• permaban me
    51 replies, posted
"From the very little I've seen of you I can tell you're not liked in the TF2 section. Maybe it's just that they aren't cool like you, maybe it's you, I don't know." Because arguing with ASIC is like arguing with a brick.
Can you later appeal requested bans?
A brick that for some reason can throw itself back at you every ~3 days.
I don't browse the TF2 forum, but if everyone dislikes you and thinks you're acting like a stonewalling dick, then I'm sure at least some of them have some basis for that argument. I mean, you're stonewalling right now, and I already don't like you because you're posts are so condescending and desperately defensive. No offense.
One sentence in and you're already working against your own case. You earn respect on a forum by carrying a good argument, and understanding how you can argue your point by understanding how people on said forum think. Conservatives for example in PD aren't disliked because they know how to carry themselves in an argument. You don't earn respect by being this defensive.
Videogames sure do weird things to people
So do cartoon underage girls, going by your banner.
If you want to see an example on why he's so disliked, look no further than this image https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/225137/cc9e9750-e819-48d3-b94f-e55860fe9bd7/image.png He has no argument. The crit thread is literally just him pussyfooting around and avoiding any direct answers on why this case of RNG is bad, and instead elaborating in directions unnecessary and asking questions instead of answering. 22 pages of the shit.
Asking for a friend?
(I'd like it if politics stay out of this discussion.) What you are saying does not seem that true. Most people aren't going to really analyze stuff. An example is on reddit (and even here in sensationalist headlines). It was found majority of people don't read past the title of the article, before commenting. It's the same with a lot of arguments. Most of the time people respond positively to people saying things they agree with, and negatively to things they disagree with. Regardless of whether the reasoning is sound. It could be said that a good argument is not necessarily a logically sound one. It is also similar in the random crit thread. People respond positively to posts that say things they agree with, even if the argument is not logically sound. To give a minor example of what I am talking about, let's take 2 posts from the first page of the random crit thread. Both of them are relevant to the topic, but they have notable logical fallacies.Note that both of these posts were short one-liners, so the issue should be pretty obvious to anyone thinking about things. Here is the first post. TF2 Random Critical Hits >They are bad, because RNG is not something affected by skill, and the argument that crit chance increases is null because its still RNG. And most of the players that actually wanna play a shooter and not a slot machine are interested in testing their skill and not their luck. The first sentence has a logical fallacy, circular reasoning. >They are bad, because RNG is not something affected by skill, and the argument that crit chance increases is null because its still RNG. Another example is here: TF2 Random Critical Hits >Being contrarian will not change objective to subjective. Random non-skill-based free damage is objectively unfun. The issue here should be rather blatant. Fun, like any type of enjoyment, is a subjective thing.
Didn't know this was a TF2 thread. Can we let this die now? He is gone for whatever reason case closed.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/238427/a0e6b49e-260b-4d0e-9f07-e5aab5e7403c/One.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/238427/d379f68e-943a-4b56-8c2d-24768f8a1eef/whattheactualfuck.png
@postal me too
fun idea for people that want to get banned: instead of being drama queens, PM mods/admins and threads like this need not exist
Fun fact. The PM system doesn't exist anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.