1316 replies to this topic

[SS396]

Ashfire908, on October 29 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

Sweet now I can start posting to this thread again!

Oh did you find some news_

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not leaving, I'm just done with Dave and iNept.

[Silverfire]

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Sorry iNept, you can repeat yourself over and over and grasp at straws by calling me a liar, but I've proven you wrong on multiple accounts., but you said it yourself, you can't move forward with our discussion.  Lol.  Nice try though.

You're calling each other liars. So logically we must then look at the evidence presented by both sides in order to determine the truth. Who has presented more evidence, the more sound evidence, and the best backed up evidence_ That decision is left up to the individual.

[Ashfire908]

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Ashfire908, on October 29 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

Sweet now I can start posting to this thread again!

Oh did you find some news_

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not leaving, I'm just done with Dave and iNept.

The only news being posted here is "SS396's real side". But to me that's old news.

If you are done, why are you still posting to them_

Edited by Ashfire908, October 29 2014 - 12:36 PM.

[teeth_03]

Hawken 2: The War on Semantica

Where its not about how well you play but how well you use the in game chat with your enemies!

[Skitzo1d]

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Hey skitz, cool stories bro, you need a tissue_  Both Evol and I laughed our asses off when you ran into him and were hounding him in chat about who he was,

1.) Btw I asked twice in chat so thats hounding is it_

2.) You werent in that match with him, so unless you live with him and was watching his computer, that makes you even more of a hyopcrit than you already are, cause that means you were smurfing too.  I hope for your sake you live with him or are friends irl and was at his house. If its proven you dont, then none of your ranting about smurfing can ever be taken seriously.  Not that it really can anyways because you only rant against smurfs you dont like, but your friends that smurf you dont say a word about.

[Nept]

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Sorry iNept, you can repeat yourself over and over and grasp at straws by calling me a liar, but I've proven you wrong on multiple accounts., but you said it yourself, you can't move forward with our discussion.  Lol.  Nice try though.

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

What I said: There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention . . . Now if you were attempting to argue that it wasn't "fun" for the weaker players, then you might find yourself with some footing.  Even then, though, you're casting an overly-wide net by painting all players with the same negative nancy, woe is me attitude that you've assumed as of late.

What you had said: So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

What you changed your position to:  "it is not fun to be on the receiving end of that.  And since you can't seem to understand that, it must mean that you've never experienced that before, but just think about how you would feel"

[EM1O]

Do like Titanfall with it's pseudo-banned hackers "Club".
Have them all pseudo-banned where they can only post to an Annoying Dicks Forum.


Lock please_

Edited by EM1O, October 29 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[StubbornPuppet]

While everyone's on the topic of "Smurfs"... why do we call alt accounts "smurf accounts" anyhow.   It seems, to me, that this name is exclusive to Hawken.  What's the origin_

[teeth_03]

It's not unique to Hawken, the term at least dates back to the glory days of Halo 1 since it was used then.

[Leonhardt]

Silverfire, on October 29 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Sorry iNept, you can repeat yourself over and over and grasp at straws by calling me a liar, but I've proven you wrong on multiple accounts., but you said it yourself, you can't move forward with our discussion.  Lol.  Nice try though.

You're calling each other liars. So logically we must then look at the evidence presented by both sides in order to determine the truth. Who has presented more evidence, the more sound evidence, and the best backed up evidence_ That decision is left up to the individual.

I don't need to "deduce" the truth, I lived it. Having high MMR makes finding a game, yes just 1 game, a real chore. I have actually waited over an hour for the match maker to find me a game only to be put into a game with 3 other players who didn't even know air dodging exists in the game (note: this is not a singular occurrence, but actually close to the norm). I choose not to smurf, not because I don't need to in order to play, but simply because I feel it would be a waste of time. As a result I rarely play Hawken these days outside of clan matches. Why you ask_ I can't get into a game in under an hour that is even decent. However, if I wanted to play Hawken in an reasonable way I would be forced to create a smurf.

Spoiler

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

What I said: There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention . . . Now if you were attempting to argue that it wasn't "fun" for the weaker players, then you might find yourself with some footing.  Even then, though, you're casting an overly-wide net by painting all players with the same negative nancy, woe is me attitude that you've assumed as of late.

