* October 24, 2014, 08:27:59 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Come Chat with us live! Learn how HERE!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Unvanquished versus TremZ exclusive Drama thread  (Read 14399 times)
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2012, 10:10:40 PM »

why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
WRONG. it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
Logged
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2012, 11:25:24 PM »

why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
WRONG. it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
WRONG.  by the very nature of the forum and the users that use it, discussion of either project has a chance to degrade to pure flaming, directly proportional to the length of time such a thread remains active.

so, in the interest of brevity, i simply propose we skip passed the interim steps and pretty much advance to the flaming/drama.  which should be posted in this thread.

edit: replaced misplaced AND with furthermore.

edit2: deleted furthermore.  need to pay more attention to sentence structure.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 11:47:07 PM by RAKninja-Decepticon » Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
Ingar
Tremulous Developers
*

Turrets: +302/-7
Posts: 542


Doomsday device you say?


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2012, 04:56:50 PM »

why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
WRONG. it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.

I could always change the forum rules.
Logged

/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2012, 09:26:55 AM »

why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
WRONG. it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
WRONG.
WRONG. see the original post:
I'll set the rules for discussing these two modifications of the game this forum is actually about:
  • Copyright, trademark and other legal issues of these two modifications, but only when they also pertain to Tremulous itself as it stands now: Feedback Forum
  • Alpha and other true test release announcements: Mod Releases
  • Beta-Release/Final release announcements: General Discussion
  • All the other drama: This fucking topic

Both groups are welcome to help and be helped in the forums of the 'Media' and 'Mods' categories, as long as they keep to the set topic for those forums.

by the very nature of the forum and the users that use it, discussion of either project has a chance to degrade to pure flaming
which is irrelevant to the fact that
it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
directly proportional to the length of time
by "directly", i hope you don't mean "linearly" (because that would be WRONG).
Logged
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2012, 01:44:52 AM »

why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
WRONG. it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
WRONG.
WRONG. see the original post:
I'll set the rules for discussing these two modifications of the game this forum is actually about:
  • Copyright, trademark and other legal issues of these two modifications, but only when they also pertain to Tremulous itself as it stands now: Feedback Forum
  • Alpha and other true test release announcements: Mod Releases
  • Beta-Release/Final release announcements: General Discussion
  • All the other drama: This fucking topic

Both groups are welcome to help and be helped in the forums of the 'Media' and 'Mods' categories, as long as they keep to the set topic for those forums.

by the very nature of the forum and the users that use it, discussion of either project has a chance to degrade to pure flaming
which is irrelevant to the fact that
it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
directly proportional to the length of time
by "directly", i hope you don't mean "linearly" (because that would be WRONG).

WRONG



I could always change the forum rules.

by direct, i do not mean linearly, but i mean DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL as i had said in the first place. 

and yes, its like a more generalized statement of goodwin's law.  the longer any subject of discussion is active in any online forum, the higher the chance that it will degrade to flaming and drama.

again, my suggestion is to skip past the interim steps and proceed directly to the inevitable outcome.  save us all some time.
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
danmal


Turrets: +21/-6
Posts: 244


« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2012, 04:24:16 AM »

That is linearly. DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL = linearly. Not that it matters much (except to DevHC of course).
Logged
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2012, 11:53:09 PM »

why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
WRONG. it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
WRONG.
WRONG. see the original post:
I'll set the rules for discussing these two modifications of the game this forum is actually about:
  • Copyright, trademark and other legal issues of these two modifications, but only when they also pertain to Tremulous itself as it stands now: Feedback Forum
  • Alpha and other true test release announcements: Mod Releases
  • Beta-Release/Final release announcements: General Discussion
  • All the other drama: This fucking topic

Both groups are welcome to help and be helped in the forums of the 'Media' and 'Mods' categories, as long as they keep to the set topic for those forums.

by the very nature of the forum and the users that use it, discussion of either project has a chance to degrade to pure flaming
which is irrelevant to the fact that
it is explicitly allowed to discuss TremZ/Unvanquished (modulo pure flaming) in the Mods forum section.
directly proportional to the length of time
by "directly", i hope you don't mean "linearly" (because that would be WRONG).

