being relevant to this thread, but you were wrong for still arguing that it's not WNTS. IT IS WNTS. OK? IT IS! PEOPLE CAN PROVE IT'S WNTS. The point is though that you can only say this:
"This idea is technically WNTS because it breaks the rule yada yada right here in blah blah."
And no CHEEZE if you're still here, it's not one of those threads named "Awesome BC Free Trial" where you can go and post "WNTS you suck!" because this is a serious thread for serious discussions. I'm so serious right now."
These are complete replies to his arguments. And he didn't read "The Movement" post which we said would shed light on his inflation confusion. He didn't reply to Lucario1236's post except to the fact that he agreed it was WNTS, and if you look at it from my quote it wasn't his main point. From what I read he was saying the same arguments and just said that he would stand by them no matter what, even if we actually replied to them already. I don't get how we disregarded CHEEZE. I really don't. I mean we never ignored CHEEZE even once and we never ignored what he said. So it's 1 of 3:
1. You don't think our arguments are good enough.
2. You didn't read them.
3. You don't like the arguments we posted.
And don't even THINK about telling us that same thing that's been said page after page:
"There you go disregarding CHEEZE again."
I mean I've WTFed so many times at that. That doesn't make any sense. No sense at all! After all the time we dedicated to his arguments you're telling us we didn't even look at them? I'm serious mindblown right now. How? How on Earth can you do that and still act legit?
He didn't really expand on his argument. He didn't dedicate any one post to his argument. He dedicate lots of posts to our replies, but never really stopped and said: "This is my argument. Here's some evidence backing it up. Here's what doesn't make sense. Boom there it is." We did that, but it they were to explain our reasoning to his arguments. I mean I can only name a few occasions where we directly replied to his post by taking quotes from it and then replying.
""He didn't say why those problems are there. It's like someone saying this:
"I don't like dogs because they're mean to me."
instead of this:
"I don't like dogs because when I was younger I got bit by one which caused an allergic reaction on my skin.""
1. That's generalizing that all dogs are mean
2. You didn't explain half of the things you said."
His point in this post was a matter of detail. It was a comparison between a vague statement and a slightly supported statement. I know you understood that. I know you did. Quit acting like everything he does isn't good enough for you.
""(And don't act like CHEEZE and say that trying to make any sort of connection makes an argument bad. Using synthesis and making connections is a legitimate literary strategy)"
And don't like you're perfect and explained everything you said. You only added on to half of what you said, so you're just as bad."
Just as bad, huh? I'ma assume that you've read the entire flame war starting on page 12, so I'ma assume you know what post I'm talking about when CHEEZE said he doesn't have to explain his argument, which was another big WTF moment for me. I want to know why you think we didn't explain. Why? Seriously. I want to know. Because it makes no sense to me. None. We've dedicated paragraph after paragraph, post after post, explaining our views on his arguments. I'd go so far as to say that every single reply that we made was counterring and explaining our counter to CHEEZE's last reply. And you're basically saying that all that effort is worth nothing.
""Back on point, what do you want me to explain?
This?:
"When I said this quote "It's not about your argument, it's about how your argument is lousy." I was being sarcastic to how you just called rage's argument lousy while you didn't really pay attention to his views, which was what he was saying.""
Like I'm going to know that you're being sarcastic."
I mean, everyone else got it. I mean I guess you just didn't.
""I mean come on I did just explain it. I explained it because you were confused. If someone says they get it then what do I need to explain?"
1. I'm not confused
2. Explaining one thing that is completely irrelevant doesn't redeem yourself"
1. You just said that you didn't know he was being sarcastic, so I would say there was some confusion on that statement there.
2. You're the one who said that he didn't explain how he was being sarcastic. So he said that he did and if you understood there was no need for explaining. Where the heck did that reply even come from? You told him he didn't explain so he replied how he already did explain. That was a huge WTF for me. That's how I know you'll think he's wrong no matter what he does, and I'm happy he figured out you were flamebaiting him, because I'm getting ticked off and this wasn't even my business.
""Where did I say anything about CHEEZE? Where? Seriously?"
Oh my god YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CHEEZE! The irony."
"Ohp! He just said CHEEZE! Looks like I get him for that, too!"
That's you. That was you in that reply.
That counter made me cringe I'm serious.
Did he say anything about CHEEZE in that reply before that sentence? No. Ok. That's he what meant. He said that because in your last reply that he was replying to you said and I quote:
"Then in that case, YOU didn't explain yourself, even though you get after cheeze for not explaining.
