No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
People should really have first hand experience of what they're talking about...
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
If you wanna change it to people said it was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect sucked then that's another thing. But that's different from what you originally said. I definitely haven't seen it much at all. I've heard way more people arguing the opposite, that UO had a strong anti-pk player run community.
I still maintain you're basically just being too strict in your perspective about how people talk. And I think it's only because I pointed out your logical inconsistency so you wanted to have something to throw back at me. It's not unusual for people to talk the way I did, so it's weird that you brought it up. Especially considering I'm sure both you and myself have said similar things this very day, but you only bring it up when I point out your mistake.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
If you wanna change it to people said it was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect sucked then that's another thing. But that's different from what you originally said. I definitely haven't seen it much at all. I've heard way more people arguing the opposite, that UO had a strong anti-pk player run community.
I still maintain you're basically just being too strict in your perspective about how people talk. And I think it's only because I pointed out your logical inconsistency so you wanted to have something to throw back at me. It's not unusual for people to talk the way I did, so it's weird that you brought it up. Especially considering I'm sure both you and myself have said similar things this very day, but you only bring it up when I point out your mistake.
This is what I originally stated"
"And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well."
Here I clearly state, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective"
This shows I have not changed what I stated.
I probably have said statements of opinion presented as fact at times. I try not to.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
People should really have first hand experience of what they're talking about...
I don't need to have first hand experience in order to see what people have said.
I only need to have first hand experience to make up my own mind about it. Which still doesn't change what people have said.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I still can't see how this thread got so long. I'm not pro pvp nor pro pve. I play a game with the rules and tactics provided and either enjoy it or move on. I mostly do a lot of pve content due to my preferences and time I have to do things, but at the same time I get bored of beating on stuffed animals with the same 1-3 programmed abilities I learned the workarounds for in the first 30 seconds I first spent in combat with them. Puzzles and other crap? fine, as long as I'm not going to spend hours with what amounts to every quest becoming like Myst or Tetris. And once I've made it to endgame in a strictly pve environment, I quit. I've been to the end and don't care about what I may have missed 'cause that was the end of the game. Tossing an expansion on it doesn't save that fact, I beat it once, I'm not popping another quarter in to save the princess again. That's where pvp comes in. You have to think harder, move faster, actually figure out your moves before you make them instead of just steamrolling through hills that for some reason have an infinite supply of the same mob that can't learn to do one thing differently. Both sides are right AND wrong on the current situation. Carebears need to grow balls, and the epeens need to realize they don't got jack once they logout. Play what you like or move on, bitching about every single game that comes out is pointless and ends up typically breaking a game in the long run due to one side or the other whining until devs say 'fuck it'.
Originally posted by loopback1199 I still can't see how this thread got so long. I'm not pro pvp nor pro pve. I play a game with the rules and tactics provided and either enjoy it or move on. I mostly do a lot of pve content due to my preferences and time I have to do things, but at the same time I get bored of beating on stuffed animals with the same 1-3 programmed abilities I learned the workarounds for in the first 30 seconds I first spent in combat with them. Puzzles and other crap? fine, as long as I'm not going to spend hours with what amounts to every quest becoming like Myst or Tetris. And once I've made it to endgame in a strictly pve environment, I quit. I've been to the end and don't care about what I may have missed 'cause that was the end of the game. Tossing an expansion on it doesn't save that fact, I beat it once, I'm not popping another quarter in to save the princess again. That's where pvp comes in. You have to think harder, move faster, actually figure out your moves before you make them instead of just steamrolling through hills that for some reason have an infinite supply of the same mob that can't learn to do one thing differently. Both sides are right AND wrong on the current situation. Carebears need to grow balls, and the epeens need to realize they don't got jack once they logout. Play what you like or move on, bitching about every single game that comes out is pointless and ends up typically breaking a game in the long run due to one side or the other whining until devs say 'fuck it'.
I call BS on the statement in blue because of the bits in read. You are pro-PvP, to use your idiom, grow balls and admit it.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
If you wanna change it to people said it was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect sucked then that's another thing. But that's different from what you originally said. I definitely haven't seen it much at all. I've heard way more people arguing the opposite, that UO had a strong anti-pk player run community.