WRONG

by direct, i do not mean linearly, but i mean DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL as i had said in the first place. 
WRONG

DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL is aka linearly proportional, ie., WRONG.
Logged
sirshiz


Turrets: +3/-5
Posts: 75


« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2012, 03:12:49 PM »

Why is it wrong to say that a topic degrades into flaming directly/linearly proportional to the length of time the thread exists?
Let us assume you (/dev/humancontroller) convince us that Rak is "WRONG." What does it matter? It's clear what Rak meant. Focus on his other comments instead of something so trivial and you might accomplish something more than the honor of having OCPD. Being detail obsessive is good for programming but many times leads to poor human interaction. But this assumes you want to do anything more than be RIGHT.
Logged
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2012, 07:25:33 PM »

Why is it wrong to say that a topic degrades into flaming
[with a chance that is]
directly/linearly proportional to the length of time the thread exists?
because then, the "chance" will S00N(TM) exceed 1.
Let us assume you (/dev/humancontroller) convince us that Rak is "WRONG." What does it matter? It's clear what Rak meant. Focus on his other comments instead of something so trivial and you might accomplish something more than the honor of having OCPD. Being detail obsessive is good for programming but many times leads to poor human interaction. But this assumes you want to do anything more than be RIGHT.
i have nothing to say about his other comments. there's 1 comment of his:
why not discuss it here?  i have no interest in joining your forums, and addressing it publicly will do much to influence others who have come to the same conclusion i have.

Because this is the drama thread.
and also the only thread abouth either project that a moderater has nbot threatened to close without warning.
for which i'm adding that discussion of balance-or-whatever is not only limited to this thread, but is also permitted in other (new) threads in the Mods section. thus, i am pointing out an opportunity for RAK; if he takes it, that will not only address kharnov's concerns, but also give RAK more justified reasons to do what he wants: not join the unvanquished.net forums.
Logged
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2012, 09:05:18 PM »

Quote
If an object travels at a constant speed, then the distance traveled is proportional to the time spent traveling, with the speed being the constant of proportionality.

in other words, if a constant rate of posts are posted, the likelyhood of it degrading to pure flames and drama is proportional to the total number of posts.  with the post rate being the constant of proportionality.

dev/HC, let us not be petty.  the chance can approach 1, but can never reach it.  for our purposes, chance is analogous to the speed of light.  you can approach it to an infinitesimally small fraction, but you can never reach or pass it.  think of this little equation as something similar to the omega constant.

furthermore, there is nothing untoward in kharnov mollifying me here.  you know as well as i that any talk of balance changes, even hypothetical changes that have a flat 0% probability to making it into the game or even any mod,  has a chance of degrading to flaming within the first 5 responses that is for all intents and purposes in the real world effectively 1.

an any case, i feel no ill sentiment to dev/HC, and i doubt he harbors any for me.  just a couple of "trolls" being "trolls".
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2012, 03:12:32 AM »

Quote
If an object travels at a constant speed, then the distance traveled is proportional to the time spent traveling, with the speed being the constant of proportionality.

in other words, if a constant rate of posts are posted, the likelyhood of it degrading to pure flames and drama is proportional to the total number of posts.  with the post rate being the constant of proportionality.
if probability = K * time * rate_of_posts    (ie., the probability is linearly proportional to the time) and
   time > 1 / (K * rate_of_posts)    (ie., time = S00N(TM)),
then probability > 1.
in other words:
if probability = K * number_of_posts    (ie., the probability is linearly proportional to the number of posts) and
   number_of_posts > 1 / K   (ie., number_of_posts = SHITLOAD(TM)),
then probability > 1.
the chance can approach 1, but can never reach it.  for our purposes, chance is analogous to the speed of light.  you can approach it to an infinitesimally small fraction, but you can never reach or pass it.
but that's not called linearly proportional.
furthermore, there is nothing untoward in kharnov mollifying me here.  you know as well as i that any talk of balance changes, even hypothetical changes that have a flat 0% probability to making it into the game or even any mod,  has a chance of degrading to flaming within the first 5 responses that is for all intents and purposes in the real world effectively 1.
that is WRONG for any definition of intents and purposes. explanation: you are the 3rd person that i've heard to say this phrase. ever since i've heard this phrase from the 2nd person (cron), i've realized that use of the phrase is not a "unique invention for one use by one person", but is actually a spreading, horrible meme: it's close to a childish version of (TM), is trying to sound majestic, and is used in conjunction with feelingful, as opposed to rational, descriptions. and i've decided to combat all uses of "for all intents and purposes, X" with "that is WRONG for any definition of intents and purposes".
Logged
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2012, 05:01:32 AM »

