1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: There is no need for you to go there.
He didn't say anything wrong. There is no necessity to go back to Tortage, only will. Going back to Tortage to help a friend doesn't fit into "necessity", but just will. "I WANT to go back to Tortage to help a friend." instead of "I NEED to go back to Tortage to help a friend."
People should learn to use their own language before claiming crap, seriously.
This is the original posters question in the aoc forums "Can anyone tell me why my alt can not go back to Tortage, my main could a month ago????" Nowhere in that question does he ever say he needs to go back.
What he said wrong was using the word need in the first place, it was smart ass and innapropriate. So how doe's your post help anything? Wrestling with semantics to push your agenda that Lufkin is a good moderator?
No, well then what? It seems like you just wanted to show off your pseudo intellectual response and that you have a dictionary. Well, yeah, good for you.
Now with regards to this moderator it is clear that he is a terrible representative for this company and clearly just a AOC fanboi with no experience with what he is doing.
_____________________________ If you are insulted by being called a fanboi it's a good bet that you are one
1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: There is no need for you to go there.
He didn't say anything wrong. There is no necessity to go back to Tortage, only will. Going back to Tortage to help a friend doesn't fit into "necessity", but just will. "I WANT to go back to Tortage to help a friend." instead of "I NEED to go back to Tortage to help a friend."
People should learn to use their own language before claiming crap, seriously.
^^He beat me to it. lol
I think you need to learn the language as well. The customer didn't ask if he "needed" to go back to tortage. He asked if he "could" as in "am I able to if I so choose."
Also just to add something else. The customer is essentially reporting a potential bug. If a character can't go back, and the design is so that they should be able to, then that customer is helping Funcom fix things that are broken. To not answer the question, start a flame war, and then lock the flame war that he started is just an abuse of moderatore power and nothing more.
--------------------------------------------- I live to fight, and fight to live.
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question.
But I did not say the opposite, did I?
The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
If someone asks "How to I go to Trinsic?" for example, and another person says "To go to Britain you just follow north.", the second one isn't wrong in any way (unless you wouldn't reach Britain if you followed north), but instead he just wasn't giving an according answer to the first person's question.
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
This kind of behaviour by a customer representative underlines the sheer awe-inspiring extent to which Funcom has clearly put raving lunatics in charge of its communications team.
This mod was an unbelievable twat. And to make things worse, he kept on going. And going. And going. The only explanations I can conjure up are a) he was drunk, b) wanted to see how much damage he could cause, c) was a social incompetent of the highest order who clearly should never be allowed anywhere near a customer.
All that said, it would be 'meh, big deal, they hired a moron' except for one thing: they are almost all complete morons who never say a single useful thing at all. They explain nothing. They acknowledge no concerns. They have nothing vaguely respectful to say. (actually, i take that back - one mod, called Famine - does at least try, even if he fails to explain anything with any clarity. He is the polite one).
No-one today has the slightest idea how stats work.
It is magnificent. A stat-based gear focused game, and no-one in Funcom let alone any of the players have the vaguest clue what stats do, are meant to do, are not meant to do, where they are heading. It is an awe-inspiring show of incompetence.
For all that, I still enjoy running around killing stuff in this game. :P (But have no idea how long that will continue. I am 75 now and feel the bells tolling).
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
Wow - this has to be one of the most inane arguments I have yet seen on this forum. Any chance you could continue it via private message?
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
Wow - this has to be one of the most inane arguments I have yet seen on this forum. Any chance you could continue it via private message?
As inane as the arguments of those who said "he is wrong because the player wants to go to Tortage" or "he is wrong because his answer wasn't productive."
Or even better.. "he was wrong because he believed that the player was speaking of a need".
I didn't claim that he was right, I didn't claim that his answer was right. Just that it wasn't wrong. The ones who really assumed that I was claiming such thing are you people. He didn't answer the user's question, but he wasn't wrong.
If someone answers that 2+2=4 when someone else asks what's his name, does it makes the answerer wrong? That makes 2+2=4 a wrong proposition? He simply didn't answer according to the proposed question.
That's it, I'm off.