What you had said: So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

What you changed your position to:  "it is not fun to be on the receiving end of that.  And since you can't seem to understand that, it must mean that you've never experienced that before, but just think about how you would feel"

^Spoiler = The Devastation Station

[SS396]

Skitzo1d, on October 29 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Hey skitz, cool stories bro, you need a tissue_  Both Evol and I laughed our asses off when you ran into him and were hounding him in chat about who he was,

1.) Btw I asked twice in chat so thats hounding is it_

2.) You werent in that match with him, so unless you live with him and was watching his computer, that makes you even more of a hyopcrit than you already are, cause that means you were smurfing too.  I hope for your sake you live with him or are friends irl and was at his house. If its proven you dont, then none of your ranting about smurfing can ever be taken seriously.  Not that it really can anyways because you only rant against smurfs you dont like, but your friends that smurf you dont say a word about.

TIL theres no such thing as skype and you have to actually live with someone to experience a funny situation that happens to them the moment it happens to them.

Dude, quit being such a simpleton also.

[SS396]

Leonhardt, on October 29 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

I don't need to "deduce" the truth, I lived it. Having high MMR makes finding a game, yes just 1 game, a real chore. I have actually waited over an hour for the match maker to find me a game only to be put into a game with 3 other players who didn't even know air dodging exists in the game (note: this is not a singular occurrence, but actually close to the norm). I choose not to smurf, not because I don't need to in order to play, but simply because I feel it would be a waste of time. As a result I rarely play Hawken these days outside of clan matches. Why you ask_ I can't get into a game in under an hour that is even decent. However, if I wanted to play Hawken in an reasonable way I would be forced to create a smurf.

Thank you for your proof.  Leonhardt, so it IS possible to get into "any" match unlike what iNept has said previously.

[Nept]

Leonhardt, on October 29 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

Silverfire, on October 29 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Sorry iNept, you can repeat yourself over and over and grasp at straws by calling me a liar, but I've proven you wrong on multiple accounts., but you said it yourself, you can't move forward with our discussion.  Lol.  Nice try though.

You're calling each other liars. So logically we must then look at the evidence presented by both sides in order to determine the truth. Who has presented more evidence, the more sound evidence, and the best backed up evidence_ That decision is left up to the individual.

I don't need to "deduce" the truth, I lived it. Having high MMR makes finding a game, yes just 1 game, a real chore. I have actually waited over an hour for the match maker to find me a game only to be put into a game with 3 other players who didn't even know air dodging exists in the game (note: this is not a singular occurrence, but actually close to the norm). I choose not to smurf, not because I don't need to in order to play, but simply because I feel it would be a waste of time. As a result I rarely play Hawken these days outside of clan matches. Why you ask_ I can't get into a game in under an hour that is even decent. However, if I wanted to play Hawken in an reasonable way I would be forced to create a smurf.

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

What I said: There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention . . . Now if you were attempting to argue that it wasn't "fun" for the weaker players, then you might find yourself with some footing.  Even then, though, you're casting an overly-wide net by painting all players with the same negative nancy, woe is me attitude that you've assumed as of late.

What you had said: So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

What you changed your position to:  "it is not fun to be on the receiving end of that.  And since you can't seem to understand that, it must mean that you've never experienced that before, but just think about how you would feel"

^Spoiler = The Devastation Station

Leon bringing the Truth Train into the Devastation Station!

Edited by Nept, October 29 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Leonhardt]

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on October 29 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

I don't need to "deduce" the truth, I lived it. Having high MMR makes finding a game, yes just 1 game, a real chore. I have actually waited over an hour for the match maker to find me a game only to be put into a game with 3 other players who didn't even know air dodging exists in the game (note: this is not a singular occurrence, but actually close to the norm). I choose not to smurf, not because I don't need to in order to play, but simply because I feel it would be a waste of time. As a result I rarely play Hawken these days outside of clan matches. Why you ask_ I can't get into a game in under an hour that is even decent. However, if I wanted to play Hawken in an reasonable way I would be forced to create a smurf.

Thank you for your proof.  Leonhardt, so it IS possible to get into "any" match unlike what iNept has said previously.

Any match_ No, its not possible to get into "any" match as you can only get into the match the match maker gives you if it decides to give you one which to be frank takes a very long time. Not to mention my experience with the match making system is over 2 months old so I would imagine it is far worse now that the population of players is well below what it was just a few months ago.

[SS396]

lol.

Any != ALL.  How about you acknowledge that one_  Should of chosen a better word to restrict your domain accordingly.

^That was meant for iNept.

Sorry Leon, but yeah, "any" means "at least one" so if it does put you into a single match, then it is infact true.   it could also be true if it puts you into an empty match, but I haven't even begun to argue that point.

