*****es that quit when I win

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Dunnagan
no.

My apologies, that was Rommell2D. An odd coincidence that both of you do the same thing within a day of each other.

[Dunnagan]

__________________
"I like encouraging people to use their heads, whether they like it or not." - Vince278, Apolyton OT Forum

Since you are the creator of this sig, I thought I'd share my thoughts about it.

I think you are subliminally implying "I'm smarter than everyone else, since nobody uses their head but me."
Immediately when I read the sig and realized you put it on all your posts, I saw that you were not only a bs'er, but a conceded person that sees himself above the rest.

I just got my wisdom teeth pulled yesterday, so I'm analyzing the negative things in life since I'm in pain. My mouth hurts like hell and I can only eat bean burritos, my apologies.


Dunnagan

"If you get hit at all, duck down and come up with a right uppercut or throw some sevens" -Cus D'Mato, on Mike Tyson vs Mike Jameson, 1985

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Dunnagan I saw that you were not only a bull****ter, but a conceded person that sees himself above the rest.

(workin him over with the uppercut.)

[player1]

I think that biggest error in Civ3 engine is that cities of human player that did gave up are automaticly razed.

They should've been assined for an AI to autpilot.
That way winner can still feel joy of conquest.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Alright, alright. First, discussing the effects of quitting on the strategy of the game is more than enough reason to post in here, I would think.

Second, let's not read all that into people's sigs there Mr 'NoobDefiler'.

He clearly states that he is speaking about OT where there is, I must say, a lack of thought on many posts.

Third, back to the topic.

First of all, this is MP games in general. You will find the same quitters in any game you play. Such is life. Quitters suck.

Ironically, I personally don't see how opening the diplo screen and gifting your cities "out of respect" is any more fair or honorable. It is still quitting. What's more, it gives the attacker his cities without a fight. Oh, that's fair to the other players. So, instead of harming the attacker, as those who quit to raze their cities do, you are only harming the other players by strengthening this attacker for free.

It takes a special person to go down fighting, perhaps, but you will be surprised how much you can learn and how often others in the game will come to your aid. Abandon cities you can't defend, pillage roads in retreat, ask for help from others, but make a game out of it and make him work.

[Aeson]

Between a word censored in the title, having an off-topic whine thread, quoting yourself, and arguing with someone's sig... You sure are working hard on creating one of the lowpoints of Poly's Civ3 Strategy forums.

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Aeson
Between a word censored in the title, having an off-topic whine thread, quoting yourself, and arguing with someone's sig...

Arguing is when the other party speaks back. I think what you meant to say was 'insulting' your friend's sig, which I deemed innopropriate, regardless of how stupid people are in the OT forums. Someone that has to put that at the bottom of every post is indeed questionable. Anyone that's ever played decent in a multiplayer game understood what I was talking about, since they've undoubtedly experienced quitters. As far as quoting myself, the picture needed a quote, and my line fit the job title best. You make it actually sound like I replied to my own post in full, which obviously did not occur. As far as whining, well I guess you could call it that, other people would call it my point of view, maybe others would call it humorous. However, if you deem that as a whine, then the post I'm replying to is definately also a whine.

You sure are working hard on creating one of the lowpoints of Poly's Civ3 Strategy forums.

Of course, I'd see it as a lowpoint too if some guy came in and insulted my friend and his sig. But when someone is asking for it, they get it. Bottom line, if you do something dumb that's universally annoying, I'll make a public example out of you, in hopes that in the future, you will think twice before you speak or smack enter.

Truth is, there are probably a few people that read this forum that felt the same way I did. Yet they didn't speak up before my post for whatever reason. It wasn't an attempt to convert the strategy forum to Rants and Flames. I was simply shining some light on a questionable (and highly annoying) signature. The guy seems nice, and I wouldn't have ever said anything if it hadn't been for the sig.

