In regards to bitter's arguements against my ideas I said this:
Apparently these two sentences were what orginally set him off to post long winded text full of personal insults. I don't quite see where else I'm paying that much attention to him or or even giving too much thought anything he specifically had to say before that. At best, I was mostly focused on commenting more on some of the ideas shared rather then who shared them. However, again I'm just sharing my own thoughts, ideas and opinion, if people don't like them, fine, don't agree with them, fine as well. Just post you own stuff, I'm sure someone will read and like it.
No, what led to my use of insults was your rampant dishonesty and accusations I was misrepresenting you. You try very very hard to project your flaws onto others so that we're all as dishonest as you and by extension youre not that bad because you're just "doing what everyone else is doing". But you're not. Youre speaking off the cuff whatever you believe will sway people to your point of view and dismissing all contrary response out of hand as equally uninformed opinion.
Herein lies the rub. When I disagree with someone it's because I read everything they had to say to make sure i understood their position. I also use my knowledge (not opinion) of staff information and game history to make my arguments. when Hardboiled takes a position, he assumes everyone is speaking from a position of pure uninformed opinion and therefore the only motive of disagreement is wanting the opposite and the only means is speaking mindlessly off-the-cuff. he really doesn't care what you have to say.
He'll get bored of reading early on and just guess what you said in his summary. But to him it doesn't matter because he is self-assured everyone is just guessing anyways. So what does it matter if he contradicts himself or calls someone's recollection of stats they knew "opinion"? It doesn't matter so he may as well just summarize reality however best suits his goal of shutting down contrary opinion.
As documented below.
Oh look, more half-assery and skimming mixed with lies, misrepresentation of my points, and changing the subject. Let's get this back on track.
I know. And your attempt to blow off having your dishonesty proven using the record hasn't made me upset any more than your claims I lost my temper have. Of course I already suggested you should claim you were trolling. Is this the setup for that?
Well considering you've gone from attacking my ideas, to attacking me with petty childish insult, I wouldn't be accusing anyone else of being a troll if I were you.
You rapidly degraded into victim-playing and blatant dishonest because I disagreed with you. I became insulting because constantly accusing me of dishonest acts you were guilty of is disrespectful. And I have no intention of respecting someone who misrepresents what I said in order to accuse me of misrepresenting what they said.
One of my favorite examples of you doing this was:
In order to accuse me of misrepresenting you you invented accusations I didnt actually make. Let that sink in oh great victim of injustice.
Early on I tried to address your posts with some of my own thoughts. However, that has practically made you fly off the handle.
No, what you did was make strawman versions of my arguments and then knocked your strawmen down. But I suppose callnig that "your own thoughts" will have to do.
Your arguments have been your opinion, just like mine have
Part of my arguments were opinion, part were fact. But unlike you I know the difference. Youve been playing fast and loose with this because you mistakenly believe we're all just making shit up on the fly and nobody can be sure who is right unless the other side concedes. I dont need to you concede or admit you're lying to know it because I start from facts and work outward. You start from opinion and make shit up or misrepresent things. Case-in-point your own next example:
Demons existed. Vampires existed. That was my point. "You think you heard of two others" is not fact, it is your assumption. An assumption I could care less of, the fact is they existed.
Let's look at your point which you're now misrepresenting:
Again I must remind you that lying offline about the record doesnt work online. Your point was "What arm was 20 years ago is a completely different game then it is now." And my counterpoint, Gilvar, is between 1 and 3 vampires existing 13 years ago does not make Arm completely different.
My secondary point was you were pretending the existence of any vampires and demons was the same as the prevailence of them. Most players never encountered any of thie shit so it's a real stretch to claim this handful of pebbles made Arm into a mountain two decades ago.
A tiny number not making arm more high fantasy is still your opinion. One i do not agree with.
... so no having a tiny number of a certain type of creature does not mark the diference between high and low fantasy. But I really like that youre projecting your own problem of assuming your opinion is reality onto me. Very subtle.
You've quoted my entire paragraph and then begin to dissect it as a form of arguing against me. However you've taken stuff out of context and at other time not even read them properly. Again let me give you an example:
I only removed sentences where it would not change the meaning of the statements. if youd actually read my post instead of skimming it you might notice I actually had to partially requote something I'd already replied to because not doing so would change the message of the next part I wanted to argue against. But I don't expect you to even consider redressing yourself. So let's look at this big example of yours...
This was the entire paragraph
Yes, and now lets look at what I actually did without your clever edits:
So yes you were calling for nerfing and removing roles. And no, the rest of your paragraph didn't matter because the only part of it I wanted to address was your bald-faced lie about not nerfing and removing roles. How does it change anything to leave out stuff you said about roles already having been nerfed when I did not disagree with you on it?
Does the rest of your paragraph change the fact the opening sentence was a bald-faced lie? And that no part of the paragraph I left out can change the fact you made statements to the exact contrary of how you summarized your position? do you beleive that I cant know youre lying, in spite of the facts to the contrary, if you just keep refusing to admit it?
Restoring context because of your rambling...