Hypocrite much?"
He was saying you unnecessarily brought up CHEEZE's name in that quote right there, and it was a base argument. You told him he didn't explain why he was being sarcastic, when he did well before that reply, and then you brought how gets after CHEEZE when CHEEZE isn't here anymore and he was already past all of that. And don't say "If he's past it than why is he still here?" and I just made stop yourself then wow.
""You're just sticking to the past. I didn't bring up CHEEZE at all in that quote."
Yeah you did. If cheeze wasn't a part of it then you wouldn't have even said that."
Another misunderstanding because he was replying to what you said previously. This:
"Then in that case, YOU didn't explain yourself, even though you get after cheeze for not explaining.
Hypocrite much?"
And I side with him because yeah that CHEEZE throwback was out of nowhere. It was completely off topic and was another excuse for you to point out false hypocrisy because he was talking about the sarcastic statement there was confusion on while you're going back to 4 pages ago how we were trying to get CHEEZE to explain, not to mention he did explain the sarcastic statement before you even said that so you should have never even said he didn't. Here I'll bring it up:
"@Figure
My last post was being sarcastic to what you previously said.
I'm sorry that you read it wrong.
When I said this quote "It's not about your argument, it's about how your argument is lousy." I was being sarcastic to how you just called rage's argument lousy while you didn't really pay attention to his views, which was what he was saying."
""You basically just said "Wow you don't explain yourself even though you tell CHEEZE to explain." when I acted like I thought you already understood and explained well before this reply what I meant since you misinterpreted."
This is your excuse: That I mis-understood you, which I clearly didn't. How did I mis-understand you? WHEN did I mis-understand you? I don't know, because YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN."
He's still talking about the sarcasm quote. And you did misunderstand him. You clearly acted like he was attacking your argument and calling it lousy when he was actually being sarcastic about how you called rage's arguments lousy when you didn't even talk about the actual points that he made. That's how you misunderstood him. He already explained. And for God's sake, don't say that he didn't provide an explanation to something that you just said when you literally gave him no time! You basically just said he didn't explain when:
1. He already explained the sarcastic remark on page 19.
2. You said he didn't explain when he hasn't even replied to you yet, which isn't even giving him a CHANCE. You're not even giving him a CHANCE to explain himself again. WTF!?
""How am Ihypocrite for explaining something to you?! That doesn't even make sense! Now you're trying to nitpick me when it isn't even there. Now you're just acting condescendingly, like I'm some lowlife when I already said sorry for my mistakes."
I just explained why you were, yet you dis-regarded me. If you DIDN'T, then you wouldn't have said that."
Again. He's still talking about the sarcastic remark he made, but it's clear you're not talking about the same thing. You keep on acting like you didn't misstep and don't need to go back and retrace your arguments, which means this entire next discussion will be built on a misunderstanding. He's still replying to this:
"Then in that case, YOU didn't explain yourself, even though you get after cheeze for not explaining.
Hypocrite much?"
I have no idea what you're replying to you probably just think he's attacking you when he's really defending himself.
And yeah, why are you treating him like this? Acting like you're better than him and shoving his past in his face when he already said he was sorry time and time again. I wouldn't talk with you either. You're basically not leaving him alone until he says that he was wrong, and then rubbing in his face how he was wrong. I don't know if you're doing it on purpose, but the majority sees it that way and if someone walked in out of nowhere they'd probably get our reasoning to. That's not cool.
"PAliterally stands for personal attack. And yeah there is a difference between an attack and a personal attack. But how is it relevant here? You're basically saying he's wrong for giving his opinion on his arguments. He said he doesn't agree with his arguments because he thinks they're shallow, then told you why. People always do that on forums. If they disagree they say why? How is this any different? Can you not take someone calling someone's argument "shallow"?"
1. They weren't shallow
2. It's relevant, considering I said it, and you and all the others were attacking cheeze."
1. Ok why aren't they shallow? Rage said they were shallow because CHEEZE only talked about the outer interior. Shallow literally means the opposite of deep. Basically rage said CHEEZE's arguments weren't deep because he didn't reply to any of the body post of goldfish's OP, and didn't even act like he had to read the thread to understand. He argued about how it was WNTS, which is shallow because it's not talking about what's in the idea, it's just talking about how this idea is breaking the rules. CHEEZE also said that this doesn't fix inflation. Didn't say why more than the prices would go back up, but we literally paraphrased what goldfish said to him because he wouldn't read "The Movement," which was goldfish elaborating on inflation. And yeah, still didn't talk about any actual suggestion that didn't help inflation. Just said it didn't and expected us to automatically believe him. Wow, so deep. If you can prove how that is deep, then fine. I'll let it go.