Puisqu'on pleurniche, les utilisations encrassent la langue occassionally, et les utilisations son propre texte comme légende d'image ne lui fait pas un mauvais type. En insultant votre ami et ses sig, nullement je signifie pour vous offenser. Si je vous offensais avec le fil, alors vous avez mes excuses. Il n'y a aucun besoin d'être grossier et de m'insulter, et appelez mon point de vue un gémissement, cependant. À l'avenir, J'espère que nous maintiendrons la capacité de converser
intelligemment, Aeson.

-Dunnagan

PS- my french is a bit rusty, please excuse it..failed it the first semester and now dragging on with a B-.

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Second, let's not read all that into people's sigs there Mr 'NoobDefiler'.

The nickname NoobDefiler was gained long ago, and isn't a thing I use daily or in every post, so there's no need to be rude and attach a 'Mr.' to it like I wear it as a nametag. It's simply for those who know me, that's all. Yes, it sounds foolish. Yes, the people who gave it to me were stupid fifteen-sixteen year old chess playing kids, as I was at the time. But I had to reflect upon that point in time for that specific post, for no reason in particular. 'NoobDefiler' basically meant chewing up someone new at chess, very quickly. Isn't anything to be proud about, beating a newbie is simple for even a simpleton.

He clearly states that he is speaking about OT where there is, I must say, a lack of thought on many posts.

So, because in a forum where you say people are less intelligent, it gives him the right to put that at the bottom of every message?

While the example I'm about to illustrate involves a higher level of order, sit back, and imagine this.

You graduate high school with sub-par grades, and in result find yourself at a community college the following year. Then run into a person that attends the same school, yet at the end of every conversation he has...he says that 'I encourage people to use their heads, whether they like it or not.'

Third, back to the topic.

First of all, this is MP games in general. You will find the same quitters in any game you play. Such is life. Quitters suck.

If you play with a group of people you know, and respect, and they respect you back...the last thing they'll do is quit if you invade them, knowing they'll be losing the all the respect you have for them.

Ironically, I personally don't see how opening the diplo screen and gifting your cities "out of respect" is any more fair or honorable. It is still quitting. What's more, it gives the attacker his cities without a fight. Oh, that's fair to the other players. So, instead of harming the attacker, as those who quit to raze their cities do, you are only harming the other players by strengthening this attacker for free.

I agree, somewhat. Still, in 20 turns even if he didn't quit, you'd have all the cities anyway, so what's the difference? You built and mobilized a large force and got all the way to his cities, if he's quitting this early it means his defense is thin. So we're talking 20-25 turns max even for a civ entering the middle ages.

Late game, where you have many more cities, I see your point. Definately surrendering at that point in the game is setting it off balance, agreed.

Then again, most normal players wouldn't enter into a game expecting to go that far with people they don't even know.

It takes a special person to go down fighting, perhaps, but you will be surprised how much you can learn and how often others in the game will come to your aid. Abandon cities you can't defend, pillage roads in retreat, ask for help from others, but make a game out of it and make him work.

Indeed. We share many opinions, Unorthodox.

-Dunnagan

[Aeson]

Truth is, there are probably a few people that read this forum that felt the same way I did. Yet they didn't speak up before my post for whatever reason.

Probably because they understand this forum is for Civ 3 Strategy. Your thread doesn't belong here.

I have never had any interaction with Vince278 AFAIK, but everyone here is my friend. This forum is one of the few on the net that I've found which is consistantly friendly and on-topic. I'd like to see it remain that way. I'm sure most everyone here would, so if you need to insult someone, or make off-topic threads, please do it somewhere else.

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Aeson


Probably because they understand this forum is for Civ 3 Strategy. Your thread doesn't belong here.

Right. Except it's the most read forum, which means it's
the best place to post if you want your post to be read.

I'm all for categorizing things, but not my sock drawer. If someone wants to post in the most read forum, so be it.

I have never had any interaction with Vince278 AFAIK, but everyone here is my friend. This forum is one of the few on the net that I've found which is consistantly friendly and on-topic.

This, I agree with. However, I doubt a great forum such as this would have any problems with a few interesting off topic threads.

I'd like to see it remain that way.

So, you are implying that my off topic thread will eventually consume the forum and turn it into an off-topic civ3 forum?