I still maintain you're basically just being too strict in your perspective about how people talk. And I think it's only because I pointed out your logical inconsistency so you wanted to have something to throw back at me. It's not unusual for people to talk the way I did, so it's weird that you brought it up. Especially considering I'm sure both you and myself have said similar things this very day, but you only bring it up when I point out your mistake.
This is what I originally stated"
"And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well."
Here I clearly state, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective"
This shows I have not changed what I stated.
I probably have said statements of opinion presented as fact at times. I try not to.
THIS IS WRONG. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately stubborn or what. You can't assume that one aspect of the game was the reason they didn't like it. You were talking about a player run system of policing rather than an npc guard system. I'm saying even if there were an npc guard that went on and tracked down the players and killed them or whatever it is they would do, those people may still consider UO to be a gankfest and would've quit. You're injecting your own opinion in when you say because they saw it as a gankfest, that means they weren't ok with the policing community. Also, it's possible that those people played before anti-pk guilds were around. It's just not an intellectually honest thing for you to assume.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
If you wanna change it to people said it was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect sucked then that's another thing. But that's different from what you originally said. I definitely haven't seen it much at all. I've heard way more people arguing the opposite, that UO had a strong anti-pk player run community.
I still maintain you're basically just being too strict in your perspective about how people talk. And I think it's only because I pointed out your logical inconsistency so you wanted to have something to throw back at me. It's not unusual for people to talk the way I did, so it's weird that you brought it up. Especially considering I'm sure both you and myself have said similar things this very day, but you only bring it up when I point out your mistake.
This is what I originally stated"
"And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well."
Here I clearly state, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective"
This shows I have not changed what I stated.
I probably have said statements of opinion presented as fact at times. I try not to.
THIS IS WRONG. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately stubborn or what. You can't assume that one aspect of the game was the reason they didn't like it. You were talking about a player run system of policing rather than an npc guard system. I'm saying even if there were an npc guard that went on and tracked down the players and killed them or whatever it is they would do, those people may still consider UO to be a gankfest and would've quit. You're injecting your own opinion in when you say because they saw it as a gankfest, that means they weren't ok with the policing community. Also, it's possible that those people played before anti-pk guilds were around. It's just not an intellectually honest thing for you to assume.
What is wrong
This is what I have seen them state this. I'm not assuming anything. I'm not assuming that they liked the game or didn't like the game, I'm not assuming there was anything else. I'm stating I have seen people on this board state many times that, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective'
That is what they've stated. I make no claims about anything else they may have liked or disliked about the game.
I'm not rejecting my own opinion. I'm stating they saw it as a gankfast and that the community policing was ineffective. I'm not making any other statements or assumptions.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating on this statement alone. many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
In fact you are making assumptions by stating what they would do if there were npc guards. We can't make that assumption accurately, their is not enough data.
Once again. No assumption. Many have stated they consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
Thats the only statement. Anything else is an assumption.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
This is a bit raw, but the sad truth. Anonymous + FFA PvP turns everyone into a bully.
This has to be either the stupidest thing ever said on a forum or a tacit admission to one's own nature. It is often those who cry wolf who are instead wolves in hiding waiting for the group to leave for them to reap their bloody tally.
I am in-game who I am in real life, I do not separate the two and believe it or not I am up front about who I am , who I really am, to those around me who care enough to know. The sociopaths or psychopaths are those amongst us who view something ethically evil (killing other beings for sheer amusement , be it sentient or not, torturing other beings, etc), it is the thrill of committing something forbidden which lures the more debased individuals to commit such acts... the weaker the will the stronger the push the stronger the pull, this is why some people, who are indeed barely restrained killers in real life, let loose with such gusto in-game... because they view it as something wrong to do and they do it for the satisfaction of doing it in a virtual world when in the real one they couldn't. To combat this simple fact you need to make it not wrong (in a way, do not complain, do not anger, do not retaliate against their violence) and enforce as much retribution as possible, rob them of the satisfaction and burn them in return (retaliation but of a cold and calculated way, rob them of their fun by ganking them back days or weeks after so they do not expect it, if they are truly psychopaths then they will retaliate in ever more instinctive ways and as a individual you need to see it coming and put it down decisively, once you do this you have won, if they are not psychopaths but instead merely frustrated individuals venting online they will either rage or simply say "good fight" and walk away giving you some measure of satisfaction and a measure of respect from him/her).