2. How you define attacking someone is how everyone on S&I acts during an argument, which is talking about the opponent's argument and disproving it. That's what Jascha was saying. It's not relevant because it's not on topic. "Oh we attacked CHEEZE." Ok. So how does that mean anything to the real arguments that were said during said attacks?
"Why did we criticize his arguments? Because he was acting like there is no good in the suggestion."
Maybe, he just didn't SEE any good, and there still was no need to be hostile. You're just making up a lousy excuse.Just becase you like the suggestion, doesn't mean everybody does."
Since the very beginning we've said it's cool if he doesn't support. What we had a problem with was him acting like the entire idea was bad when he didn't even talk about the entire idea. He have some weak reasons to justify his own no support, when we said it's cool if he doesn't support. What we thought wasn't cool was him saying "This idea is bad and won't happen." even if took back the won't happen part he still said it was bad in general, and it would've been an entirely different story if he just said he didn't like it. Entirely different.
""We pointed out good things about the idea, he pointed out new bad things. We told him he misunderstood and why, he said no. The most anyone said about him as himself was "cycnical" or something and that was because he only named the bad. And the bad things he named amounted to like a tenth of what the actual idea was about. He didn't talk about goldfish's various suggestions, he talked about how the idea was just bad."
With valid reasons. His reasons for not liking it were valid, yet you attacked him. He did talk about goldfish's ideas, yet you still dis-regard him. It's like you only skimmed through his responses, and made up your own decision."
He DID NOT! The only suggestion he raised issues in was Guest loadouts! He talked about BCEx and Dev+, but only to say it was WNTS and isn't a good replacement for BC. He didn't say why it wasn't a good replacement for BC, he just said it. Everything else was vague and didn't talk about any suggestion, just how he thought it wouldn't work. He didn't even explain why it wouldn't work. He just said it. He named BCEx and Dev+ numerously, but did he ever really poke holes in it? He just said they were there.
Any reason is valid for not liking this idea to us. But if you're going to say the whole idea is bad and mods will never consider it, you better give some pretty good reasons. There was no in-depth analysis. There was no intimidating response to goldfish's intimidating thread. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DELIVER THAT VERDICT. If he doesn't like it, okay. If he gives reasons why, better. If he says it's bad, but doesn't go into equal depth of the original idea, then that's a huge problem. That's why there was a flame war! Not because we wanted him to like it. We wanted him to explain why he said the idea was bad suggestion. Huge difference.
""And I don't agree with delivering judgement on something of this scale based on those small arguments. If you don't like it, just say "No support. WNTS." and it's fine, but when you're trying to poke freaking holes into the idea"
He was NOT provoking anybody. He didn't like the idea, and you got defensive. It's like defending an iPod, or a song. He stated why he didn't like it, and you somehow GOT yourselves provoked. Do you realize that you're defending a thread? No."
He didn't say provoke. He said poke holes. Different.
We were only defending the idea because he said it was bad. Not because he didn't like it. If you don't like it fine. I'll say it again. If you say this entire idea is bad, a 5 PAGE OP, but only dedicate a few sentences as to why and expect it to be legit, then come on! He didn't even invest in it. He didn't read "The Movement." He said he didn't even read it all. He wasn't the person who should've delivered that judgement that this idea is bad. He can not like if he wants. He can give reasons why he doesn't like it. But what he can't do is just say this idea is bad in general without putting in equal effort to the OP and evidence provided.
""like that when you say you don't even want to give it a chance, then yeah that's a little upsetting."
What's upsetting is the fact that it was too much to respect his opinion."
We respected his opinions on why he didn't like it. We didn't respect his verdict that this idea is just bad, because he in no way shape or form tried to back that up. We agreed with plenty of his opinions, but then again that's already been said numerously.
""Yoant to say we attacked CHEEZE? Ok fine. I apologize again. I'm sorry. But don't get behind him and act like it's OK to just belittle someone's hard work like that, because then you're in the wrong, too."
Explain how I'm in the wrong. What you and all the others did was unacceptable, all because he said he didn't like the idea. If somebody says they don't like my idea, then other people gang up on them, that's attacking."