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example: "How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south" So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point. And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
Ok, lets look at it this way.
The OP asked "Where are the cookies at, I dont see them in the same place as they used to be."
And the mod responds, "You dont need any cookies."
When you are going to make examples, try to be intellectually honest enough to use similar circumstances, please.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example: "How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south" So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point. And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
Ok, lets look at it this way.
The OP asked "Where are the cookies at, I dont see them in the same place as they used to be."
And the mod responds, "You dont need any cookies."
When you are going to make examples, try to be intellectually honest enough to use similar circumstances, please.
Similar circumstances, if you look at them well.
By saying that London is not to the south, it would end the asker's doubt, if he was just considering two possibilities (one of them being south).
By saying that there's no need to go back to Tortage, it could purely end's the user's doubt, if he wanted to go back to Tortage just because he was assuming that there was some type of need to do so.
"It's not to the south" and "You don't need to go back to Tortage" both demonstrate that the answerer doesn't know the according and complete answer, just one piece of information that can limit the possibilities, and considering some peculiar cases, even end the asker's doubt.
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
We're not at the same position. I didn't assume anything. I said that we can't assume. You assumed something, I did not. Stop making up facts, please. When I say that it's a pure assumption when you say that the mod assumed that the user meant a need, am I assuming something? So when I say that the 17th multiple of 295 isn't 2, does that mean that I know what the 17th multiple is?
Ultima Online 98~04 Dark Age of Camelot 03~07 Final Fantasy XI 04~06 Guild Wars 05~08 World of Warcraft 04~05 Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
" Unless you left Tortage at say level 18 then I can understand but if your level 20 there really is no need to go back for grey quests.
<...>
Exactly! The majority of people who DO go back to tortage after are the ones who are being a pain
You guys know who you are"
Wow! I am so freaking glad that I got away from that game.
He is flat out saying that the quests are not anything more but a means to an end; not fun or entertaining in and of themselves. AoC is not a "world", but a glorified single-player game.
I damn well know that in WoW I went back to all the starting zones to complete all the quest chains, for fun, nostalgia, and general exploration of the environment to see what I missed or forgot. It will probably be an achievement in WotLK too.
Instead of admitting that FailCom can't deal with the PvP aspect of it's game, they lash out at their customers: "Now just why do you want to go back there? Its for a naughty reason isn't it? ISN'T IT?"
FunCom deserves to fail for that prejudicial BS.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
We're not at the same position. I didn't assume anything. I said that we can't assume. You assumed something, I did not. Stop making up facts, please. When I say that it's a pure assumption when you say that the mod assumed that the user meant a need, am I assuming something? So when I say that the 17th multiple of 295 isn't 2, does that mean that I know what the 17th multiple is?
Technically, yes, you are.
I have not made a statement that I was not the Mod in question, so you assume that I am not, and you assume that I am making assumptions based on no fact at all.
The thing is, assuming, to an extent, is a necessary evil when having a discussion involving a third party that is unable to communicate with the person(s) having the discussion. As long as its understood that whatever is mentioned is an assumption, and its not passed off as fact, there is nothing wrong with it.
You state as a fact that I am assuming something, but you cant know if I am or not, due to not knowing all the information required to state that I am assuming as a fact.
Pot, meet kettle.
But either way, it matters little to me. My point to begin with wasnt to be a discussion about the nuances of assumptions, it was to point out what I have stated from the start, and what you have avoided refuting the entire time. And thats it.
We can continue the conversation however, please dont take this as me bowing out if you want to continue. Considering how little intelligent conversation I run into at work, this is a blessing lol.
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question. But I did not say the opposite, did I? The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
We're not at the same position. I didn't assume anything. I said that we can't assume. You assumed something, I did not. Stop making up facts, please. When I say that it's a pure assumption when you say that the mod assumed that the user meant a need, am I assuming something? So when I say that the 17th multiple of 295 isn't 2, does that mean that I know what the 17th multiple is?
Technically, yes, you are.
I have not made a statement that I was not the Mod in question, so you assume that I am not, and you assume that I am making assumptions based on no fact at all.