Quote
If an object travels at a constant speed, then the distance traveled is proportional to the time spent traveling, with the speed being the constant of proportionality.

in other words, if a constant rate of posts are posted, the likelyhood of it degrading to pure flames and drama is proportional to the total number of posts.  with the post rate being the constant of proportionality.
if probability = K * time * rate_of_posts    (ie., the probability is linearly proportional to the time) and
   time > 1 / (K * rate_of_posts)    (ie., time = S00N(TM)),
then probability > 1.
in other words:
if probability = K * number_of_posts    (ie., the probability is linearly proportional to the number of posts) and
   number_of_posts > 1 / K   (ie., number_of_posts = SHITLOAD(TM)),
then probability > 1.
the chance can approach 1, but can never reach it.  for our purposes, chance is analogous to the speed of light.  you can approach it to an infinitesimally small fraction, but you can never reach or pass it.
but that's not called linearly proportional.
furthermore, there is nothing untoward in kharnov mollifying me here.  you know as well as i that any talk of balance changes, even hypothetical changes that have a flat 0% probability to making it into the game or even any mod,  has a chance of degrading to flaming within the first 5 responses that is for all intents and purposes in the real world effectively 1.
that is WRONG for any definition of intents and purposes. explanation: you are the 3rd person that i've heard to say this phrase. ever since i've heard this phrase from the 2nd person (cron), i've realized that use of the phrase is not a "unique invention for one use by one person", but is actually a spreading, horrible meme: it's close to a childish version of (TM), is trying to sound majestic, and is used in conjunction with feelingful, as opposed to rational, descriptions. and i've decided to combat all uses of "for all intents and purposes, X" with "that is WRONG for any definition of intents and purposes".

sorry, wasent paying much attention to my post before work, was kind of in a rush.

nor am i in the mood to deal with math, i do too much of that shit at work and in my spare time dicking around with code.  lets leave my analogy alone.  yes, it is not a true mathematical law.  on the other hand, i have loads of circumstantial evidence (in the feedback and suggestion forum as well as gameplay discussion) that prove my point, in a roundabout way.

"intents and purposes" is not some shocking new turn of phrase, having been used at least as far back as the 1500's  see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_all_intents_and_purposes

feel free to combat it, it is not for me to stop you from your desired futility.
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
amz181


Turrets: +64/-92
Posts: 892

Smoking KILLS


« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2012, 01:57:35 PM »

Une questino.

That goon model that stannum made and textured.

Who can use it? TremZ? Unv? Both?

Is he redoing all of the alien models?

Logged

Nux


Turrets: +257/-69
Posts: 1763


« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2012, 04:11:29 PM »

yes, it is not a true mathematical law.  on the other hand, i have loads of circumstantial evidence (in the feedback and suggestion forum as well as gameplay discussion) that prove my point, in a roundabout way.

"intents and purposes" is not some shocking new turn of phrase, having been used at least as far back as the 1500's  see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_all_intents_and_purposes

feel free to combat it, it is not for me to stop you from your desired futility.

I might be wrong, but this post gave me the impression you missed what /dev/humancontroller was saying: that an unreserved direct proportion would mean that eventually the event would be more than certain and that this makes no sense. This interpretation is pretty pedantic though, since by the same token you can infer that the proportion must be bounded by probability = 1 and that this was left out for brevity.

Such a proportionality can exist, for example in a game of six rounds (numbered 0 to 5) where at each round you roll a die and if you roll a number larger than the number of the round you progress to the next round (progressing passed round 5 is a win). In this game the probability of failing to progress at any given round is directly proportional to the round's number. If you like, you could even add a sixth round so that nobody could win  Tongue. Note that this is not the same as saying the probability of reaching a round is proportional to the round's number, since this event depends on having reached all the previous rounds as well.