You're in the wrong because you're supporting someone who tried to belittle the entire idea. We didn't reply to him because he didn't like it. We replied to him because he said it was bad and wouldn't be added. That's when it got defensive. 5 long posts of evidence just doesn't equal a few sentences. Ok? It went past his opinion. He was trying to attack the whole idea, but didn't even analyze it.
""If he said he didn't like end of story and didn't try to go out of his way to find faults, especially when they were tiny,"
By your own logic, all the things you're bringing up are tiny. How are his responses tiny? YOU DON'T EXPLAIN."
The same reason why they're shallow. His only legit argument that wasn't counterred and he left uncounterred was the fact that it was WNTS. But oh, let me guess? We're disregarding his other arguments now? No. He didn't reply to our counters on his other arguments where we told him why he was mistaken so that's why I'm not counting them. If he had actually replied to our counters instead of reiterating his arguments then I would have counted them, but no let's focus on this for a second.
The only arguments he put real time into proving were his WNTS arguments. He said that goldfish was removing BC and that he was adding paid memberships, so it's WNTS. But even so, is that good enough evidence to say this idea is bad? Is every WNTS thread a bad thread? You can't deliver a verdict on an entire 5 post thread that would probably take up 10 pages on Microsoft with a WNTS argument. You can say you don't like it because it's WNTS, but you can't say this idea is bad because it's WNTS. Ok? You just can't. That makes no sense especially with this thread.
""and then deliver judgement on this whole idea saying everything was bad then we would've left it there. If he's going to do that then he at least needs to acknowledge the whole thing. Jeez..."
But you didn't leave it there
You're trying to make it sound as nice as possible, to attempt to cover up what you really did."
.. What? He said if CHEEZE did this then we would've left it there. He didn't, and that's why we're talking right now. He isn't covering up anything with that statement. He's saying if CHEEZE didn't say this idea was bad and argue weakly then say he was right and this idea is bad, or just said he didn't like it because of his reasons then it wouldn't have escalated. That's what he said. And this is what I've said a lot already in this reply. He didn't say anything about what we did or what happened. He just said how it would have not happened if CHEEZE didn't take it there.
""You can side with him, but don't act like he's a freaking war-hero."
You can side with goldfish, but don't get so defensive."
Ok... a retort. I don't think I can respond to this. We attacked CHEEZE when he attacked the idea. We didn't attack him because he said he didn't like it. And most of the time we were just counterring and asking him to prove why this argument is bad. He thought we were attacking him because he didn't like this idea, which we weren't. We were attacking him because he said the idea was just bad, which is a pretty bold claim and you need to back up a claim that huge. That's like me going on one of Espithel's threads and saying that "This idea sucks and won't be added." without any sort of evidence and then staying there for 9 pages arguing why I don't need to give evidence. CHEEZE doesn't need to say why he doesn't like it. We said that numerously. We said he needs to say why this idea is bad. Ok? Ok.
"" Even if I respect his views, I'm not going to say that he was right all along. You guys condescend on us if we even have anything negative to say."
Explain when we did this? Oh wait, you don't."
Give quotes when you CHEEZE was acting condescendingly? Hmph. I'll be right back:
"Lucario, I really don't need help writing out my argument, but thanks."
Lucario was NOT saying he was right the whole time. He was saying it is WNTS, but also argued for 5 paragraphs why it doesn't mean anything to this idea. And CHEEZE just goes in steps over that and uses his post to solidify his own argument when it clearly isn't.
"Ruin, I do not have to explain anything at all, let alone in detail. You're not my LA teacher, or have any authority over me. I have not said "This will never happen". You're still assuming, but what I am saying is that it is unlikely to happen. I don't know why you can't understand this."
I don't think acting like you're too good to prove your why an idea is bad when you freaking said it and keep on insisting it is will help your case. Acting like you're too good to explain to us isn't cool.
There's more, but this has been drawn out long enough. But I can say more on request.
And when you did this? Well, the whole basis of your argument is that we're wrong and villains for attacking CHEEZE, and you consistently throw people's mistakes in their faces like you have some god-given right to judge them. So you tell me.
""We just reply when he has something negative to say because that's our role in the discussion."
You just said earlier that we reply whenever you have anything negative to say? But that's our role in the discussion."
You're arguing why this idea is bad (not why you don't like it). We're arguing why it isn't. You see us as the negative because we're opposing you, but in reality we're the optimistic ones. Not much else to say.
""We're pro and he's against. At least we agreed when we thought he was right."
When did you ever come to an agreement about ANYTHING?"
