Embers Adrift Worldbreaker Stress Test Happening August 13th, and is Open for Signups | MMORPG.com

Uwakionna

The tragedy is calling words you learn when you're a kid who hasn't even hit high school "big words".

Do you have anything of merit to put in? Even I've still talked about the actual subject of the thread, while you continue to just make a clown of yourself.

Iselin

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov

“Twitter Is Twitter the ultimate Mythos medium? Writing too hard for you? Analysis too hard for you? No need to worry. Now you can say it all in 140 characters, roughly reflecting the size of your vocabulary, knowledge and brain. Twitter is successful because 140 characters corresponds to the typical size of a meme: a single idea that can shoot off into the Darwinian meme pool and be naturally selected by all the jostling Mythos meme machines (Twitterati, or Twits, to you and me). Don’t you just love it? This is dumbing down with go-faster stripes and turbo engines. Maybe we can reach the ultimate Tweet: zero characters and a complete flatline of human mental activity.”
― Joe Dixon, Dumbocalypse Now: The First Dunning-Kruger President

Uwakionna

Well you are the one that seems to think the advised writing standards are too high-brow at an 8th grade reading level.

KnightFalz

worldsbestdad said:

"Why are you talking like this? It's ridiculous." sums it up.

I find your bloated and lingering critique of Uwakionna's word choice ridiculous. I was unfamiliar with one word out of bunch you singled out and it took but a moment to find the definition.

I understand the need for constraint in word choice when you can't be sure definitions of less commonly used words are within reach. However, anyone reading an online forum has easy access to numerous dictionaries at their whim.

It's not the big issue you're making it out to be, and if a few extend their vocabulary by looking up the less commonly used words in those posts it's not a tragic outcome.

Uwakionna

Several problems exist with your argument, world. The first problem being that in the discussion I was having with Falz, we were both using the same kind of writing and words. Neither of us were talking down to each other in doing so.

Yet you have singled me out, which is curious.

On top of that, you were the one to make it about words. You're also the one that seems to be mistaking 6th-8th grade words as something greater. At the same time, you're also the one to first and repeatedly talk down to others with personal attacks.

I'd love to hear @Kyleran make an honest weigh in on what value he actually sees in your behavior and the argument you've made. Because the fact is, even the writing standards Kyleran linked do not support your position, they literally outline 7-8th grade writing standards. Which we can look up and compare to find all but one word fall into said standards, as well as sentence structure/length.

This isn't "advanced" anything. It's the literal norm for preteens/kids.

Yet here you are pretending to be upset by such words, and for what reason?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Scot

Slapshot1188 said:

Scot said:

The thread has already been edited by a moderator:

Keep Calm and Carry on Posting.

So Scot... are you interested in the Striker class or one of the others?

I never count a game down and out until after the reviews, but this one is not exactly grabbing me.

lahnmir

I hate stealth edited threads…. It was in good fun and shut down a derailing, very anal, back and forth. I deserve a special title for posts like these, not find them removed 

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

olepi

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Slapshot1188

Scot said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Scot said:

The thread has already been edited by a moderator:

Keep Calm and Carry on Posting.

So Scot... are you interested in the Striker class or one of the others?

I never count a game down and out until after the reviews, but this one is not exactly grabbing me.

I now but I figured that was better than reading the prior 30 posts about language.

Slapshot1188

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

Scot

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

If you speak to 4th grade you are going to resonate with a bigger audience than 11th, that has to be a factor.

TheDalaiBomba

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

KnightFalz said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

Heh. We've all done some of that.

We are all experts on what we personally consider stupid and declaring so about our own actions is our prerogative.

Considering those of others to be stupid is indicative of intolerance of their contrasting views of what they personally feel stupid more often than not.

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. It is abundant nonetheless.

Encouraging a free "marketplace of ideas" does not instantly make all ideas valuable.  Indeed, the entire point is that society would discard the ideas it feels are "stupid."

 Declaring what people may or not value is not needed to accomplish that and is in fact counter-productive to advancement.

No, it isn't.