Sorry for the eyestrain.
@Venge: Kindly stop talking about EVE, I've been playing it since 2005 and while it wasn't much to look at it was a far better game than even WoW back then from a feature set stand point and what has happened since wasn't evolution but polishing that 05 core game and expanding upon it (if memory does not fail it's been 4-5 years since the last "true expansion" in a content sense because since Apocrypha content expansions have been focused on ships, equipment and iteration on existing items, that's pretty much it).
No it is accurate in game and real life based on my experiences. Maybe some of previous career choices have made me jaded.
No, that's how people talk. I don't have to tell you that what I say is my opinion, it's implied every time I talk. Again, the point of me reiterating my opinion like that is to point out that THEIR opinion isn't about players policing the game, their opinion was about the game being a gankfest. So then I say the above quote.
Also, you've ignored the parts about the other people's opinions. You're making the connection for them, and that's not necessarily accurate.
When people say, "Something is something" they are not presenting it as opinion, they are presenting it as fact.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the other people's opinion may be wrong.
Oh come on man, are you kidding? It's not that they're wrong, it's that they never said it. By saying UO is a gankfest, they're not saying anything about the policing aspect of the community. You are making that connection and THAT is the fallacy I initially referred to.
And again, that's not presenting it as a fact. If you look through posts here (or anywhere!) I guarantee there will be multiple instances of people doing the exact same thing because it's just how people talk.
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
If you wanna change it to people said it was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect sucked then that's another thing. But that's different from what you originally said. I definitely haven't seen it much at all. I've heard way more people arguing the opposite, that UO had a strong anti-pk player run community.
I still maintain you're basically just being too strict in your perspective about how people talk. And I think it's only because I pointed out your logical inconsistency so you wanted to have something to throw back at me. It's not unusual for people to talk the way I did, so it's weird that you brought it up. Especially considering I'm sure both you and myself have said similar things this very day, but you only bring it up when I point out your mistake.
This is what I originally stated"
"And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well."
Here I clearly state, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective"
This shows I have not changed what I stated.
I probably have said statements of opinion presented as fact at times. I try not to.
THIS IS WRONG. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately stubborn or what. You can't assume that one aspect of the game was the reason they didn't like it. You were talking about a player run system of policing rather than an npc guard system. I'm saying even if there were an npc guard that went on and tracked down the players and killed them or whatever it is they would do, those people may still consider UO to be a gankfest and would've quit. You're injecting your own opinion in when you say because they saw it as a gankfest, that means they weren't ok with the policing community. Also, it's possible that those people played before anti-pk guilds were around. It's just not an intellectually honest thing for you to assume.
What is wrong
This is what I have seen them state this. I'm not assuming anything. I'm not assuming that they liked the game or didn't like the game, I'm not assuming there was anything else. I'm stating I have seen people on this board state many times that, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective'
That is what they've stated. I make no claims about anything else they may have liked or disliked about the game.
I'm not rejecting my own opinion. I'm stating they saw it as a gankfast and that the community policing was ineffective. I'm not making any other statements or assumptions.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating on this statement alone. many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
In fact you are making assumptions by stating what they would do if there were npc guards. We can't make that assumption accurately, their is not enough data.
Once again. No assumption. Many have stated they consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
Thats the only statement. Anything else is an assumption.
LOL. No. NO. This statement is fallacious:
"many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective."
You're connecting the game being a gankfest to the person's judgement about anti-pk guilds. As I said before, even if the game took it upon itself to deal with murderers (aka npc guards), those same people may still think the game is a gankfest. So them saying that the game is a gankfest doesn't necessarily meanthat they disapprove of the community's ability to police themselves. ESPECIALLY considering a lot of people who say that thing (UO was a gankfest) may not have any first hand experience of the game, and even if they do, it may have been before the community developed the ability to police itself. So you are WRONG to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that means they feel the community can't police itself.