You really must've not read it.
We agreed that it was WNTS (thanks goes to Lucario).
We agreed when he said we added paid memberships.
We agreed when he said we were removing BC.
We've agreed 3 times or once if you want to bunch it together.
Some of us even apologized, but I'm starting to wonder if you guys even deserve an apology.
Look through it again.
I won't spoonfeed this to you because I want you to look over the flame war again.
""We listened to him."
Then why are you saying half of the things you are saying?"
Because he's talking to YOU, not CHEEZE. The whole purpose of this discussion is you're attacking us for talking about CHEEZE and now just attacking us for what we've done in the past and we're trying to get you to back off.
""We acted like he was on to some things; We APOLOGIZED when we felt we were wrong"
No, YOU apologized. The others didn't."
Lucario1236 apologized for us on the WNTS argument. ragemagick admitted he was wrong afterwards, too. I know not everyone did, but it was more than Jascha. Even spikeman was sympathetic, the guy CHEEZE called an idiot and stupid on numerous ocassions.
""He freaking belittled and acted condescendingly on us."
He freaking stated his opinion and you attacked him."
At first he was stating his opinion. Then he delivered an entire verdict on this idea and refused to even back it up. But whatever I've said this already. Spikeman was right when he said this flame war was built on misconception. Quit victimizing CHEEZE. He was no victim.
""Saying things like "I know I'm right, but thanks for saying it." to Lucario when he was actually trying to steer the conversation to what he thought about the text and why it being WNTS isn't that important."
If it's that important, then why not just ignore it?"
I don't get that reply. Why would we ignore it if it was crucial? If you mean let it go then I'll say Jascha was only bringing it up to support his argument.
""re you going to say that was right next? That that wasn't being a jerk and completely ignoring someone?"
You're being a jerk right now, because all you're doing is STILL critisizing cheeze, who left a long time ago."
Cool. Trying to throw it back it him. Real nice.
CHEEZE was acting like a jerk. He handled Lucario and twisted his words to make him look like he was on his side. But nice job trying to make Jascha look like the bad guy and dodging the question, which was this:
Do you get behind that and believe handling Lucario was justified?
"And for the record, we were defending our own views. We didn't defend goldfish, because he wasn't here to defend."
You were defending goldfish, because he wasn't here to defend."
He said he wasn't directly defending goldfish. He was defending to justify his own support and why this idea isn't bad. So goldfish's idea was protected. Does that mean his purpose was to stand up for goldfish? You can't tell someone what they were doing like that when it could look either way; he can decide for himself what he was doing.
""We defended this idea because we liked this idea,"
Okay that's just plain idiotic. You're going to defend something because you LIKE it. Let's just say you like apple's new iPhone. If somebody critisizes it, you're saying you're going to defend it, all because you like it."
That all comes down as to why you like it. Jascha doesn't like this thread for shallow reasons. Have you ever tried asking him why he likes it? Because I guarantee you he'll have a lot to say. Do you like CHEEZE? Or do you just hate us? Or both? Either way you're defending something because of your affinity and hatred for something. That's called your drive--the whole reason you're doing something. If you don't have a drive, then you don't have a purpose, and an argument without purpose is noticeably weaker than an argument that does. And Jascha if you're reading, why don't you tell FigureSix here why you like this idea so much. Give him your side.
And if Jascha's reasoning is weak then I guess I can see where you're coming from. But he didn't judge the book buy it's cover. If you're dedicating yourself to a thread for 3 months your reason for it is probably good.
""but we didn't defend goldfish himself. Goldfish doesn't need us defending him. We defended our own views, just because they were also goldfish's doesn't mean we were directly defending him."
Now you're just repeating yourself."
He never said that before. He just said in that quote just because I'm defending a view doesn't mean I'm doing it to defend everyone who agrees with me. That has yet to have been said.
"" The difference between us and you is that you're just talking about how CHEEZE was right and we're wrong and you're not even paying attention to what the argument was about and what was in it."
WHEN did I say cheeze was right? Nowhere am I directly saying that cheeze is right, but now you're here to tell me that I'm wrong, which is exactly what you did to him."
You're definitely saying that he's wrong. That's the main reason there's an argument. We never told CHEEZE he was wrong to do what he did. We said he was misunderstanding the idea based on the arguments he said like the inflation one, which is why we explained deflation to him. You definitely don't think CHEEZE is wrong. I'm not saying it's one or the other, but I'm saying that you're not neutral here. Because there's plenty of things CHEEZE did wrong, too.