Nobody is declaring what "may or may not" be valued, they're declaring their opinions on what's valuable to them.  If society agrees in aggregate, then that idea retains value to that society.  If not, society will likely discard or, at most, simply accept its existence in a small subgroup within itself.

The easy example is the idea people have that they or someone they know has been abducted by aliens.  The idea aliens have be secretly abducting us for decades, if not centuries, is an idea that isn't valued by many in society.  That's why we don't have a law in America called the Extra-Terrestrial Alien Abduction Defense Act of 1973 to defend our citizens against such a gross injury of personal rights by.... Aliens.

olepi

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

I ran uwakionna's text through this:

https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php

The consensus there was it was somewhat hard to read, around the 9th grade level or a bit higher.

olepi

TheDalaiBomba said:

The easy example is the idea people have that they or someone they know has been abducted by aliens.  The idea aliens have be secretly abducting us for decades, if not centuries, is an idea that isn't valued by many in society.  That's why we don't have a law in America called the Extra-Terrestrial Alien Abduction Defense Act of 1973 to defend our citizens against such a gross injury of personal rights by.... Aliens.

Well, actually, the idea that we've been interacting with (aliens/demons/etc) is very old. And widely held. See: Incubus.

And yes, there were laws, and many people burned as witches. I'll bet the Catholic Church still has laws on the books about it.

TheDalaiBomba

olepi said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

The easy example is the idea people have that they or someone they know has been abducted by aliens.  The idea aliens have be secretly abducting us for decades, if not centuries, is an idea that isn't valued by many in society.  That's why we don't have a law in America called the Extra-Terrestrial Alien Abduction Defense Act of 1973 to defend our citizens against such a gross injury of personal rights by.... Aliens.

Well, actually, the idea that we've been interacting with (aliens/demons/etc) is very old. And widely held. See: Incubus.

And yes, there were laws, and many people burned as witches. I'll bet the Catholic Church still has laws on the books about it.

You're conflating religious belief with the very clear segment of society today that believes actual extra-terrestrials (not spiritual beings or religious personas) visited them or someone they knew, removed them from the planet to perform tests, then re-deposited them back onto the planet without any verifiable evidence.

And I'm honestly not sure why.  But your post does highlight how even entire societies can value ideas/beliefs that hold zero supporting evidence, which is the flaw in the marketplace of ideas philosophy.

Uwakionna

olepi said:

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

I ran uwakionna's text through this:

https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php

The consensus there was it was somewhat hard to read, around the 9th grade level or a bit higher.

Testing it against several things I would note;

The person I was discussing with previously, scored an average of 11th grade level with "fairly difficult" and "hard" scores.

Your above quoted post, scores up into 9th grade level as well though it does read at a "normal" difficulty instead.

Using a tool like this gives estimates. It does not ascribe who the target is, what the subject was, or the actual intent of a message.

Should I assume the person I was talking with was intentionally trying to make their comments cryptic at an 11th grade level and hard to read scoring? Not really. Where they may have a motive, it can also be just a person reaching for the familiar in their own expression, not a guided or tailored speech targeting anything in particular.

How often do you expect a post in a forum like this to be entirely curated and crafted with target audiences in mind, as opposed to bordering much more closely to "thought vomit"?

olepi

Uwakionna said:

olepi said:

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

I ran uwakionna's text through this:

https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php

The consensus there was it was somewhat hard to read, around the 9th grade level or a bit higher.

Testing it against several things I would note;

The person I was discussing with previously, scored an average of 11th grade level with "fairly difficult" and "hard" scores.

Your above quoted post, scores up into 9th grade level as well though it does read at a "normal" difficulty instead.

Using a tool like this gives estimates. It does not ascribe who the target is, what the subject was, or the actual intent of a message.

Should I assume the person I was talking with was intentionally trying to make their comments cryptic at an 11th grade level and hard to read scoring? Not really. Where they may have a motive, it can also be just a person reaching for the familiar in their own expression, not a guided or tailored speech targeting anything in particular.

How often do you expect a post in a forum like this to be entirely curated and crafted with target audiences in mind, as opposed to bordering much more closely to "thought vomit"?

I think that a lot of the discussion here is curated towards people who play MMO's and games in general. Terms are used that the general public probably doesn't understand and never heard before.