This is why you then changed it to "People said UO was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect was insufficient." You made that clarification because you know your example was insufficient without it. This is so stupid.
Show me where I assumed what they would do if npc guards were in town. I said they MAY do that. That's how discussions about logic work, guy. I don't have to prove that they may do something, you have to prove that they wouldn't. You're the one making the connection between believing UO was a gankfest and being unsatisfied with the community's ability to police itself. YOU'RE making that claim, you have to show that they wouldn't feel that way with npc guards. L2Logic.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread. ESPECIALLY you. I don't ignore points, you do. I've pointed out to you arguments that you've ignored from small posts so you couldn't have possibly missed them. I'm the one that's constantly having his points ignored. Show me what points I've ignored.
Your feelings are just hurt because I'm currently exposing how silly and stubborn you're being in our other discussion. For instance, in this particular instance, am I wrong in pointing out the lapse of logic? If I am, try and explain why. If I'm not wrong then why are you even responding to this post, if not being you're so obviously affected by our other discussion? Which is it?
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread.
How interesting...
Why? Do you disagree? When I respond to posts, I often parse it out point by point and don't delete anything, responding to everything. This website's quote feature is pretty awful so sometimes I can't do that, but I respond to each thing point-by-point. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things.
No that is not fallacious. People have stated that. They have stated the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. They have stated the game was a gankfest. They have stated the game was a gankfest AND the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
As I said before, even if the game took it upon itself to deal with murderers (aka npc guards), those same people may still think the game is a gankfest. Maybe, maybe not. That an assumption of which there is not enough information to make an informed decison.
them saying that the game is a gankfest doesn't necessarily meanthat they disapprove of the community's ability to police themselves. People have stated they dissaprove of the community's ability to police themselves.
ESPECIALLY considering a lot of people who say that thing (UO was a gankfest) may not have any first hand experience of the game, and even if they do, it may have been before the community developed the ability to police itself. So you are WRONG to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that means they feel the community can't police itself. I'm not assuming it. I'm stating what they have said.
This is why you then changed it to "People said UO was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect was insufficient." You made that clarification because you know your example was insufficient without it. This is so stupid.
I changed it becaues that is what people have said.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread. ESPECIALLY you. I don't ignore points, you do. I've pointed out to you arguments that you've ignored from small posts so you couldn't have possibly missed them. I'm the one that's constantly having his points ignored. Show me what points I've ignored.
Your feelings are just hurt because I'm currently exposing how silly and stubborn you're being in our other discussion. For instance, in this particular instance, am I wrong in pointing out the lapse of logic? If I am, try and explain why. If I'm not wrong then why are you even responding to this post, if not being you're so obviously affected by our other discussion? Which is it?
No. You make assumptions, you argue about things that were never said, you twist till it is not refelctive, ignore parts of arguments.
Yes you are wrong in pointing a lapse of logic, there was no lapse in logic, except on your part.
My feelings aren't hurt at all. Really, getting emotionally involved over statements about video games on an internet forum is kinda silly.
I'm responding because I'm engaged in the conversation. Not because I'm affected or emotionally involved in it.
See, there is another assumption on your part: I can only rspond if I'm affected. There are many many many reasons to be involved in a discussion.
Anyway - I'm done here. You have moved beyond arguing the topics or issues and have now resorted to personally attacking the posters, which is, as well all know (well maybe not you) the last resort of an unsuccessfull argument. So good luck playing.. er arguing with yourself. See you in another topic.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No that is not fallacious. People have stated that. They have stated the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. They have stated the game was a gankfest. They have stated the game was a gankfest AND the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
We're talking about your FIRST quote which said NOTHING about them stating the anti-pk guilds were effective. Once you changed it to them saying that (convenient), I said well that's a different story.
As I said before, even if the game took it upon itself to deal with murderers (aka npc guards), those same people may still think the game is a gankfest. Maybe, maybe not. That an assumption of which there is not enough information to make an informed decison.