I did not see a need to address you specifically at first as opposed to just some of the ideas brought up in the thread. However, I did try to address some of the general thought in your earlier posts, but they degraded into such long winded dribble, it not worth the time to comb through that shit just to argue with you.
Ah I see. I already eliminated claiming you were trolling or claiming this was your master plan. now youre claiming I'm not worth your time. Im sorry, are you new to the internet? Do you believe this kind of dismissal is groundbreaking stuff? Do you truly hope in your incompetent heart of hearts that shit people have been saying while fleeing a losing argument since the late 90's is somethign none of us have encountered before online?
So lets put your sad attempt at your evasions being nothing more than you being "too cool for me" aside. I've been pointing out you haven't provided anything to explain how nerfing and removing roles improves the game since my first post. But I was going on too long, you say? Fine. let's play Gilvars Advocate and say I did go on too long. How'd you miss the first three sentences?
I really disagree with the idea that nerfing mages is in any way in the best interests of the game. What, it's too dangerous outdoors in a game that brags about having a harsh, post-apocalyptic world? In the first sentence of its intro?
Because the crux of every argument Ive had with your opinion (that wasnt mired in untangling all the lies and victim-playing and strawman arguments of yours) is that it wont improve the game and that you just want to be safe from magick. And the vast majority of the time your only response is to whine about how it hurts your enjoyment of the game that the game matches the docs.
You are so concinved everyone is arguing from a point of selfishness, dishonesty, and opinion that you assumed the only wya I could disagree with you is if I loved high magick. As demonstrated by your incompetent warping of the previous argument:
By the way, I saved the BBCode of my post you mostly avoided so that it could effortlessly be reposted. I knew you were either going to ignore what you couldnt refute or just wait until the next page of the thread so it'd be off the screen. Holy shit are you predictable. So this sad attempt of yours to avoid answering for your lies in the hopes I'll tire out wont work. Thought youd like to know that. Literally no effort.
You either agree with me, or you don't....I don't give a shit either way. So excuse I was sounding rather evasive when addressing you since it almost seems like you believe I should give you equal amounts of time and attention you given me. Haha, get over yourself, you are not fucking special.
No people like you believe they are special. And when they put their opinions out there and then lie, exagerate, and play the victim because they are so concinved the game should be remade to what they like that they dont have to respect anyone else's point of view. Because theyre special it's okay. And if anyone gets upset that you special people create a mountain of bullshit and false accusations it must be because they want your attention. Because youre the special one.
Whining and trying to seem like the mature one whi did nothing wrong by lying, victim playing, exagerating, deflecting, and making strawman arguments Really? Well here's all the shit you didn't address:
First of all, let me just say I don't give a shit if I can change scripted plots or not.I just hate how high powered magick is as a crutch for poor story telling.
...
Do I believe it would force staff to be a bit more creative in how they go about changing things rather then just saying 'a wizard did it' well i would hope so.
What I've argued for (instead of your idea
for dumping high magick entirely from the game) is for the staff to abolish HRPTs.
Anyways at some point I went from just removing some of the high powered magick and limiting certain roles of mages
to removing all of magick.Sorry, where'd I imply you were removing
all magick? i pretty clearly said high magick. Im not sure if your bald-faced lying or your victim routine is more disgusting. And no Im not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because youve been playing fast and loose with the facts. And you keep summarizing what people said into strawman versions instead of using quotes.
One of the argument you've given is that mages add to the danger in the wilderness. I'm going to argue that the wilderness can be full of dangers without some magickal asshole demanding you fear and worship them. There is a reason some people thing there are too many mage hunters and thats because magick sometimes feels so common that begin afraid gets old. You want magick to be feared, you need to make it rare, much more then it is now.
And I'm going to argue what I've been arguing. you're motivated by self-preservation and still have not come up with a single reason your changes would improve the game.
You claim that making magick rarer would make it scarier is a contradiction. People don't fear things they can't experience. that was thoroughly proven in the bad old days I referenced when elementalists could be easily dispatched by newbies. Since the vast majority of encounters with elementalists ended in magicker corpses people didn't RP as if they feared these people they were supposed to. their experience was "Elementalists are sissies."
Okay well, magick is supposed to be rare, and in the spirit of making it rarer they even tried to implement a new system of point. This would mean people can't play make high powered mage every character anymore. They'd be more special, it would sure as hell make those wandering rogues more rare, because it would hurt to lose one now.
So instead of defending your claim that making magick rarer would make it scarier, you've jumped to explaining why rare is good. Very subtle. Totally not shifting the argument or changing the subject.
What I've argued for (instead of your idea
for dumping high magick entirely from the game) is for the staff to abolish HRPTs.
Making magick rarer, doesn't mean removing it
Sure but we were talking about high magick. Which you most certainly brought up originally right here...
