The Nine Voices Of The Star Citizen Debate.

MaxBacon

BeansnBread said:

The irony in your post is amazing.

Yeah keep telling yourself that. The only reason several posters here keep pushing it is because Vikingir does NOT share their bias tone in the SC discussion.

There's nothing else to it, you admit or not.

People here will not call out someone who shares their bias, and the SC forum on this site is the quite the proof of it.

FlyByKnight

The many ironies of this thread are incredible.

It helps me see how the US is in the position it's in right now, when folks live in such a bubble they can't even see when they've become a parody of themselves. The only option they seem  to have is to circle wagons and put the reasonable as their polar opposite.

We sure CIG/Star Citizen doesn't have any ties back to L. Ron Hubbard?

MaxBacon

FlyByKnight said:

The many ironies of this thread are incredible.

Like the mention of the group of posters involved in this specific discussion (of the 20k) that have one one-sided and constant (if not fully) negative narrative in the SC topic, being painted on reasonable and neutrality stands.

When someone wants to claim neutrality, they should jab in both sides of the spectrum, not just one of them.

BeansnBread

MaxBacon said:

FlyByKnight said:

The many ironies of this thread are incredible.

Like the mention of the group of posters involved in this specific discussion (of the 20k) all have one one-sided and constant (if not fully) negative narrative in the SC topic, being painted of reasonable and neutrality stands.

When someone wants to claim neutrality, they should jab in both sides of the spectrum, not just one of them.

Whoa, what kind of a person would claim neutrality? This project is a mess.

craftseeker

Slapshot1188 said:

I originally took the chart as a bit of good natured fun...  the more I see the responses the more I realize how accurate it is...

The interesting thing is that the chart includes 'shills' which, it seems to me, is a tacit admission that SA use shills on forums like these.

Kyleran

craftseeker said:

Slapshot1188 said:

I originally took the chart as a bit of good natured fun...  the more I see the responses the more I realize how accurate it is...

The interesting thing is that the chart includes 'shills' which, it seems to me, is a tacit admission that SA use shills on forums like these.

I'd say they are on the troll side of the chart, as they are shilling negativity, maybe even for a profit, who knows?

Kyleran

MaxBacon said:

FlyByKnight said:

The many ironies of this thread are incredible.

Like the mention of the group of posters involved in this specific discussion (of the 20k) that have one one-sided and constant (if not fully) negative narrative in the SC topic, being painted on reasonable and neutrality stands.

When someone wants to claim neutrality, they should jab in both sides of the spectrum, not just one of them.

You know, if both you and them stayed on topic, discussion of the chart in question instead of going off into the weeds then the entire narrative never takes place.

craftseeker

Kyleran said:

craftseeker said:

Slapshot1188 said:

I originally took the chart as a bit of good natured fun...  the more I see the responses the more I realize how accurate it is...

The interesting thing is that the chart includes 'shills' which, it seems to me, is a tacit admission that SA use shills on forums like these.

I'd say they are on the troll side of the chart, as they are shilling negativity, maybe even for a profit, who knows?

But that is not where SA put them. Their chart after all, and it's not as if we don't have a contender on the 'fan' side.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

BeansnBread said:

I think Max keeps talking about how people are trying to humiliate him, but dude... $18,000+? There is a certain level of humiliation that should take place in my opinion.

If you want turn discussions into a circle-jerk to humiliate and laugh at other posters, sure.
I still find people who do that despicable.

But don't mind me, this just shows the true nature of some of the posters here and what type of persons they are with this intentional nitpicking brought up and pursuing of this that is meant to break another poster on something that it's pretty much none of you guys business in my opinion.

Waah waah waah cry me a river. People laugh at things that people say or do all the fricking time. This holier than thou attitude is so pretentious. You're just whiteknighting for one of the gang...

You would probably laugh if you walked into your MacDonalds and saw someone paying $1000 for a $1 burger, you'd be like "Lol, WTF are you doing dude!?" just like practically everybody else. It's not really any different in this situation.

Someone needs to do a limited run of T-Shirts for the SC crowd, printed with something like "I spent $20,000 on Star Citizen and all I got was this lousy jpeg."

Forgrimm

Skeptic/Agnostic.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Waah waah waah cry me a river. People laugh at things that people say or do all the fricking time. This holier than thou attitude is so pretentious. You're just whiteknighting for one of the gang...

Now it's crying me a river? But when it happens on the other side of the spectrum you play all offended and report, gg!

And this my friend, proves the bias I was talking about being the driver of why several posters had a go at him in the first place. As I said if the user shares the overall toned negative narrative on the SC topic the call outs will not happen.

lol

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Waah waah waah cry me a river. People laugh at things that people say or do all the fricking time. This holier than thou attitude is so pretentious. You're just whiteknighting for one of the gang...