What am I assuming? I said they MAY, not that they would. Like I explained (and you ignored), YOU have to prove they WOULDN'T say that if there were npc guards, I don't have to prove that they would. You're the one making the claim that because they said the game was a gankfest, that means they're unhappy with the community's ability to police itself. That's what you were saying with your FIRST quote, the one that didn't mention that they also are specifically disappointed with the self-policing.
them saying that the game is a gankfest doesn't necessarily meanthat they disapprove of the community's ability to police themselves. People have stated they dissaprove of the community's ability to police themselves.
ESPECIALLY considering a lot of people who say that thing (UO was a gankfest) may not have any first hand experience of the game, and even if they do, it may have been before the community developed the ability to police itself. So you are WRONG to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that means they feel the community can't police itself. I'm not assuming it. I'm stating what they have said.
You CHANGED THE QUOTE! Once you changed your quote I said that's a different story. I happen to think it's bullshit and I don't agree with it, but at least it's not a fallacy. At worst it's a lie, not a fallacy... ONCE YOU CHANGED THE QUOTE.
This is why you then changed it to "People said UO was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect was insufficient." You made that clarification because you know your example was insufficient without it. This is so stupid.
I changed it becaues that is what people have said.
You changed it because you know your first quote was insufficient. What do you mean you changed it because it's what people have said? They may have also said that their foot hurt that day, but that wouldn't be pertinent information. Them specifically saying that they disapproved of the self-policing ability of the community IS pertinent to the conversation, because without it, your first quote was fallacious.
STOP THIS STUPID SILLY NONSENSE!!! STOP BEING STUBBORN AND ADMIT YOU MADE A MISTAKE!
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread.
How interesting...
Why? Do you disagree? When I respond to posts, I often parse it out point by point and don't delete anything, responding to everything. This website's quote feature is pretty awful so sometimes I can't do that, but I respond to each thing point-by-point. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things.
See? By that one tiny phrase you 'assume' it was about one thing. One could also insinuate that (by the specific part I quoted) you believe yourself more thorough in a debate than the rest of us that have posted in this thread.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread. ESPECIALLY you. I don't ignore points, you do. I've pointed out to you arguments that you've ignored from small posts so you couldn't have possibly missed them. I'm the one that's constantly having his points ignored. Show me what points I've ignored.
Your feelings are just hurt because I'm currently exposing how silly and stubborn you're being in our other discussion. For instance, in this particular instance, am I wrong in pointing out the lapse of logic? If I am, try and explain why. If I'm not wrong then why are you even responding to this post, if not being you're so obviously affected by our other discussion? Which is it?
No. You make assumptions, you argue about things that were never said, you twist till it is not refelctive, ignore parts of arguments.
Yes you are wrong in pointing a lapse of logic, there was no lapse in logic, except on your part.
My feelings aren't hurt at all. Really, getting emotionally involved over statements about video games on an internet forum is kinda silly.
I'm responding because I'm engaged in the conversation. Not because I'm affected or emotionally involved in it.
See, there is another assumption on your part: I can only rspond if I'm affected. There are many many many reasons to be involved in a discussion.
Anyway - I'm done here. You have moved beyond arguing the topics or issues and have now resorted to personally attacking the posters, which is, as well all know (well maybe not you) the last resort of an unsuccessfull argument. So good luck playing.. er arguing with yourself. See you in another topic.
I didn't assume that the only way you could respond is if you're affected. I made a logical deduction based on the things you've said. That's not an assumption, that's an assessment of the situation. Do I have to tell you the difference? I probably do, but I'm not gonna waste my time on you. It takes several volleys back and forth to explain BASIC LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES to you and you still don't admit it when the answer is literally laid out to you in a form that a child could understand... I'm not doing it again.
If I'm personally attacking you it's because you're being deliberately stubborn. That doesn't mean I've lost anything. I've showed you clear as day the error in your logic, and you simply WILL NOT concede the point because you're being stubborn.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread.
How interesting...