Edited by SS396, October 29 2014 - 01:36 PM.

[Xacius]

OmniRoach, on October 29 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

How_!

I've taken the odd course in analysis, and thought I'd try my hand at addressing this question for Nept.

Let's recap!

Xacius asked Nept to clarify the following statement: “Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected”. This statement was made in response to SS396's suggestion that Nept shouldn't “try to think [sic] you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying,” – a suggestion which was expanded upon with the claim that Nept “[has] no clue”.

Nept explained that the sentence was constructed in a way which allowed the suggestion of a paradox: how can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_ To understand this paradox, we must first examine those elements which make writing “good”. Although a myriad of “good” writing styles exist, most authors and educators agree that conciseness, clarity, and proper grammar comprise key components of effective writing. A quick glance at an SS396 post reveals numerous run-on sentences (often held together with an overabundance of commas) and frequent grammatical errors. By themselves, these characteristics wouldn't undermine the average reader's understanding of an SS396 composition; combine them with his penchant for ambiguity and emotional outbursts, however, and you have yourself a difficult read.

Or so one would think. Despite these apparent obstructions, SS396 posts are typically easy to understand – at least with some meta-knowledge. We know, for example, that SS396 is a “whiny fuzzy bunny baby”, and so will respond accordingly. We also know that SS396 cannot cease posting, and cannot take his own advice in ignoring certain community members. We know that SS396 has difficulty admitting fault, and so will twist words and phrasings to suit his current line of argument. We know that SS395 feigns nonchalance toward community opinion, yet apparently cares enough to antagonize, complain, derail, and cite rules at every opportunity. Finally, we know that SS396 feels slighted by both the community and the development team, and believes himself to be putting on a show.

This knowledge allows an informed reader to quickly deconstruct SS396 posts – hence the phrasing, “Although writing isn't your strong suite . . . your posts are easily dissected”. In essence, Nept is suggesting that the poor writing characteristics which would typically make post comprehension difficult are (at least in SS396's case) mitigated by the aforementioned meta-knowledge.

But what about the paradoxical phrasing, “or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite” (emphasis added)_ Here, Nept is referencing the tendency for posters to obfuscate through post composition ulterior motives. Furthermore, the ease with which he/she deconstructs SS396 compositions (as seen here, for example) suggests that SS396's poor writing betrays any such motives. Where another writer might, through clever writing, surreptitiously shift their premises mid-debate, SS396 can only clumsily feign ignorance.

Nept's statement, then, meets paradox criterion: a seemingly contradictory statement may, in fact, be true.

Truly trenchant.

[Nept]

Xacius, on October 29 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

OmniRoach, on October 29 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

How_!

I've taken the odd course in analysis, and thought I'd try my hand at addressing this question for Nept.

Let's recap!

Xacius asked Nept to clarify the following statement: “Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected”. This statement was made in response to SS396's suggestion that Nept shouldn't “try to think [sic] you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying,” – a suggestion which was expanded upon with the claim that Nept “[has] no clue”.

Nept explained that the sentence was constructed in a way which allowed the suggestion of a paradox: how can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_ To understand this paradox, we must first examine those elements which make writing “good”. Although a myriad of “good” writing styles exist, most authors and educators agree that conciseness, clarity, and proper grammar comprise key components of effective writing. A quick glance at an SS396 post reveals numerous run-on sentences (often held together with an overabundance of commas) and frequent grammatical errors. By themselves, these characteristics wouldn't undermine the average reader's understanding of an SS396 composition; combine them with his penchant for ambiguity and emotional outbursts, however, and you have yourself a difficult read.

Or so one would think. Despite these apparent obstructions, SS396 posts are typically easy to understand – at least with some meta-knowledge. We know, for example, that SS396 is a “whiny fuzzy bunny baby”, and so will respond accordingly. We also know that SS396 cannot cease posting, and cannot take his own advice in ignoring certain community members. We know that SS396 has difficulty admitting fault, and so will twist words and phrasings to suit his current line of argument. We know that SS395 feigns nonchalance toward community opinion, yet apparently cares enough to antagonize, complain, derail, and cite rules at every opportunity. Finally, we know that SS396 feels slighted by both the community and the development team, and believes himself to be putting on a show.