Now, this isn't to say that this game bears any resemblance to a message board. Far from it. Since the content of posts depend on so many real-world factors, you're unlikely to find such a simple relationship. That is why it would be natural to assume you're simply modelling the relationship, which allows a measurable error for the sake of simplicity. In this case you would need to better define the event of '[having] degrade[d] to pure flaming', but I would guess there exists a dependence between the occurrence of a flame-like post and the subsequent number of flame-like posts (without considering ragequits and thread locking) so your model might be somewhat justifiable. It should be appreciated, though, that even without such a dependence the probability of almost any event occurring increases over time by the Infinite monkey theorem.

Yet I'm sure that your actual intent was even more basic than this: You were making an analogy. As time goes on the probability increases, just like two variables in direct proportion. But a mathematical relationship is a bad choice for an analogy: the analogy fails to illustrate your loose meaning. Maths is a formal construct and by referring to it you can only be asking for a literal interpretation.

As for "intents and purposes" I don't think he thought this was a new phrase. He was just complaining about how people use it. I'm just glad you didn't say "intensive purposes". For me, though, this is way down the list: I'll teach you to annoy me, because I could care less about your choice to literally sound like a broken record in the way you parrot phrases irregardless of whether you understand them.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 04:14:48 PM by Nux » Logged

Celestial_Rage


Turrets: +120/-8
Posts: 635


« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2012, 04:39:40 PM »

Une questino.

That goon model that stannum made and textured.

Who can use it? TremZ? Unv? Both?

Is he redoing all of the alien models?

Stannum only textured the model, Gregstein made the model. Also, while TremZ can use the textures, they seem to want to use other models. Also, Stannum is not redoing the alien models, Dan is going to be retexturing and galvig will be providing animation touchups.
Logged

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" ~Mark Twain
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2012, 11:09:16 PM »

nux, i did indeed abstract out that probability <= 1.

this is all superfluous,  common sense should dictate that i am not pronouncing a mathematical law of forums. i am no forum physicist.  common sense should also dictate that i must have been making an analogy.  there is no conceivable way i could be in possession of enough relevant information to actually make a proper mathematical formula that accurately expresses the likelihood that any given post in a thread will be a flame and followed by flames.

the point has been missed time and again.  flaming and drama is not a chance.  it is a certainty.  the only question is how long it will take.

and finally, sorry, i have a vocabulary.  i did not misuse the phrase.  and from the first sentence on the subject, it seems dh/c was ignorant to its existence.

you'll note he calls my usage wrong, and then proceeds to tell me i am the third he has "heard" use the phrase. 



and none of this discussion has any bearing on why my concerns cannot be addressed in this thread.  if posting in the modding section is so important, anyone can feel free to copy-paste my test to that thread.  i wont be bothered with it.

 
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
Nux


Turrets: +257/-69
Posts: 1763


« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2012, 01:21:45 AM »

I agree, wholeheartedly. I even reread /dev/humancontroller's post and it does now seem to me like he's never heard this ~500-year-old phrase before.

Oh, sorry! I don't think I'm doing drama right.
Logged

/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2012, 03:09:06 AM »

there is no conceivable way i could be in possession of enough relevant information to actually make a proper mathematical formula that accurately expresses the likelihood that any given post in a thread will be a flame and followed by flames.
but some formulas are automatically contradictory, and therefore WRONG.
i did not misuse the phrase.  and from the first sentence on the subject, it seems dh/c was ignorant to its existence.
WRONG. i have really heard it only ~3 times in my whole lifetime, yet i have never made any assumption about the time the phrase first appeared.
you'll note he calls my usage wrong, and then proceeds to tell me i am the third he has "heard" use the phrase.  
hearing the phrase for the first time even without any knowledge about its "proprietary" definition is nerve-racking: the phrase is just retarded. the only way one can use the phrase CORRECT(TM)ly is by defining the meaning of the phrase retardedly, which is WRONG(TM); but i've already explained this somewhat differently.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 03:12:52 AM by /dev/humancontroller » Logged
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2012, 04:54:31 PM »