I'm sure most everyone here would,

Nobody wants to see a good forum go under, of course.

Then again, who else thinks a couple off-topic posts per month will eventually turn a solid forum with brilliant minds reading it upside down.(as you clearly imply.)

so if you need to insult someone

You have me figured wrong, Aeson. Anyone that knows me, knows that I'm not out to insult anyone, nor do I thrive off of griefing others. When someone needs help in a field I have knowledge in, I do what I can to help. I'm not the type of guy that would see you stranded with car trouble or whatnot and keep on going.

The fact is, on the extremely rare occassion that I encounter complete arrogance, I curtly address it.

, or make off-topic threads, please do it somewhere else.

So, you are telling everyone who's made an off topic thread to "Go somewhere else"?

-Dunnagan

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dunnagan I'm all for categorizing things, but not my sock drawer. If someone wants to post in the most read forum, so be it.

It's not your site. It's against the forum rules. The rules apply to all of us.

From the rules:

"IX) Where do I post what?

Each forum has a specific topic. Only on-topic discussions are to be held in forums. Off-topic discussions can be held in the Off-Topic forum.

XI) What can't I post?

Insults, flames, hatred comments, spamming, advertisements are an abuse of your priviledge to post and can result to a penalty"

Then again, who else thinks a couple off-topic posts per month will eventually turn a solid forum with brilliant minds reading it upside down.(as you clearly imply.)

'Clearly imply' is quite a stretch given you didn't include the other clause in the sentence when responding and disregarded it in your reasoning. Resorting to arguing by using sentence fragments now?

You say a few off-topic posts won't matter, I agree. But why should you be the special one allowed to post one of the few off-topic posts in disregard for the forum rules? There are hundreds of others who if they did the same would ruin the forum. You aren't special, I'm not special, everyone plays by the rules and that's what has made this the type of forum it is.

Anyone that knows me, knows that I'm not out to insult anyone, nor do I thrive off of griefing others.

Yet you decide to threadjack your own off-topic thread just to:

I think what you meant to say was 'insulting' your friend's sig, which I deemed innopropriate, regardless of how stupid people are in the OT forums.

'Insulting' being your own terminology for what you did.

So, you are telling everyone who's made an off topic thread to "Go somewhere else"?

No. I'm telling you to post your threads in the appropriate forum and not resort to insults. I don't mind if you stay here and post on-topic as much as you'd like. That's what this forum is for.

[Dunnagan]

Originally posted by Aeson


It's not your site. It's against the forum rules. The rules apply to all of us.

From the rules:

"IX) Where do I post what?

Each forum has a specific topic. Only on-topic discussions are to be held in forums. Off-topic discussions can be held in the Off-Topic forum.

XI) What can't I post?

Insults, flames, hatred comments, spamming, advertisements are an abuse of your priviledge to post and can result to a penalty"

If someone has a problem with my thread, they'll move it. Otherwise I suppose you'll be whining about it, which is amusing.

It was an informative advice post.

'Clearly imply' is quite a stretch given you didn't include the other clause in the sentence when responding and disregarded it in your reasoning. Resorting to arguing by using sentence fragments now?

Which clause didn't I include? It appears to me that everything was quoted. Here, I'll rehash the part you don't seem to grasp. You said:

"I have never had any interaction with Vince278 AFAIK, but everyone here is my friend. This forum is one of the few on the net that I've found which is consistantly friendly and on-topic. I'd like to see it remain that way. I'm sure most everyone here would, so if you need to insult someone, or make off-topic threads, please do it somewhere else."

Which means you find the forum informative, (which I definately agree upon) and you'd like to see it remain that way. Then you speak for everyone in the forum, and imply that the forum wouldn't be 'on topic' anymore if more off topic posts occurred. The reason you posted this was because of my off topic message, right? Or can you remember why you posted it?...So, now you claim you weren't implying that the forum would go bad if more off topic posts originated. Nobody used any sentence fragments against you, Aeron. Re read my post.