Why? Do you disagree? When I respond to posts, I often parse it out point by point and don't delete anything, responding to everything. This website's quote feature is pretty awful so sometimes I can't do that, but I respond to each thing point-by-point. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things.
See? By that one tiny phrase you 'assume' it was about one thing. One could also insinuate that (by the specific part I quoted) you believe yourself more thorough in a debate than the rest of us that have posted in this thread.
So, is your statement fact or assumption?
LOL Dude, I ASKED you why. What do you mean I assumed it was about one thing? You said a cryptic phrase that is often meant to be a passive aggressive way of disagreeing. However, I didn't jump to any conclusions, I asked why and then elaborated on my reasoning, offering you the chance to disagree but telling you that I'd want examples of where I was wrong. What's wrong with that reasoning?
To answer your question: Yes, I believe I'm (far) more thorough in a debate than almost everybody I've argued with in this thread. Basically every argument I've had has been filled with people ignoring my points, insulting my playstyle in games (which they don't know anything about), logical fallacies, etc.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread. ESPECIALLY you. I don't ignore points, you do. I've pointed out to you arguments that you've ignored from small posts so you couldn't have possibly missed them. I'm the one that's constantly having his points ignored. Show me what points I've ignored.
Your feelings are just hurt because I'm currently exposing how silly and stubborn you're being in our other discussion. For instance, in this particular instance, am I wrong in pointing out the lapse of logic? If I am, try and explain why. If I'm not wrong then why are you even responding to this post, if not being you're so obviously affected by our other discussion? Which is it?
No. You make assumptions, you argue about things that were never said, you twist till it is not refelctive, ignore parts of arguments.
Yes you are wrong in pointing a lapse of logic, there was no lapse in logic, except on your part.
My feelings aren't hurt at all. Really, getting emotionally involved over statements about video games on an internet forum is kinda silly.
I'm responding because I'm engaged in the conversation. Not because I'm affected or emotionally involved in it.
See, there is another assumption on your part: I can only rspond if I'm affected. There are many many many reasons to be involved in a discussion.
Anyway - I'm done here. You have moved beyond arguing the topics or issues and have now resorted to personally attacking the posters, which is, as well all know (well maybe not you) the last resort of an unsuccessfull argument. So good luck playing.. er arguing with yourself. See you in another topic.
I didn't assume that the only way you could respond is if you're affected. I made a logical deduction based on the things you've said. That's not an assumption, that's an assessment of the situation. Do I have to tell you the difference? I probably do, but I'm not gonna waste my time on you. It takes several volleys back and forth to explain BASIC LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES to you and you still don't admit it when the answer is literally laid out to you in a form that a child could understand... I'm not doing it again.
If I'm personally attacking you it's because you're being deliberately stubborn. That doesn't mean I've lost anything. I've showed you clear as day the error in your logic, and you simply WILL NOT concede the point because you're being stubborn.
Or because you are just flat out wrong. Obviously your idea of logic and my idea of logic are very different. You haven't pointed out any logical inconsistenices, only areas that you think are logical inconsistencies, which is very wrong.
Darn it, sucked in again. Now I'm out.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I'm not making any connections. I"m repeating what people on these boards have stated. I have seen many many times people have stated that UO was a gankfest AND that the policing that was done was ineffective. They are stating that as fact (rightly or wrongly). People have stated those very words, that very sentance on these boards many many times.
They are representing that as fact.
It is how people talk, and people are incorrect in talking that way. Saying something is a certain way is not a statement of opinoin, it is a statement of fact and is usually wrong.
People should really have first hand experience of what they're talking about...
If you wanna change it to people said it was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect sucked then that's another thing. But that's different from what you originally said. I definitely haven't seen it much at all. I've heard way more people arguing the opposite, that UO had a strong anti-pk player run community.
I still maintain you're basically just being too strict in your perspective about how people talk. And I think it's only because I pointed out your logical inconsistency so you wanted to have something to throw back at me. It's not unusual for people to talk the way I did, so it's weird that you brought it up. Especially considering I'm sure both you and myself have said similar things this very day, but you only bring it up when I point out your mistake.