there is no conceivable way i could be in possession of enough relevant information to actually make a proper mathematical formula that accurately expresses the likelihood that any given post in a thread will be a flame and followed by flames.
but some formulas are automatically contradictory, and therefore WRONG.
i did not misuse the phrase.  and from the first sentence on the subject, it seems dh/c was ignorant to its existence.
WRONG. i have really heard it only ~3 times in my whole lifetime, yet i have never made any assumption about the time the phrase first appeared.
you'll note he calls my usage wrong, and then proceeds to tell me i am the third he has "heard" use the phrase.  
hearing the phrase for the first time even without any knowledge about its "proprietary" definition is nerve-racking: the phrase is just retarded. the only way one can use the phrase CORRECT(TM)ly is by defining the meaning of the phrase retardedly, which is WRONG(TM); but i've already explained this somewhat differently.

yes, in black and white terms my formula is WRONG.  this is because you, the reader, are supposed to have the common sense to know there is no possible way i could conceivably make a right formula.  i had forgotten that you are somewhat more literal minded than a machine.  my bad.

and sorry dh/c, you may have logic and mathematics downpat, but language does not work in quite the same manner.  just because you are ignorant to a phrases existence and it's proper usage does not make said phrase retarded.  nor is the correctness of the usage of the phrase dependent on your personal understanding of it.

so yes, while it may seem stupid and retarded, fine, you are always entitled to your opinion.  that does not make my usage any less correct.
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2012, 05:49:27 PM »

just because you are ignorant to a phrases existence and it's proper usage does not make said phrase retarded.  nor is the correctness of the usage of the phrase dependent on your personal understanding of it.
DEFINITION: a real number is intuitively small if and only if it is greater than 1000.
so 1337, 13371337, 133713371337, etc. are all intuitively small. correct?
WRONG(TM).

btw:
a phrases existence and it's proper usage
a phrase's existence and its proper usage*
Logged
Nux


Turrets: +257/-69
Posts: 1763


« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2012, 11:32:46 PM »

DEFINITION: a real number is intuitively small if and only if it is greater than 1000.
so 1337, 13371337, 133713371337, etc. are all intuitively small. correct?
WRONG(TM).

I think your point was that just because your usage of a term/phrase is consistent doesn't make it true (I guess, we're defining 'true' as intuitive here). As far as I'm concerned, there's no problem with your usage of the term 'intuitively small' as you defined it. Maybe this is just because I'm used to interchanging the meanings of placeholder variables and judging statements on their consistency above their practicality.

To address the main point, though, I approve of fighting for better explaining power but I wouldn't pretend our language isn't built out of a mass of recycled words which have been distorted and broken over time to mean things they never meant before.
Logged

danmal


Turrets: +21/-6
Posts: 244


« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2012, 01:09:39 PM »

I'll teach you to annoy me, because I could care less about your choice to literally sound like a broken record in the way you parrot phrases irregardless of whether you understand them.

Not sure if ironic or just a bad choice of phrase.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 02:43:57 PM by danmal » Logged
Nux


Turrets: +257/-69
Posts: 1763


« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2012, 08:05:28 PM »

Irony.

"I'll teach you to..." and "I could care less" were originally "I'll teach you a lesson [punish] for..." and "I couldn't care less" respectively but were corrupted into literally saying the opposite of what they mean. "literally" is also misused in sentences very much not intended to be interpretted literally. "irregardless" is most likely a combination of "irrespective" and "regardless", used as a synonym for either, yet by composition is a double negative and means the exact the opposite.

Many phrases are distorted intentionally and become popular because irony is entertaining, but I believe these corruptions are simply the result of ignorance. I hate ignorance. Ignorance is stupid.
Logged

RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2012, 11:53:59 PM »

just because you are ignorant to a phrases existence and it's proper usage does not make said phrase retarded.  nor is the correctness of the usage of the phrase dependent on your personal understanding of it.
DEFINITION: a real number is intuitively small if and only if it is greater than 1000.
so 1337, 13371337, 133713371337, etc. are all intuitively small. correct?
WRONG(TM).

btw:
a phrases existence and it's proper usage
a phrase's existence and its proper usage*
first block, it is WRONG that you are misusing the definition.  in this instance, you are talking about a CONTINUOUS FUNCTION.  as such it should be expressed as a mathematical formula, and not an actual number.