The thing is, assuming, to an extent, is a necessary evil when having a discussion involving a third party that is unable to communicate with the person(s) having the discussion. As long as its understood that whatever is mentioned is an assumption, and its not passed off as fact, there is nothing wrong with it.
You state as a fact that I am assuming something, but you cant know if I am or not, due to not knowing all the information required to state that I am assuming as a fact.
Pot, meet kettle.
But either way, it matters little to me. My point to begin with wasnt to be a discussion about the nuances of assumptions, it was to point out what I have stated from the start, and what you have avoided refuting the entire time. And thats it.
We can continue the conversation however, please dont take this as me bowing out if you want to continue. Considering how little intelligent conversation I run into at work, this is a blessing lol.
Comments
This is the original posters question in the aoc forums "Can anyone tell me why my alt can not go back to Tortage, my main could a month ago????" Nowhere in that question does he ever say he needs to go back.
What he said wrong was using the word need in the first place, it was smart ass and innapropriate. So how doe's your post help anything? Wrestling with semantics to push your agenda that Lufkin is a good moderator?
No, well then what? It seems like you just wanted to show off your pseudo intellectual response and that you have a dictionary. Well, yeah, good for you.
Now with regards to this moderator it is clear that he is a terrible representative for this company and clearly just a AOC fanboi with no experience with what he is doing.
_____________________________
If you are insulted by being called a fanboi it's a good bet that you are one
^^He beat me to it. lol
I think you need to learn the language as well. The customer didn't ask if he "needed" to go back to tortage. He asked if he "could" as in "am I able to if I so choose."
Also just to add something else. The customer is essentially reporting a potential bug. If a character can't go back, and the design is so that they should be able to, then that customer is helping Funcom fix things that are broken. To not answer the question, start a flame war, and then lock the flame war that he started is just an abuse of moderatore power and nothing more.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
Wow, that's sickening, I can't believe he would post that.
Funcom is beyond fixable.
He wasn't constructive and really was an smart ass by not answering the player's question.
But I did not say the opposite, did I?
The fact is that some people said that he was wrong, something which he was not. There is a difference between being a jerk and being wrong. And those dumb enough that read my post and suddenly saw a sentence "He was polite" or something like that, you people should stop using forums.
If someone asks "How to I go to Trinsic?" for example, and another person says "To go to Britain you just follow north.", the second one isn't wrong in any way (unless you wouldn't reach Britain if you followed north), but instead he just wasn't giving an according answer to the first person's question.
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
This kind of behaviour by a customer representative underlines the sheer awe-inspiring extent to which Funcom has clearly put raving lunatics in charge of its communications team.
This mod was an unbelievable twat. And to make things worse, he kept on going. And going. And going. The only explanations I can conjure up are a) he was drunk, b) wanted to see how much damage he could cause, c) was a social incompetent of the highest order who clearly should never be allowed anywhere near a customer.
All that said, it would be 'meh, big deal, they hired a moron' except for one thing: they are almost all complete morons who never say a single useful thing at all. They explain nothing. They acknowledge no concerns. They have nothing vaguely respectful to say. (actually, i take that back - one mod, called Famine - does at least try, even if he fails to explain anything with any clarity. He is the polite one).
No-one today has the slightest idea how stats work.
It is magnificent. A stat-based gear focused game, and no-one in Funcom let alone any of the players have the vaguest clue what stats do, are meant to do, are not meant to do, where they are heading. It is an awe-inspiring show of incompetence.
For all that, I still enjoy running around killing stuff in this game. :P (But have no idea how long that will continue. I am 75 now and feel the bells tolling).
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
Wow - this has to be one of the most inane arguments I have yet seen on this forum. Any chance you could continue it via private message?
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
Wow - this has to be one of the most inane arguments I have yet seen on this forum. Any chance you could continue it via private message?
As inane as the arguments of those who said "he is wrong because the player wants to go to Tortage" or "he is wrong because his answer wasn't productive."
Or even better.. "he was wrong because he believed that the player was speaking of a need".