This is what I originally stated"
"And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well."
Here I clearly state, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective"
This shows I have not changed what I stated.
I probably have said statements of opinion presented as fact at times. I try not to.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't need to have first hand experience in order to see what people have said.
I only need to have first hand experience to make up my own mind about it. Which still doesn't change what people have said.
I call BS on the statement in blue because of the bits in read. You are pro-PvP, to use your idiom, grow balls and admit it.
THIS IS WRONG. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately stubborn or what. You can't assume that one aspect of the game was the reason they didn't like it. You were talking about a player run system of policing rather than an npc guard system. I'm saying even if there were an npc guard that went on and tracked down the players and killed them or whatever it is they would do, those people may still consider UO to be a gankfest and would've quit. You're injecting your own opinion in when you say because they saw it as a gankfest, that means they weren't ok with the policing community. Also, it's possible that those people played before anti-pk guilds were around. It's just not an intellectually honest thing for you to assume.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
What is wrong
This is what I have seen them state this. I'm not assuming anything. I'm not assuming that they liked the game or didn't like the game, I'm not assuming there was anything else. I'm stating I have seen people on this board state many times that, "many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective'
That is what they've stated. I make no claims about anything else they may have liked or disliked about the game.
I'm not rejecting my own opinion. I'm stating they saw it as a gankfast and that the community policing was ineffective. I'm not making any other statements or assumptions.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating on this statement alone. many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
In fact you are making assumptions by stating what they would do if there were npc guards. We can't make that assumption accurately, their is not enough data.
Once again. No assumption. Many have stated they consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
Thats the only statement. Anything else is an assumption.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
No it is accurate in game and real life based on my experiences. Maybe some of previous career choices have made me jaded.
LOL. No. NO. This statement is fallacious:
"many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective."
You're connecting the game being a gankfest to the person's judgement about anti-pk guilds. As I said before, even if the game took it upon itself to deal with murderers (aka npc guards), those same people may still think the game is a gankfest. So them saying that the game is a gankfest doesn't necessarily meanthat they disapprove of the community's ability to police themselves. ESPECIALLY considering a lot of people who say that thing (UO was a gankfest) may not have any first hand experience of the game, and even if they do, it may have been before the community developed the ability to police itself. So you are WRONG to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that means they feel the community can't police itself.
This is why you then changed it to "People said UO was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect was insufficient." You made that clarification because you know your example was insufficient without it. This is so stupid.
Show me where I assumed what they would do if npc guards were in town. I said they MAY do that. That's how discussions about logic work, guy. I don't have to prove that they may do something, you have to prove that they wouldn't. You're the one making the connection between believing UO was a gankfest and being unsatisfied with the community's ability to police itself. YOU'RE making that claim, you have to show that they wouldn't feel that way with npc guards. L2Logic.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread. ESPECIALLY you. I don't ignore points, you do. I've pointed out to you arguments that you've ignored from small posts so you couldn't have possibly missed them. I'm the one that's constantly having his points ignored. Show me what points I've ignored.
Your feelings are just hurt because I'm currently exposing how silly and stubborn you're being in our other discussion. For instance, in this particular instance, am I wrong in pointing out the lapse of logic? If I am, try and explain why. If I'm not wrong then why are you even responding to this post, if not being you're so obviously affected by our other discussion? Which is it?
How interesting...
Why? Do you disagree? When I respond to posts, I often parse it out point by point and don't delete anything, responding to everything. This website's quote feature is pretty awful so sometimes I can't do that, but I respond to each thing point-by-point. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things.
No that is not fallacious. People have stated that. They have stated the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. They have stated the game was a gankfest. They have stated the game was a gankfest AND the anti-pk guilds were ineffective.
As I said before, even if the game took it upon itself to deal with murderers (aka npc guards), those same people may still think the game is a gankfest. Maybe, maybe not. That an assumption of which there is not enough information to make an informed decison.
them saying that the game is a gankfest doesn't necessarily meanthat they disapprove of the community's ability to police themselves. People have stated they dissaprove of the community's ability to police themselves.