your example demonstrates nothing, as it is WRONG, you therefor fail to cast any analogy or metaphor about my own actions.  which, by the way, my actions were to use a phrase correctly, then extract definitions that support my usage.

second block, yes, i do make grammatical mistakes.  especially when i am dazed on pain pills and a bleeding hole in my mouth.  disliking a phrase is one thing, but grammar nazism is usually the last stand of one who knows they have been outargued.  i am seriously let down you have stooped to this.
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #54 on: April 23, 2012, 01:17:38 AM »

just because you are ignorant to a phrases existence and it's proper usage does not make said phrase retarded.  nor is the correctness of the usage of the phrase dependent on your personal understanding of it.
DEFINITION: a real number is intuitively small if and only if it is greater than 1000.
so 1337, 13371337, 133713371337, etc. are all intuitively small. correct?
WRONG(TM).
first block, it is WRONG that you are misusing the definition.  in this instance, you are talking about a CONTINUOUS FUNCTION.  as such it should be expressed as a mathematical formula, and not an actual number.
what the clockfuck are you talking about?
your example demonstrates nothing, as it is WRONG, you therefor fail to cast any analogy or metaphor about my own actions.
WRONG. i demonstrate how retarded a definition can be, whether or not used appropriately.
by the way, my actions were to use a phrase correctly, then extract definitions that support my usage.
which i don't give a shit about, because i stated the reason why i call the use of "for all intentes and purposes" WRONG: because the phrase is just retarded.
Logged
Asvarox


Turrets: +41/-35
Posts: 573


« Reply #55 on: April 23, 2012, 05:30:23 PM »

I have no idea what are you guys posting about...
Logged

I MINE FULL WEREWOLFES
NOT SUCH HIPPIE THINGS  Angry
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2012, 08:58:26 PM »

just because you are ignorant to a phrases existence and it's proper usage does not make said phrase retarded.  nor is the correctness of the usage of the phrase dependent on your personal understanding of it.
DEFINITION: a real number is intuitively small if and only if it is greater than 1000.
so 1337, 13371337, 133713371337, etc. are all intuitively small. correct?
WRONG(TM).
first block, it is WRONG that you are misusing the definition.  in this instance, you are talking about a CONTINUOUS FUNCTION.  as such it should be expressed as a mathematical formula, and not an actual number.
what the clockfuck are you talking about?
your example demonstrates nothing, as it is WRONG, you therefor fail to cast any analogy or metaphor about my own actions.
WRONG. i demonstrate how retarded a definition can be, whether or not used appropriately.
by the way, my actions were to use a phrase correctly, then extract definitions that support my usage.
which i don't give a shit about, because i stated the reason why i call the use of "for all intentes and purposes" WRONG: because the phrase is just retarded.

the clockfuck i am talking about is real numbers being intuitively small.  a "real number" is actually a series (continuous function).  a series is customarily represented by a formula, and not an actual integer.

WRONG, you demonstrated how retarded it is to use a definition incorrectly.  to cast an analogy, your example would be similar yo me saying "the sky is the surface that we walk upon".  for all intents and purposes, my usage of this phrase is equivalent to saying "the sky is what we call the gasses of our atmosphere, colloquially."

you can have your opinion on how retarded any given thing is, but your opinion does not generate fact.  the fact is, i used a phrase correctly.  correct != WRONG.

i'll make a deal with you, you handle code corrections and errors in describing how any given section of code will run, and you leave the semantics to me.  this way, we both play to our strengths.


I have no idea what are you guys posting about...
exactly what it looks like, we are trolling each other good naturedly.


in closing, i would like to re-rail the topic a bit.  i just wonder why the UNV folks wont answer me here.  they want me to either discuss this in an arena under their personal control, or in a thread that may or may not be locked if a moderator interprets any given line as hostile.  i find both options unacceptable.

hell you guys wouldent answer my concerns before the fork on "your" forums.  you gave no reasons for your balance changes, aside from alien nerfs.  as far as i know, every alien change at all was something of a nerf and brings the A team closer to hovelless 1.1.

so do the smart thing.  address my concerns, try to make a believer out of me.  it can only help you, as each player you "convert" will draw more players by word of mouth.  help yourself or set yourselves back, it really makes no difference to me.  though, considering how things are going now, your project will not even hit the "success" of trem 1.1.
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
/dev/humancontroller