And you know that wasn't the point of what Jascha said, which makes this a contextual nitpick. What he meant was you're arguing about how we were wrong when we're attacking CHEEZE, but you're not even really looking at what was said during the flame war and what we did. You're going off a previous assumption that what we did was wrong.
""You compeltely missed what people were saying to you now, because you're so focused on protecting CHEEZE when we even said we're not trying to be mean to him or quarrel with him."
You were trying to be mean & quarrel with him, and you still are. Just look at how you're mentioning him in just about every sentance."
Mentioning CHEEZE's name isn't the same as arguing and quarreling with him. Not to mention he would have to be here to be argued with. The only reason he's mentioning CHEEZE is because you keep on bringing him up to argue and he's trying to make sure you don't do it again. Notice how he's using CHEEZE in his replies. He's directly associating CHEEZE with YOU.
""This isn't even about the points made anymore, this is about how you think we're bad people, and it's ridiculous."
Didn't ever say you were bad people. What IS ridiculous is how you started this ALL because you liked this idea, and just HAD to defend it. It was too much to leave cheeze alone."
I don't think I need to say this again, but we wouldn't have if he didn't attack this idea. It quickly went from stating his opinion to attacking the idea, so we quickly went from saying "Ok." to saying "Wait, what?"
""No support to you FigureSix. No support at all."
How do you say no support to a person?"
Lol. I do admit that's absurd, but basically he's saying he doesn't agree with you on anything anymore.
""I'm not agreeing with you anymore, because that just means I have no self-respect and am trying to win approval from some random guy out of nowhere"
You can't even use the word random right, and how can you even agree with me?"
You did come out of nowhere. You first post on this thread was calling rage's arguments lousy and saying he can't let the argument die. That's random and out of nowhere, considering your post wasn't relevant to the idea at all.
""who doesn't give a damn about goldfish's suggestion at all and is only here to defend some guy who only cares about himself being right to the point of belittling our opinions, and goldfish's hard work."
"I'm going to defend him, because no one else is"
Did you say? Why'd you put that in quotations?
Anyways if you did just say that I'ma say that CHEEZE didn't really need to be defended. His arguments needed to be defended, but he didn't. We never PA'd him/attacked CHEEZE himself.
""I said I was sorry. I said I was wrong. I even tried to make peace and heal so I could move on.
But forget it."
> Tries to make peace
> Writes a huge paragraph about how the other person is wrong"
You wrote a post on how he was wrong, so I guess that makes it even.
"" think I speak for everyone when I say we don't have to prove anything to someone whose just trying to throw nitpicks and talkdowns in our faces when we even said we were sorry over and over."
Only you have said sorry. Nobody else has."
Well I already talked about this.
"And if you even bother replying don't expect me to even read it. I'm done. Because I already know what you're going to say."
If you already know what I'm going to say, then what's the point? You probably are going to read this sometime or another."
No I think he was serious. He already labelled you as flamebait, and yeah I don't blame him. Because this is close to being a flame war, not to mention about an even more OT topic.
And you have pretty much said the same things or stuck to the same points, but then again most arguers who only have one stance through an argument do that.
""I'm leaving it alone until maybe you guys realize that you're not right all the time and don't need to even be on a thread just to talk down to someone like you're better than us because you hate something we like."
I'm done."
Then for god's sakes LEAVE. Good-bye and good riddance. You're talking down to Cheeze simply because he doesn't like this idea."
He's not leaving the thread, and none of us are. He's just not discussing this anymore. If anyone should leave the thread, it should be the people who don't like this idea. What? Are you saying we leave and you stay? That doesn't make a lot of sense. And no he's not talking down CHEEZE. CHEEZE is not here. He's saying that CHEEZE was acting like a jerk and talking down to us, and now you're saying Jascha's talking down to him by saying that. And I personally think you should be the one to leave if anyone's leaving, the person who hasn't even talked about this suggestion.
Don't act like you're not just saying a different version of "Get out."
And if anyone's getting out, it will be the negative Nancies.
You and CHEEZE have not contributed anything constructive to this thread. It was destructive if anything.
|
|
|
@jasch
"I will remove the patriot act which spies on us all!" - obama
"I just removed the patriot act!" - obama
"I just added patriot act back into the system with even more stuff and ways to spy on you!" -obama
GG obama, GG
"I will have medical insurances" -obama *Extended version below*
"I will give the ability for insurance for everyone!" -obama
"I just made private insurances, everyone has insurance from the government, or private insurance from the company! If you don't get from these places, you get extra tax!" -obama
GG obama
You wounder why I hate him.... |
|
|
@KudosYouCanRead
That post is so 2000 and late man.