ESPECIALLY considering a lot of people who say that thing (UO was a gankfest) may not have any first hand experience of the game, and even if they do, it may have been before the community developed the ability to police itself. So you are WRONG to assume that because they think it's a gankfest, that means they feel the community can't police itself. I'm not assuming it. I'm stating what they have said.
This is why you then changed it to "People said UO was a gankfest AND that the policing aspect was insufficient." You made that clarification because you know your example was insufficient without it. This is so stupid.
I changed it becaues that is what people have said.
No. You make assumptions, you argue about things that were never said, you twist till it is not refelctive, ignore parts of arguments.
Yes you are wrong in pointing a lapse of logic, there was no lapse in logic, except on your part.
My feelings aren't hurt at all. Really, getting emotionally involved over statements about video games on an internet forum is kinda silly.
I'm responding because I'm engaged in the conversation. Not because I'm affected or emotionally involved in it.
See, there is another assumption on your part: I can only rspond if I'm affected. There are many many many reasons to be involved in a discussion.
Anyway - I'm done here. You have moved beyond arguing the topics or issues and have now resorted to personally attacking the posters, which is, as well all know (well maybe not you) the last resort of an unsuccessfull argument. So good luck playing.. er arguing with yourself. See you in another topic.
We're talking about your FIRST quote which said NOTHING about them stating the anti-pk guilds were effective. Once you changed it to them saying that (convenient), I said well that's a different story.
What am I assuming? I said they MAY, not that they would. Like I explained (and you ignored), YOU have to prove they WOULDN'T say that if there were npc guards, I don't have to prove that they would. You're the one making the claim that because they said the game was a gankfest, that means they're unhappy with the community's ability to police itself. That's what you were saying with your FIRST quote, the one that didn't mention that they also are specifically disappointed with the self-policing.
You CHANGED THE QUOTE! Once you changed your quote I said that's a different story. I happen to think it's bullshit and I don't agree with it, but at least it's not a fallacy. At worst it's a lie, not a fallacy... ONCE YOU CHANGED THE QUOTE.
You changed it because you know your first quote was insufficient. What do you mean you changed it because it's what people have said? They may have also said that their foot hurt that day, but that wouldn't be pertinent information. Them specifically saying that they disapproved of the self-policing ability of the community IS pertinent to the conversation, because without it, your first quote was fallacious.
STOP THIS STUPID SILLY NONSENSE!!! STOP BEING STUBBORN AND ADMIT YOU MADE A MISTAKE!
See? By that one tiny phrase you 'assume' it was about one thing. One could also insinuate that (by the specific part I quoted) you believe yourself more thorough in a debate than the rest of us that have posted in this thread.
So, is your statement fact or assumption?
I didn't assume that the only way you could respond is if you're affected. I made a logical deduction based on the things you've said. That's not an assumption, that's an assessment of the situation. Do I have to tell you the difference? I probably do, but I'm not gonna waste my time on you. It takes several volleys back and forth to explain BASIC LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES to you and you still don't admit it when the answer is literally laid out to you in a form that a child could understand... I'm not doing it again.
If I'm personally attacking you it's because you're being deliberately stubborn. That doesn't mean I've lost anything. I've showed you clear as day the error in your logic, and you simply WILL NOT concede the point because you're being stubborn.
LOL Dude, I ASKED you why. What do you mean I assumed it was about one thing? You said a cryptic phrase that is often meant to be a passive aggressive way of disagreeing. However, I didn't jump to any conclusions, I asked why and then elaborated on my reasoning, offering you the chance to disagree but telling you that I'd want examples of where I was wrong. What's wrong with that reasoning?
To answer your question: Yes, I believe I'm (far) more thorough in a debate than almost everybody I've argued with in this thread. Basically every argument I've had has been filled with people ignoring my points, insulting my playstyle in games (which they don't know anything about), logical fallacies, etc.
Or because you are just flat out wrong. Obviously your idea of logic and my idea of logic are very different. You haven't pointed out any logical inconsistenices, only areas that you think are logical inconsistencies, which is very wrong.
Darn it, sucked in again. Now I'm out.