Now it's crying me a river? But when it happens on the other side of the spectrum you play all offended and report.

And this my friend, proves the bias I was talking about being the driver of why several posters had a go at him in the first place. As I said if the user shares the overall toned negative narrative on the SC topic the call outs will not happen.

If anyone plays offended it is only when you have been repeatedly asked to stop in a polite manner and you refuse to do so. I seem to recall a post from Cotic saying he wouldn't say anything more about it, and then you started off this massive merry-go-round while being exceedingly judgemental of people who you claimed were being judgemental.

No doubt you'll start with the usual "Waah you stop attacking me" bullcrap you're famous for.

If would be nice if you could just put your pacifier back in and let the topic return to what it's meant to be about instead of derailing it all the time.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

If anyone plays offended it is only when you have been repeatedly asked to stop in a polite manner and you refuse to do so. I seem to recall a post from Cotic saying he wouldn't say anything more about it, and then you started off this massive merry-go-round while being exceedingly judgemental of people who you claimed were being judgemental.

No doubt you'll start with the usual "Waah you stop attacking me" bullcrap you're famous for.

If would be nice if you could just put your pacifier back in and let the topic return to what it's meant to be about instead of derailing it all the time.

I stopped talking to him as he asked, I just responded to the other posters further baiting the question, like Kefo. The discussion only continued because the messed up morals and standards that were given to continue to instigate and legitimate that discussion.

.edit, Your "wah stop attacking me" is of the highest hypocrisy, how many times you reported me after manipulating a discussion, if I say something in the same tone as you just did to me, you'll just run to the moderators reporting me.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

If anyone plays offended it is only when you have been repeatedly asked to stop in a polite manner and you refuse to do so. I seem to recall a post from Cotic saying he wouldn't say anything more about it, and then you started off this massive merry-go-round while being exceedingly judgemental of people who you claimed were being judgemental.

No doubt you'll start with the usual "Waah you stop attacking me" bullcrap you're famous for.

If would be nice if you could just put your pacifier back in and let the topic return to what it's meant to be about instead of derailing it all the time.

I stopped talking to him as he asked, I just responded to the other posters further baiting the question, like Kefo.

This quickly had turned into a game of making judgments on each other, when some did it with me I simply responded in the same coin.

But you are berating people for talking about someone while encouraging the discussion contines. Vikingr asked for it to stop

We've gone over this in other threads before, if there is no one to argue against then there is no argument to be had.  That's all I'm saying.

LynxJSA

I guess I fall into the "skeptic" category. Interesting chart.  

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

FlyByKnight said:

The many ironies of this thread are incredible.

Like the mention of the group of posters involved in this specific discussion (of the 20k) that have one one-sided and constant (if not fully) negative narrative in the SC topic, being painted on reasonable and neutrality stands.

When someone wants to claim neutrality, they should jab in both sides of the spectrum, not just one of them.

You know FlyByKnight's post was being neutral right? Didn't mention any side and just the ironies in the thread,so both sides. Yet you turn it into a one sided argument and really show off your bias in the process.

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

If anyone plays offended it is only when you have been repeatedly asked to stop in a polite manner and you refuse to do so. I seem to recall a post from Cotic saying he wouldn't say anything more about it, and then you started off this massive merry-go-round while being exceedingly judgemental of people who you claimed were being judgemental.

No doubt you'll start with the usual "Waah you stop attacking me" bullcrap you're famous for.

If would be nice if you could just put your pacifier back in and let the topic return to what it's meant to be about instead of derailing it all the time.

I stopped talking to him as he asked, I just responded to the other posters further baiting the question, like Kefo. The discussion only continued because the messed up morals and standards that were given to continue to instigate and legitimate that discussion.

.edit, Your "wah stop attacking me" is of the highest hypocrisy, how many times you reported me after manipulating a discussion, if I say something in the same tone as you just did to me, you'll just run to the moderators reporting me.

I was baiting? I didn't realize asking for clarification or pointing out the obvious was baiting. I think you're starting to make sense to me now and the way you post

MaxBacon

Kefo said:
I was baiting? I didn't realize asking for clarification or pointing out the obvious was baiting. I think you're starting to make sense to me now and the way you post

You baited, and yes, the discussion further < (that), I was talking to him (Cotic) and you jumped right in the middle of it.

See? Easy.

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:
I was baiting? I didn't realize asking for clarification or pointing out the obvious was baiting. I think you're starting to make sense to me now and the way you post

You baited, and yes, the discussion further < (that), I was talking to him (Cotic) and you jumped right in the middle of it.