You should've said that yesterday because now we're trying to make peace :3
@FigureSix
"1. My opinion on this idea? I'm not sure I really like the idea of replacing BC, because it would probably cause a riot, even worse than the price floors. Some people pay $400 to have it, and to get rid of it just seems unfair."
>> I agree entirely with that statement, which is why I reincarnated BC into hard hat memberships. It's basically the same thing, and everyone who previously had BC gets switched over to hard hat memberships. No progress or money lost. I think worst case scenario they revolt at first out of confusion then realize they didn't lose anything.
"Also, what is deflating currency?"
>> Great question. Deflating currency is something that's only possible in video games. It's where a currency has an undefined conversion value because it is never used in conversions. For example, right now according to the DevEx 1R$ = $1 I think? But with deflaton 1R$ = undefined. This would completely solve inflation, because it's the complete opposite. It can't inflate because there's no defined inflatable value. But you also can't directly make money off of your currency, which is why I've suggested all these substitute moneymakers which should more than make up for it.
"2. I'm siding with Cheeze because what the others did was unacceptable. He gave legit reasons as to why he didn't like the idea, and they attacked him, and you know why? All because they like the idea, and wanted to defend it!"
>> They weren't attacking CHEEZE because he didn't like the idea, and I'm going off of what they said, which should be good enough proof since your the one who explains your own actions, no? They said they attacked CHEEZE (well, more specifically his arguments) because he said that this entire idea was bad and wouldn't be added, which I guess they consider as delivering a whole verdict on this idea and they didn't think he had the right to, or at least he should've explained as much as I did as to why this idea is good. There were plenty of PAs, as I remember from my reading. They called his arguments "illogical" and him "cynical," but that's as worse as it got from memory. And CHEEZE had his fair share, mainly directed at spikeman, calling him an "idiot" and saying his argument was "stupid" and that's as far in as I'll go. I'm trying as hard as possible to say neutral, so my final verdict is that no one was right for doing what they did because no one's right during a flame war, you know?
"Imagine this: You buy apple's new iPhone 6, somebody says why they don't like it, and then you verbally attack them. Am I the only person who thinks that that is the most idiotic reason to hate someone?"
I know for a fact they don't hate CHEEZE. Ask them. They'll say no, and even if that isn't good enough for you, did they ever say that they hated CHEEZE? I'm sure if they met again on another thread they wouldn't have any issues with one another. It just got heated is all, but that energy is still alive.
"At least you're going to be fair about it. The others tried to make what they did as nice as possible, and that's just as bad, if not worse."
I'm sure you'll see me as picking sides after what I've said to you now, but I am trying to be as impartial as possible, and the only way to really do that is pull a George Washington on you and be neutral about everything.
Let's focus on you for now.
You seem nice enough, and you seem like you could be swayed into either direction, so I think we could have a good discussion. Do I want you to like this idea? Of course I do. Will I be mad if you don't. Not really, but I'll try and help it.
And if you have any more questions on deflation and inflation, ask me, or read "The Movement," as that's the post where I go into detail about it. I warn you, like most of my posts, it's long, but I've been told it was an enjoyable read.
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=145756327
And I'm sure Kudos' post is huge flamebait to you, and I hope it dsoesn't get blown out of proportion.
Thanks. |
|
|
I kind of want to take my post back now, because I got too worked up.
Yeah I apologize in advance for the flamebait.
I still stand by what I said, I just would've said it more politely looking back. |
|
JuneBlazeJoin Date: 2014-05-24
Post Count: 722 |
Wtf is wrong with you making these long post even though people at Roblox don't care. |
|
JaschaJoin Date: 2009-06-19
Post Count: 1447 |
Judging by the length of Kudos' post, I'ma guess that he took the bait.
That pretty much destroyed any chance of this not turning into another flame war, unless of course FigureSix breaks the chain:
@spikeman168
I see where you're coming from. Barack Obama goes back on his word.
He did have it hard in his first term from what I heard, though.
Not to sympathize, but the houses usually didn't side with him based on discrimination which made it so he could get little done during his first term.
But I agree that's messed up (at least how you worded it). |
|
JaschaJoin Date: 2009-06-19
Post Count: 1447 |
@JuneBlaze
They should because he's bringing up deadly flaws that could shut down ROBLOX.