There does seem to be a lot of people with technical knowledge here too. Chip designers, software engineers, etc. Again, using terms that the general public probably isn't that familiar with.

I don't see that much thought vomit here, to be honest. That's a positive.

Slapshot1188

olepi said:

I don't see that much thought vomit here, to be honest. That's a positive.

You skip my posts?   I'm insulted!

Uwakionna

olepi said:

Uwakionna said:

olepi said:

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

I ran uwakionna's text through this:

https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php

The consensus there was it was somewhat hard to read, around the 9th grade level or a bit higher.

Testing it against several things I would note;

The person I was discussing with previously, scored an average of 11th grade level with "fairly difficult" and "hard" scores.

Your above quoted post, scores up into 9th grade level as well though it does read at a "normal" difficulty instead.

Using a tool like this gives estimates. It does not ascribe who the target is, what the subject was, or the actual intent of a message.

Should I assume the person I was talking with was intentionally trying to make their comments cryptic at an 11th grade level and hard to read scoring? Not really. Where they may have a motive, it can also be just a person reaching for the familiar in their own expression, not a guided or tailored speech targeting anything in particular.

How often do you expect a post in a forum like this to be entirely curated and crafted with target audiences in mind, as opposed to bordering much more closely to "thought vomit"?

I think that a lot of the discussion here is curated towards people who play MMO's and games in general. Terms are used that the general public probably doesn't understand and never heard before.

There does seem to be a lot of people with technical knowledge here too. Chip designers, software engineers, etc. Again, using terms that the general public probably isn't that familiar with.

I don't see that much thought vomit here, to be honest. That's a positive.

It's not that people aren't considering the subject, but their expression of such. The "thought vomit" just comes from people expressing their perspective on the subject without any active thought to any demographic. No real tailoring to the target audience beyond the reflex of using terms that come naturally to them and the discussion.

Plus given some comments even from this thread, both present and now gone, I'd question the conclusion on how much thought vomit of the even less considered type is posted.

This also raises the question; If the understanding is that the writing standard is going to be different from the norm, then what's the surprise when it is?

TheDalaiBomba

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

I don't see that much thought vomit here, to be honest. That's a positive.

You skip my posts?   I'm insulted!

I'm definitely guilty of it from time to time.  In fact, I was just telling my girlfriend about how beautiful the coast is this time of year, and my dog just got a haircut.  Then the rain came, so I rolled a Mage to try and farm mats.

Iselin

Uwakionna said:

olepi said:

Uwakionna said:

olepi said:

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

Do politicians and other public speakers tailor their speeches to a level they think appeals to the most people?

Analysis of Trump's speeches and writings show him at a 4th grade level. Clinton's speeches were at the 8th grade level. Sanders at the 11th grade.

Is that due to the limitation of the politician? Or because they targeted their speech to what they think of as their base?

Another example is gurus in India. The discussion was: do you try to appeal to a large audience, knowing that most of them won't understand what you are saying? Or do you confine yourself to talking to the few other people who would understand, and ignore the majority of people?

Or is it a question of who does the analysis and who sets the criteria?

I ran uwakionna's text through this:

https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php

The consensus there was it was somewhat hard to read, around the 9th grade level or a bit higher.

Testing it against several things I would note;

The person I was discussing with previously, scored an average of 11th grade level with "fairly difficult" and "hard" scores.

Your above quoted post, scores up into 9th grade level as well though it does read at a "normal" difficulty instead.

Using a tool like this gives estimates. It does not ascribe who the target is, what the subject was, or the actual intent of a message.

Should I assume the person I was talking with was intentionally trying to make their comments cryptic at an 11th grade level and hard to read scoring? Not really. Where they may have a motive, it can also be just a person reaching for the familiar in their own expression, not a guided or tailored speech targeting anything in particular.

How often do you expect a post in a forum like this to be entirely curated and crafted with target audiences in mind, as opposed to bordering much more closely to "thought vomit"?

I think that a lot of the discussion here is curated towards people who play MMO's and games in general. Terms are used that the general public probably doesn't understand and never heard before.