But why should you be the special one allowed to post one of the few off-topic posts in disregard for the forum rules? There are hundreds of others who if they did the same would ruin the forum. You aren't special, I'm not special, everyone plays by the rules and that's what has made this the type of forum it is.

What makes you think I was the special one? I'm not the only guy with an off topic post.

Also, keep in mind that off topic posts are not all that bad, provided the poster is of average or higher intelligence, and the topic is interesting. In a garden, you don't want all flowers of the same color. You want just a few other colors mixed in...it's called variety. Just look at the age of the thread and then see how many have read it. Obviously it's interesting to someone.

Yet you decide to threadjack your own off-topic thread just to:



'Insulting' being your own terminology for what you did.

You said: " arguing with someone's sig... "...which is obviously impossible. So I replaced the word, with 'insulting someone's sig'. So you see I insulted the sig generally, however since he did make the sig, it's basically an insult to him also..Which isn't what I aimed to do there, but it did come out rather derogatory. Also take into consideration I had my wisdom teeth removed that day, while the doc offered some pain medication, I don't do barbituates...So I had to pass up the prescription, and deal with the sore mouth the old fashioned way. Had I not been in pain like I was, surely I would have treated the situation with less negative comments, however the post would definately still be there.

No. I'm telling you

I think you mean asking me.

-Dunnagan

[Dunnagan]

;

[vondrack]

Dunnagan, you might wish to pause and take a deep breath. Believe me, you are not doing yourself a good service by arguing with Aeson. Nor to anyone else here.

Having one's wisdom teeth removed should not imply having one's wisdom removed - if your mouth is giving you hell and your mood is all-time bad, then kindly refrain from posting negative comments until it gets better and you regain perspective. There is no need to spread that bad mood around this friendly place.

Thank you.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dunnagan
Which clause didn't I include? It appears to me that everything was quoted. Here, I'll rehash the part you don't seem to grasp. You said:

You broke up the sentence and then responded to it without regard to the other half of the sentence. That you then responded to the other half of the sentence without regard for the first doesn't make either of your arguments applicable.

You seperated out 'insult' from 'off-topic' and then made assumptions about my reasons for posting based solely on the 'off-topic', ignoring the 'insult'. In fact it was the other way around.

Which means you find the forum informative, (which I definately agree upon) and you'd like to see it remain that way.

The forum is informative. That is not what I said though. I said friendly and on-topic.

Then you speak for everyone in the forum, and imply that the forum wouldn't be 'on topic' anymore if more off topic posts occurred.

It would obviously be less on-topic the more off-topic threads that occured.

The reason you posted this was because of my off topic message, right? Or can you remember why you posted it?

No. If you look at the thread I was perfectly ok to let the off-topic pass. Once you decided to insult someone I spoke up against your posting.

So, now you claim you weren't implying that the forum would go bad if more off topic posts originated.

The world isn't black and white. It would take an awful lot to make this forum bad, but it only takes a single instance to make it worse than it was. For you to respond with the assumtion that I speak in terms of black and white only shows your lack of understanding, not mine.

What makes you think I was the special one? I'm not the only guy with an off topic post.

I don't think you are the special one. You seem to think the rules do not (or should not) apply to you. You say your off-topic post is ok, even though the rules do not agree.

You said: " arguing with someone's sig... "...which is obviously impossible.

No, it's possible. It's just inane to do it.

So you see I insulted the sig generally, however since he did make the sig, it's basically an insult to him also..Which isn't what I aimed to do there, but it did come out rather derogatory.

Go back and read what you said. You were insulting him directly.

Also take into consideration I had my wisdom teeth removed that day, while the doc offered some pain medication, I don't do barbituates...So I had to pass up the prescription, and deal with the sore mouth the old fashioned way. Had I not been in pain like I was, surely I would have treated the situation with less negative comments, however the post would definately still be there.

You sound like you understand how you responded was wrong. Why continue to be defiant about it? Just apollogize and be done with it.

I think you mean asking me.

'Telling' was the term you used to refer to it. I was responding to your quote where you used 'telling' instead of 'asking'. I'm glad you can see I wasn't telling anyone to do anything now though.