But we're not ticked off that the people at ROBLOX don't care.
Well... except maybe spikeman168.
@FigureSix
I kind of feel bad for ignoring you, but I still don't want to reply to your previous post because I view it as flamebait still.
But I want to make peace. It's just some of the things you said came off as hypocritical and angered me, and it was probably the same on both ends.
I'll just say that we acted that way to CHEEZE because he infuriated us with his arguing style and we felt we weren't being heard, and leave it at that.
I'm not justifying how I've been acting anymore. |
|
JuneBlazeJoin Date: 2014-05-24
Post Count: 722 |
Roblox isn't shutting down anytime soon, there is a reason the price floor is here. |
|
|
You know?
I don't think a flame war is worth it. So I'ma apologize.
I'm in no way trying to negate any chance of you replying to my reply, FigureSix. I just feel like I need to apologize.
I know that we were both probably angry at each other and felt righteous fury at one another and that means that we should both understand where we're coming from even if we don't agree with one another.
So I'ma apologize and admit I'm wrong:
I'm sorry and I was wrong.
I don't want a flame war. I did post some serious flamebait, and it was out of frustration.
Sorry. |
|
|
@Jascha, Kudos
Now that's what I like to hear!
@spikeman168
Tbh, I don't invest enough into politics, but that does sound bad. But I still don't think I should formulate any ill will based on that.
I'll just say that you hate Obama as a president, but not as a person. |
|
|
@kudos
My argument was towards "in a sense it's not wnts". <---- I never said that statement directly. If you read it carefully, I did. Don't tell me I should be ashamed when I know enough to explain my reasoning.
Have you noticed not a single person has asked me to explain more? I explained in deep detail to why I would say it's not. On of those reasons is because hes changing it. If blankly saying to remove BC is WNTS, then changing it isn't WNTS. Sure I can see elements, but elements are like pieces of a puzzle. In fact that's a great example.
Anyone can say a puzzle piece is the puzzle. They can also say it's not the puzzle, want to know why? Because it's not the full thing, it's an element of the puzzle. You need an element to create a compound in science, that doesn't mean compounds are elements, or vice versa. If you have enough elements of WNTS, in this case puzzles. Then it can be considered a full puzzle, like 3.57. 3.57 is higher then 3.50, so it's rounded to 4. If you have 5 elements of WNTS, and the limit for it being a WNT is 10 elements, then it can be considered a WNT. It really depends on the person. A person can argue that a few elements is WNTS, but another person can argue that it's not WNTS. So in the long and short run, we are both right. If you really read 100% clearly, then you would know that goldfish did say this more then once in his entire post. |
|
|
@JuneBlaze
I'ma refer you to my "The Movement" post, but it is long. Interesting, but long. It addresses all your current concerns:
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=145756327
It is a possibility that ROBLOX can suffer a great income loss right now, and that linked thread tells you exactly why and more.
And the price floor increase then decrease was an inflation debuff, but it would actually be more likely to cause the sort of threat I'm talking about. |
|
|
@goldfish
It was really about bait as an example. But you are right. I hate him as a president. Before anyone, maybe even you, say that I am a democrat or something, I'm not. I don't believe in sides like that. However, if I was forced to choose, I would be a liberal. |
|
|
@spikeman168
I said that?
I'm sorry I didn't mean that you should feel ashamed in any way.
And yeah your argument makes total sense, but I will say you were confused in the beginning while you were arguing with CHEEZE about what WNTS was. You said you thought it's closest link was wants, remember? |
|
FigureSixJoin Date: 2013-11-05
Post Count: 51 |
@KuKudos
Ok then. We're all good.
@Goldfish
Thanks for clearing that up about the deflating currency
But I still believe that they should have just respected Cheeze's opinion and left him alone. He may have posted first, but THEY were the ones to actually start an argument.
As for you Jascha, I just knew you wouldn't leave. |
|
|
Yeah. I don't get every abbreviation, which is why I made the argument about fixing what you know and keeping an open mind. |
|
|
@spikeman168
I don't like how the government tries to label us in political parties.
It's too late to go back, and George Washington warned us of this in our Farewell Address, but all political parties do is divide us and make it seem like we stand for everything that a party stands for when we don't.
I wish there was a president that didn't conform to parties, but that hasn't happened since Washington, because everyone thinks belonging to a strong party is crucial to being re-elected. Phbt. Ridiculous. |
|