See? Easy.

I said and I quote "lol love it when someone is shown proof of what they said and they still try to play the victim."

that isnt baiting but pointing out the obvious.

also you weren't part of the reply chain anywhere so no you weren't talking to Cotic and I jumped in the middle of it unless you're telling me your Vikingir. I started responding when you responded to me and we went from there. Congrats on trying to rewrite history that happened 4 pages ago

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

You know FlyByKnight's post was being neutral right? Didn't mention any side and just the ironies in the thread,so both sides. Yet you turn it into a one sided argument and really show off your bias in the process.

Yes, and I actually did that post to prove my previous point, now thanks to you.

As I do have one different narrative and views on SC as you, you will quote me like that to call me out on it. But you will never call out someone else if they do share your bias.

Is exactly what I was pointing, this whole situation only happened in the first place because the other guy does not share the bias tone in the SC discussion as the ones who called him out, not because what he did or what he said.

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

You know FlyByKnight's post was being neutral right? Didn't mention any side and just the ironies in the thread,so both sides. Yet you turn it into a one sided argument and really show off your bias in the process.

Yes, and I actually did that post to prove my previous point, now thanks to you.

As I do have one different narrative and views on SC as you, you will quote me like that to call me out on it. But you will never call out someone else if they do share your bias.

Is exactly what I was pointing, this whole situation only happened in the first place because the other guy does not share the bias tone in the SC discussion as the ones who called him out, not because what he did or what he said.

I really doubt you did it to prove your point. What probably happened is you did it without realizing what you were doing and are now trying to save face.

No I wouldn't call out someone who shares my bias just like you wouldn't either so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.

If you're going to talk about the evil bias of SC discussions then you should try and be a neutral party yourself otherwise it just comes across as hypocrisy.

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

I really doubt you did it to prove your point. What probably happened is you did it without realizing what you were doing and are now trying to save face.

No I wouldn't call out someone who shares my bias just like you wouldn't either so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.

If you're going to talk about the evil bias of SC discussions then you should try and be a neutral party yourself otherwise it just comes across as hypocrisy.

lol, whatever you say, man, whatever you say, this whole cheap morality is the point when trying to make judgments on other like that being driven by the bias, not from the situation at hand.

No, I can't, this forum is by extremes and you'll gladly extremize me for the sake to "put me in place", especially when I said I was mixing in skeptical in my belief of what I see the game end up being.  I'm not a neutral party as I am a fan but I also know how to manage expectations, however, in the light of people like you is some sort of all or nothing where untruthful judgments are made about what I think and how I view things.

It's far more possible to achieve neutral discussions of both the good or the bad directly within convos with other backers, inside orgs, etc... because it excludes things like trolling, agendas, sensationalism or baiting, being far more easy to talk things in ways that will never be possible here, or on Reddit or any sort of public-facing communities of relevant scale.

kikoodutroa8

I think it's time for you guys to take a break from the forum and go have fun playing Star Citizen!!!

Kyleran

What would really be interesting is to compare how people rate themselves vs how others on the forum perceive them.

I've seen folks placing themselves far closer to the middle ground than I would agree with, perhaps the same is true for me as well. 

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

I really doubt you did it to prove your point. What probably happened is you did it without realizing what you were doing and are now trying to save face.

No I wouldn't call out someone who shares my bias just like you wouldn't either so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.

If you're going to talk about the evil bias of SC discussions then you should try and be a neutral party yourself otherwise it just comes across as hypocrisy.

lol, whatever you say, man, whatever you say, this whole cheap morality is the point when trying to make judgments on other like that being driven by the bias, not from the situation at hand.

No, I can't, this forum is by extremes and you'll gladly extremize me for the sake to "put me in place", especially when I said I was mixing in skeptical in my belief of what I see the game end up being.  I'm not a neutral party as I am a fan but I also know how to manage expectations, however, in the light of people like you is some sort of all or nothing where untruthful judgments are made about what I think and how I view things.

It's far more possible to achieve neutral discussions of both the good or the bad directly within convos with other backers, inside orgs, etc... because it excludes things like trolling, agendas, sensationalism or baiting, being far more easy to talk things in ways that will never be possible here, or on Reddit or any sort of public-facing communities of relevant scale.

im not trying to put you in any place. I'm just pointing out how I see things and if you want me to sugar coat things so your feelings aren't hurt well sorry that's not me. 

If you don't want me to point out where your tripping up like in my other post where you tried to rewrite history then you should take more care with what you post.

and of course you're going to have nicer discussions with other backers and there won't be trolling or baiting, did you just forget what you wrote about people and their bias?