This knowledge allows an informed reader to quickly deconstruct SS396 posts – hence the phrasing, “Although writing isn't your strong suite . . . your posts are easily dissected”. In essence, Nept is suggesting that the poor writing characteristics which would typically make post comprehension difficult are (at least in SS396's case) mitigated by the aforementioned meta-knowledge.

But what about the paradoxical phrasing, “or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite” (emphasis added)_ Here, Nept is referencing the tendency for posters to obfuscate through post composition ulterior motives. Furthermore, the ease with which he/she deconstructs SS396 compositions (as seen here, for example) suggests that SS396's poor writing betrays any such motives. Where another writer might, through clever writing, surreptitiously shift their premises mid-debate, SS396 can only clumsily feign ignorance.

Nept's statement, then, meets paradox criterion: a seemingly contradictory statement may, in fact, be true.

Truly trenchant.

I think it would be fair to say that he got Scrubasaurus Rekt.

[M1lkshake]

OmniRoach, on October 29 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Xacius, on October 28 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Your agreeing with that point doesn't invalidate my argument (which was that you had missed two important points in your reply to Dave), and so doesn't provide any additional context.  That particular statement was meant to indicate that that activity wasn't fun, yes, but it did double-duty by upholding your mistaken assertion that you hadn't missed the point in the previous post.  You should also note that I was not, in fact, stating that such situations were inherently unfun.  I merely suggested an alternate premise which would've provided you stronger ground for your argument.  However, I also weakened the strength of such an argument by indicating the assumptions one would have to make in its defense.  As such, you were not agreeing with my post.

Please dont' try to think you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying.  You have no clue.

I have every clue as to your wording intentions.  Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected.

Whatever do you mean, Nept_  Could you please clarify_

How can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_

How_!

I've taken the odd course in analysis, and thought I'd try my hand at addressing this question for Nept.

Let's recap!

Xacius asked Nept to clarify the following statement: “Although writing isn't your strong suite (or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite), your posts are easily dissected”. This statement was made in response to SS396's suggestion that Nept shouldn't “try to think [sic] you can get in my head and tell me what I was saying,” – a suggestion which was expanded upon with the claim that Nept “[has] no clue”.

Nept explained that the sentence was constructed in a way which allowed the suggestion of a paradox: how can SS396's posts be easily deconstructed either in spite of or due to his less-than-stellar writing_ To understand this paradox, we must first examine those elements which make writing “good”. Although a myriad of “good” writing styles exist, most authors and educators agree that conciseness, clarity, and proper grammar comprise key components of effective writing. A quick glance at an SS396 post reveals numerous run-on sentences (often held together with an overabundance of commas) and frequent grammatical errors. By themselves, these characteristics wouldn't undermine the average reader's understanding of an SS396 composition; combine them with his penchant for ambiguity and emotional outbursts, however, and you have yourself a difficult read.

Or so one would think. Despite these apparent obstructions, SS396 posts are typically easy to understand – at least with some meta-knowledge. We know, for example, that SS396 is a “whiny fuzzy bunny baby”, and so will respond accordingly. We also know that SS396 cannot cease posting, and cannot take his own advice in ignoring certain community members. We know that SS396 has difficulty admitting fault, and so will twist words and phrasings to suit his current line of argument. We know that SS395 feigns nonchalance toward community opinion, yet apparently cares enough to antagonize, complain, derail, and cite rules at every opportunity. Finally, we know that SS396 feels slighted by both the community and the development team, and believes himself to be putting on a show.

This knowledge allows an informed reader to quickly deconstruct SS396 posts – hence the phrasing, “Although writing isn't your strong suite . . . your posts are easily dissected”. In essence, Nept is suggesting that the poor writing characteristics which would typically make post comprehension difficult are (at least in SS396's case) mitigated by the aforementioned meta-knowledge.

But what about the paradoxical phrasing, “or perhaps because writing isn't your strong suite” (emphasis added)_ Here, Nept is referencing the tendency for posters to obfuscate through post composition ulterior motives. Furthermore, the ease with which he/she deconstructs SS396 compositions (as seen here, for example) suggests that SS396's poor writing betrays any such motives. Where another writer might, through clever writing, surreptitiously shift their premises mid-debate, SS396 can only clumsily feign ignorance.

Nept's statement, then, meets paradox criterion: a seemingly contradictory statement may, in fact, be true.

A devastatingly insightful analysis!

[Leonhardt]

SS396, on October 29 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

lol.

Any != ALL.  How about you acknowledge that one_  Should of chosen a better work to restrict your domain accordingly.