I didn't claim that he was right, I didn't claim that his answer was right. Just that it wasn't wrong. The ones who really assumed that I was claiming such thing are you people. He didn't answer the user's question, but he wasn't wrong.
If someone answers that 2+2=4 when someone else asks what's his name, does it makes the answerer wrong? That makes 2+2=4 a wrong proposition? He simply didn't answer according to the proposed question.
That's it, I'm off.
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
Ok, lets look at it this way.
The OP asked "Where are the cookies at, I dont see them in the same place as they used to be."
And the mod responds, "You dont need any cookies."
When you are going to make examples, try to be intellectually honest enough to use similar circumstances, please.
Ok, lets look at it this way.
The OP asked "Where are the cookies at, I dont see them in the same place as they used to be."
And the mod responds, "You dont need any cookies."
When you are going to make examples, try to be intellectually honest enough to use similar circumstances, please.
Similar circumstances, if you look at them well.
By saying that London is not to the south, it would end the asker's doubt, if he was just considering two possibilities (one of them being south).
By saying that there's no need to go back to Tortage, it could purely end's the user's doubt, if he wanted to go back to Tortage just because he was assuming that there was some type of need to do so.
"It's not to the south" and "You don't need to go back to Tortage" both demonstrate that the answerer doesn't know the according and complete answer, just one piece of information that can limit the possibilities, and considering some peculiar cases, even end the asker's doubt.
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
We're not at the same position. I didn't assume anything. I said that we can't assume. You assumed something, I did not. Stop making up facts, please. When I say that it's a pure assumption when you say that the mod assumed that the user meant a need, am I assuming something? So when I say that the 17th multiple of 295 isn't 2, does that mean that I know what the 17th multiple is?
Ultima Online 98~04
Dark Age of Camelot 03~07
Final Fantasy XI 04~06
Guild Wars 05~08
World of Warcraft 04~05
Unsuccessful Tries: DFO/EQ2/DRaja/Rag/Req/RYL/9D/Cabal/KO/PSU/RF/GE/TO/TR/DDO/EVE/LoTRO/L2/RZ/SWG/VG
Wow! I am so freaking glad that I got away from that game.
He is flat out saying that the quests are not anything more but a means to an end; not fun or entertaining in and of themselves. AoC is not a "world", but a glorified single-player game.
I damn well know that in WoW I went back to all the starting zones to complete all the quest chains, for fun, nostalgia, and general exploration of the environment to see what I missed or forgot. It will probably be an achievement in WotLK too.
Instead of admitting that FailCom can't deal with the PvP aspect of it's game, they lash out at their customers: "Now just why do you want to go back there? Its for a naughty reason isn't it? ISN'T IT?"
FunCom deserves to fail for that prejudicial BS.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
We're not at the same position. I didn't assume anything. I said that we can't assume. You assumed something, I did not. Stop making up facts, please. When I say that it's a pure assumption when you say that the mod assumed that the user meant a need, am I assuming something? So when I say that the 17th multiple of 295 isn't 2, does that mean that I know what the 17th multiple is?
Technically, yes, you are.
I have not made a statement that I was not the Mod in question, so you assume that I am not, and you assume that I am making assumptions based on no fact at all.
The thing is, assuming, to an extent, is a necessary evil when having a discussion involving a third party that is unable to communicate with the person(s) having the discussion. As long as its understood that whatever is mentioned is an assumption, and its not passed off as fact, there is nothing wrong with it.
You state as a fact that I am assuming something, but you cant know if I am or not, due to not knowing all the information required to state that I am assuming as a fact.
Pot, meet kettle.
But either way, it matters little to me. My point to begin with wasnt to be a discussion about the nuances of assumptions, it was to point out what I have stated from the start, and what you have avoided refuting the entire time. And thats it.
We can continue the conversation however, please dont take this as me bowing out if you want to continue. Considering how little intelligent conversation I run into at work, this is a blessing lol.
Winner: Most internal-quoted post I have ever seen here.
pretty colors incoming...
He was being a complete jerk.
He was wrong because I used to be able to go back to Tortage, it was right in Conarch Village next to the guy who brought you to Cimmeria main town.