I'm kinda on the boat that mega-figures like the sorcerer kings and black-robed templars should go the way of the dodo too. The only time they have been used is to railroad plots in a Deus ex machina sort of way. The latest HRPT a perfect example of this which unknown magicks flying about and volcanos being moved. Even in the the history page, the latest one of Allanak and the sorcerer (hurr-hurr, sounds like a joke by staff attempting to remind everyone they haven't forgotten 'Nak still exists, and the way it was written feels like a jab at whoever played the sorcerer but that is another thread) showing silly plot-line ending that the common grebber or bynner often have little chance of getting involved other then from the side lines as spectators.
... and referenced wanting to get rid of non-mundane resolutions to RPTs/HRPTs several times after. So yeah. That happened. i didn't invent that argument for you like some of the strawmen you've whipped up for me.
Your arguments consist of me being cute, me being self-preserving and a healthy dose of hyperboles.
: I used "cute" because you hadn't lied/embellished/exagerated enough to call you a liar. youve crossed that threshold so don't expect polite euphemisms anymore. Youre pretty clearly a bullshit artist who hasnt been called out on it anywhere near enough in your time on the GDB.
Self-preservation: Everything you've said that wasn't RPT related has been about mages being too dangerous. Every single time I've asked you to explain how the game would be improved by nerfing/removing roles would improve the game (or pointed out that you still hadnt done it) you ignored the opportunity. This is, in fact, the firsttime youve even bothered acknowledging I used the term "self-preservation" and you have yet to even attempt to refute it. Instead you've thrown out a red herring and changed the subject.
So how would nerfing/removing magick roles improve the game? And if your problem with mages being dangerous isn't from self-preservation then how about you finally address it directly?
My "Hyperbole": Quote and demonstrate this. Because it's pretty clearly another red herring and you don't have the credibility to "just trust you".
Its an interesting way to argue because instead of being able to explain my ideas, I have to instead go around in circles repeating things some of the things I've said.
You've actually avoided explaining your ideas and I've had to repeat things we've both said because of your blatant, dishonest use of strawman arguments, lying about what you've said, and changing the subject. Yours is a contrived method of dishonesty.
The staff involved with these things are shitty writers who try too hard to wow the players. Ive said this for years. What I've argued for (instead of your idea for dumping high magick entirely from the game) is for the staff to abolish HRPTs. If the players can't change something they won't care. It doesn't matter if what's happening is "A wizard did it" or "The army did it."
Stuff happening on a world scale has no real impact on anyone and no one has any real impact on it. Nobody gives a shit because nothing they have an investment in is at risk.
If you dropped the scope of the game and made it player-driven, you'd have shit like fights between two clans of 4 people over small resources. tiny stakes. Stuff most people would never hear about but they'd probably experience on their own organically. And those petty fights would matter more to those players than an HRPT that ended with mundane engineers sinking Allanak into the Sea of Eternal Silt.However at the end of the day, this is where we disagree:
You like your high powered magickal plot lines.So was that a strawman, are you a liar, or are you just an imbecile? im going with all three. Because you just asserted the exact opposite of what I said.
You're one of those people who lies in person by constantly shifting what was said previously, aren't you? I can tell. Because you idiots always try the same thing online forgetting that there's a record of what was said that everyone cn reference.
Nobody needs to agree on what was said in the past when you have a record of it.I like more down to earth mundane plots. You want to play your wizards and have people fear you.
Another strawman. Feel free to prove I want to play wizards or be feared.
You have the entirety of my posting history to choose from. i wont hold my breath waiting.
I don't want to play a mundane surrounded by mages, who is forced to shiver in their boots in order to 'respect the force that broke the world'
Feel free to prove I want you to shiver in your boots. Also feel free to show me where I said 'respect the force that broke the world'. Again, you have the entirety of my posting history to choose from. Ive literally never said either thing at any time. So, you know... good luck making this strawman argument seem legit. Maybe you should check out the pickpocket thread where I mentioned theyre my favorite guild. Because of their high-magick ability to take coins out of pockets...
This is why I cannot make a satisfactory argument against you specifically in terms of improving the world because again to me heading north of the grey forest and encountering war drums and gith war-bands is more enjoyable then encountering the plainsman and his merry band of assholes.
Im going to say the same thing to you that your father should have: "You'll never know if you dont try." You haven't tried. At all. You've lied, exagerated, invented arguments for me, turned what I actually said into strawman arguments, took things out of context, deflected points, and ignored others.
Thats not trying to make a satisfying argument. That's trying to wear out someone you disagree with because you really dno't care what people with contrary points of view have to say. At this point you should probably just claim the whole thing was trolling and part of your "master plan" and slink off in "triumph".
We both agree magick should be feared, however we both have different idea on how rare it should be in a player's life. You have different preferences which you feel should be the norm, but I just don't.
Yeah Im not going to agree to disagree with you. You're a selfish, dishonest idiot trying to pass off your pipe dream as being a better version of Arm without making any argument for it. All you've done is complain about perceived misuses of things players have done
that fit the docs, and whinged about things that are entirely out of the hands of the players being resolved with lazy writing. And when I pointed out they could have the same lazy writing without high magick your excuse for preferring it was was you could convince yourself your mundane was a part of a mundane railroading.