There does seem to be a lot of people with technical knowledge here too. Chip designers, software engineers, etc. Again, using terms that the general public probably isn't that familiar with.

I don't see that much thought vomit here, to be honest. That's a positive.

It's not that people aren't considering the subject, but their expression of such. The "thought vomit" just comes from people expressing their perspective on the subject without any active thought to any demographic. No real tailoring to the target audience beyond the reflex of using terms that come naturally to them and the discussion.

Plus given some comments even from this thread, both present and now gone, I'd question the conclusion on how much thought vomit of the even less considered type is posted.

This also raises the question; If the understanding is that the writing standard is going to be different from the norm, then what's the surprise when it is?

It wasn't surprise. It was just plain and simple targeted trolling that probably had nothing to do with your vocabulary at all but the troll just chose that to ridicule you because he thought that was an easier target than actually countering whatever you posted that they didn't like.

Surprise, if any, happened to them when we didn't just let the anti-intellectual bigotry slide.

KnightFalz

TheDalaiBomba said:

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

KnightFalz said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

Heh. We've all done some of that.

We are all experts on what we personally consider stupid and declaring so about our own actions is our prerogative.

Considering those of others to be stupid is indicative of intolerance of their contrasting views of what they personally feel stupid more often than not.

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. It is abundant nonetheless.

Encouraging a free "marketplace of ideas" does not instantly make all ideas valuable.  Indeed, the entire point is that society would discard the ideas it feels are "stupid."

 Declaring what people may or not value is not needed to accomplish that and is in fact counter-productive to advancement.

Nobody is declaring what "may or may not" be valued, they're declaring their opinions on what's valuable to them.  If society agrees in aggregate, then that idea retains value to that society.  If not, society will likely discard or, at most, simply accept its existence in a small subgroup within itself.

Such declarations are in fact done with regularity by many in the form of outright rejection to dismissal of valuations contrary to their own, often framed with hostile deprecation of those that dare think otherwise to themselves. Social media has made the abundance of that quite blatant.

Societies don't agree in aggregate. If they did social change couldn't happen. There would be no source of differing views to take root and then perhaps grow to become the new dominant values. In extreme social conflicts groups with contrasting views can doggedly and sometimes bitterly contest issues for decades on end.

There are some values widely shared such that they are virtually agreed on in aggregate on which the foundation of a society rests.

TheDalaiBomba

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

KnightFalz said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

KnightFalz said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

Heh. We've all done some of that.

We are all experts on what we personally consider stupid and declaring so about our own actions is our prerogative.

Considering those of others to be stupid is indicative of intolerance of their contrasting views of what they personally feel stupid more often than not.

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. It is abundant nonetheless.

Encouraging a free "marketplace of ideas" does not instantly make all ideas valuable.  Indeed, the entire point is that society would discard the ideas it feels are "stupid."

 Declaring what people may or not value is not needed to accomplish that and is in fact counter-productive to advancement.

Nobody is declaring what "may or may not" be valued, they're declaring their opinions on what's valuable to them.  If society agrees in aggregate, then that idea retains value to that society.  If not, society will likely discard or, at most, simply accept its existence in a small subgroup within itself.

Such declarations are in fact done with regularity by many in the form of outright rejection to dismissal of valuations contrary to their own, often framed with hostile deprecation of those that dare think otherwise to themselves. Social media has made the abundance of that quite blatant.

Societies don't agree in aggregate. If they did social change couldn't happen. There would be no source of differing views to take root and then perhaps grow to become the new dominant values. In extreme social conflicts groups with contrasting views can doggedly and sometimes bitterly contest issues for decades on end.

There are some values widely shared such that they are virtually agreed on in aggregate on which the foundation of a society rests.

They absolutely do.  In aggregate, American society considers murder to be a serious crime.

In aggregate does not mean everyone agrees.

Your post contradicts itself by stating societies don't agree then stating societies virtually agree on some values.  That's what agreeing in aggregate means.

lahnmir

The Embers Adrift
Worldbreaker Stress Test is Nigh
We Rather Derail

So, is a haiku inoffensive enough to get this thread back on topic?….

/Cheers,
Lahnmir