It would also take you to an abandoned warehouse in Tortage, but Funcom messed the game up some more.
And where did he say that you cannot go back to Tortage?
And where did he say anything helpful? Like how and if you can?
And where did I say that he did say something helpful?
So you , in a round about way, admit your entire point in posting was to waste everyones time and to argue semantics, that werent even correct, since the mod incorrectly believed that the user stated he "needed" to go, when he never did?
And where did he say he believed the user stated that he needed to go to Tortage?
It was like someone asked "How do I get to London?" and someone else answered "I'm sure that London isn't to the south". How does the second person is wrong? Because his answer wasn't productive? He didn't say that he answered the question accordingly, and I didn't say that either. Can't you see you people won't ever stop assuming shit that isn't written anywhere? Who says I need a point to post? Did I say that?
The user asked how to get there, and the mod replied, "you dont NEED to get there". The user never stated a need, a desire, or a want. He simply asked how to get there, since he couldnt.
You decided to post about how "technically" the semantics behind what the mod posted were fine and correct. But they werent, because the mod, based on how he worded his sentence(yay semantics), insinuated that the user stated he had a need to get there.
Obviously the mod cant be wrong about judging ones need to go there, as its not something that is easily quantified in any way. The arguement, however, wasnt, and still isnt if the mod was "wrong". Just that he was a smartass, who is repeatedly wrong in other posts of his, who decided not to answer the question in any manner at all, and instead made a comment in reference to something that the user never said or insinuated.
And to play your game some more, did I ever say you needed to have a point to post? I simply stated that it seemed like your entire purpose was to waste everyones time and argue semantics, and at this point, you havent made any attempt to refute that, so I would have to wonder if it wasnt true at least to some degree.
Saying that he insinuated that the user meant a need is assumption. Going back to my old example:
"How do I get to London?"
"It's not to the south"
So the second person insinuated that the first one thought that London was to the south? That is ridiculous. It's called a limit answer, it just works in order to put a limit to the possibilities. And it doesn't make the second person wrong at any point.
And again, when you ASSUMED that my post was directed to the "he was a smartass" argument, then you assumed wrong. You can read my older posts again and clearly see that I just said that he wasn't wrong, but that doesn't interfere on he being or not a smartass.
But you agree that at least some of your point in posting to start was to waste peoples time, and argue silly semantics, since you continue to dodge the original, and main point of my post?
Thats great, you dont agree with me that the mod had assumed that the user "needed" to go to Tortage. You ASSUME that he didnt assume, I assume he did. Either way, we are both at the same point, not knowing what the actual truth is, but you seem to be certain that you know what the mod was thinking when he posted.
Are you the mod?
If not, then you dont know, any more than we do. And therefore, your belief in regards to this situation, and your arguement, is speculation at best. Trolling at worst.
We're not at the same position. I didn't assume anything. I said that we can't assume. You assumed something, I did not. Stop making up facts, please. When I say that it's a pure assumption when you say that the mod assumed that the user meant a need, am I assuming something? So when I say that the 17th multiple of 295 isn't 2, does that mean that I know what the 17th multiple is?
Technically, yes, you are.
I have not made a statement that I was not the Mod in question, so you assume that I am not, and you assume that I am making assumptions based on no fact at all.
The thing is, assuming, to an extent, is a necessary evil when having a discussion involving a third party that is unable to communicate with the person(s) having the discussion. As long as its understood that whatever is mentioned is an assumption, and its not passed off as fact, there is nothing wrong with it.
You state as a fact that I am assuming something, but you cant know if I am or not, due to not knowing all the information required to state that I am assuming as a fact.
Pot, meet kettle.
But either way, it matters little to me. My point to begin with wasnt to be a discussion about the nuances of assumptions, it was to point out what I have stated from the start, and what you have avoided refuting the entire time. And thats it.
We can continue the conversation however, please dont take this as me bowing out if you want to continue. Considering how little intelligent conversation I run into at work, this is a blessing lol.
Do I get an award for being the OP? (different account)
Glad to see my thread sparking discussions.
Gamer Plus+