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

SS396, on October 28 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

"His MMR prevents him from accessing any matches"  That statement is false, if he chooses a mode by quickmatch it will eventually find a match for him, just because a high tier match (2200+) isn't immediately available does not mean its IMPOSSIBLE to get stuffed into one automagically by the quick match feature of the game AS YOU ASSERTED.  Also, he could find scrims with several of his cohorts, or get onto private servers where the MMR restriction is turned off, or simply get into a party with a much lower player.  So your choice of word "ANY" is simply incorrect rendering the statement completely false.  See any means at least 1, so All I have to do is prove that he can infact get into one single game, which we all know is easily possible, Right_  

You're correct in that I've used too sweeping a term re: “any”. You're less correct than you think, though. When your MMR climbs past the 2600 mark, quickmatch frequently fails to find matches. It simply times out. You quickmatch again, and it times out. You quickmatch a third time, and it times out. Forget searching for a specific gametype, you won't find games across gametypes or across regions. These timeouts happen regardless of open, low-MMR matches. I have personally sat through quickmatch requeues for 30+ minutes.

As for scrims, Omni plays infrequently and typically shows only for matches (or for the occasional scrim request from friendly teams). Even when we were highly active, scrims weren't exactly abundant. If you think that finding scrims with your statistical outlier cohorts is simple, then you've never been a statistical outlier. Not in the good sense, anyway.

As for joining on friends, well, friends list. Also, joining on friends doesn't evade MMR restrictions. As for the private servers, people don't use them as frequently as you apparently think. In fact, people typically use them only for practice, scrims, or matches (which is their purpose).

So you see, even though it is technically possible for Dave to find games, it's far from frequently feasible. Also note that your demands upon Dave re: public servers – that he stick with the matchmaker or join through parties ( the latter rendered more difficult without a functional friends list) – result in much the same end: Dave will find himself on servers with lower-ranking players.

The only difference between your demands and Dave's “smurfing,” then, is that the former requires that Dave sit twiddling his thumbs while matchmaking continuously denies him games. And that's a ridiculous sentiment coming from someone whose patience couldn't withstand even a single match against Dave.


Now, I've humoured your attempt at playing semantics, but it's important that you realize that hedging a term (or failing to, in my case) is very different from equivocation (which is what you did). I'll explain that again here, since you seem intent on ignoring it:

Nept, on October 28 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

What I said: There's nothing unfair about having superior skills in a video game (and using them).  Mollycoddling community members by preventing them from playing against stronger opponents has nothing to do with "fairness"; it's simply a means of maximizing community retention . . . Now if you were attempting to argue that it wasn't "fun" for the weaker players, then you might find yourself with some footing.  Even then, though, you're casting an overly-wide net by painting all players with the same negative nancy, woe is me attitude that you've assumed as of late.

What you had said: So yeah, someone with the in game skills to get 2797.2271728515625 MMR has to play smurf accounts and blame the matchmaker for not letting them into matches where his skill out weights everyone in the rest of the match.  You think your piloting skills get lower if you start a new account_  Can't you see how completely fuzzy bunny unfair that is_

What you changed your position to:  "it is not fun to be on the receiving end of that.  And since you can't seem to understand that, it must mean that you've never experienced that before, but just think about how you would feel"

The moment you understand that little fact, we can move onto another discussion.

Veritasnous, on October 29 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

Nept: "Any" was followed by comments about the amount of time it takes to find matches. I took you as quantifying over matches that could be found in a reasonable amount of time.

So there was really no need to abandon "any" as too sweeping a term, since your follow up comments restricted the domain nicely.

Dave's smurfing sometimes frustrates me, but even at the 2100-2200 level it can often be hard to find a 2-3 star match, so I don't hold it against him. At least Dave's not an arse about it, whereas a decent section of the 2600+ gang come into lower level matches and spread the arrogance and superiority on thick.

It seems to me this very subject has already been addressed by everyone, but you. Your use of vague terms in the hopes of finding a hole only shows a lack of understanding in logical argument frame work as its rule #1 not to be vague and #2 to use specificity of language which you have clearly not done in the hopes of creating a "trap" for those responding. This does not add to the validity of your argument in the slightest.

Also you should look at the second meaning of the word "whichever of a specified class might be chosen." This meaning implies a choice of which the player has none as I stated earlier.

Nept, on October 29 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

Leon bringing the Truth Train into the Devastation Station!

Toot Toot!

[SS396]

lol.

This is fuzzy bunny hilarious.