Turrets: +999/-379
Posts: 1016


« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2012, 02:32:08 AM »

just because you are ignorant to a phrases existence and it's proper usage does not make said phrase retarded.  nor is the correctness of the usage of the phrase dependent on your personal understanding of it.
DEFINITION: a real number is intuitively small if and only if it is greater than 1000.
so 1337, 13371337, 133713371337, etc. are all intuitively small. correct?
WRONG(TM).
first block, it is WRONG that you are misusing the definition.  in this instance, you are talking about a CONTINUOUS FUNCTION.  as such it should be expressed as a mathematical formula, and not an actual number.
what the clockfuck are you talking about?
the clockfuck i am talking about is real numbers being intuitively small.  a "real number" is actually a series (continuous function).  a series is customarily represented by a formula, and not an actual integer.
you are fucking retarded, and are clueless about what a real number, a series, and a function is, and what continuous means.
your example demonstrates nothing, as it is WRONG, you therefor fail to cast any analogy or metaphor about my own actions.
WRONG. i demonstrate how retarded a definition can be, whether or not used appropriately.
by the way, my actions were to use a phrase correctly, then extract definitions that support my usage.
which i don't give a shit about, because i stated the reason why i call the use of "for all intentes and purposes" WRONG: because the phrase is just retarded.
WRONG, you demonstrated how retarded it is to use a definition incorrectly.
WRONG.
to cast an analogy, your example would be similar yo me saying "the sky is the surface that we walk upon".  for all intents and purposes, my usage of this phrase is equivalent to saying "the sky is what we call the gasses of our atmosphere, colloquially."
you are fucking retarded.
by the way, my actions were to use a phrase correctly, then extract definitions that support my usage.
which i don't give a shit about, because i stated the reason why i call the use of "for all intentes and purposes" WRONG: because the phrase is just retarded.
you can have your opinion on how retarded any given thing is, but your opinion does not generate fact.  the fact is, i used a phrase correctly.  correct != WRONG.
however, retarded + correct = WRONG(TM).

PS: i fixed the quoting for you.
Logged
danmal


Turrets: +21/-6
Posts: 244


« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2012, 07:09:24 AM »

in closing, i would like to re-rail the topic a bit.  i just wonder why the UNV folks wont answer me here.  they want me to either discuss this in an arena under their personal control, or in a thread that may or may not be locked if a moderator interprets any given line as hostile.  i find both options unacceptable.

hell you guys wouldent answer my concerns before the fork on "your" forums.  you gave no reasons for your balance changes, aside from alien nerfs.  as far as i know, every alien change at all was something of a nerf and brings the A team closer to hovelless 1.1.

so do the smart thing.  address my concerns, try to make a believer out of me.  it can only help you, as each player you "convert" will draw more players by word of mouth.  help yourself or set yourselves back, it really makes no difference to me.  though, considering how things are going now, your project will not even hit the "success" of trem 1.1.

I'm almost positive I've already replied to your concerns about balance. No changes to balance are currently planned. In the future large changes to gameplay will happen. Do you have any other questions?
Logged
RAKninja-Decepticon


Turrets: +14/-679
Posts: 843

:dretch: :basilisk: :tyrant: and Decepticon


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2012, 08:30:35 AM »

did you even read those articles, devH/c?  those are exactly what i had open when i posted last.  and looking through them, again i see nothing that refutes the fact that your example was wrong, or using terminology wrong.  whereas i am right and was correctly using my example.

I'm almost positive I've already replied to your concerns about balance. No changes to balance are currently planned. In the future large changes to gameplay will happen. Do you have any other questions?

you did?  if so, your explanation was so spectacularly unsatisfactory as to have eluded my memory completely.

no further changes, huh?  so, crippled punce and trample, and crazy human buffs.  yea, fuck that.
Logged

Note 4: The best, although not always easiest, way to deal with trolls is thus: do not respond at ALL in the thread.
Main Rules
4.) No spamming or advertising (includes useless multi-posts and bumps.)
6b.) Do NOT harass other members.
  6c.) Do NOT troll!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
TremPlus theme by Ingar, based on AF316 theme by Fedhog
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!