Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiruin]

((So I ask; please, continue your conversation with IronyOwl over the Private Message system, and when you're satisfied with the result, post what your findings are on the thread so we can all see the result of it all. Thanks.))

((Because we don't need a continual update of the argument at hand, and it would be better for everyone involved--judging by the opinions of mostly everyone else who has commented on this matter--for the conclusion, instead of the procedure, to be shown.

Also you can just quote it all and paste it in a giant spoiler.

So take it to the PMs, thanks.  ))

[GreatWyrmGold]

I don't think that will help me get results. Sorry, I just don't trust other people enough to expect the to have better behavior when no one's watching...

[Tiruin]

((You argue only against one person. You also stated that you pay little attention to everyone else--what's the reason in that other than to seek our opinion? You've seen it all, page over page again yet you don't address them or at least try to simulate positive communication with what we say. What I see: we see disgust in nitpicking something which isn't even nearly the tenth of the way done. Nitpicking on a project in its most basic stage as well as using generalist statements like 'never or always' to refer to other opposing statements when the notion isn't exactly true, nor ask the opinion of others related to your argument.

And then you employ the notion of pessimism without trying to address the issue firsthand? Through a method he won't miss--the private message system?

Mate. I know IronyOwl, and he's not as devious as you think him to be, nor do I see him going along the skewed line of maliciousness when 'nobody is watching'. This statement is not up for debate.

So PM him. I want to see that done, and the levels of argument in this thread to decline. Because it's just a duel between your knowledge, and the GM. A GM who has currently, explained everything--if you're going to ask how this happened, it is better to question him, personally, then issue a general question in-thread about it.

If you don't think it will help you get results without trying, then nothing will be accomplished. Something counter-intuitive for you, and counter-productive for everyone if the debacle continues in public.

So PM him. Now.

I will not continue this debate for reason of cyclic logic. And to not clutter this thread further.

PS: If you want this to be heard by everyone, then make a PM. Type the names of all people involved who you want this to be heard by, then send it. To reply to all, just click the 'reply to all' button. It's easy, and doesn't frustrate those who want to see a clean thread and furthers the idea of reaching a conclusion with good reason. Win-win.

Thank you.))

[GreatWyrmGold]

Firstly: I pay little attention to others in the specific circumstances where I have better information--eg, when they are contradicting the GM's statements on his own rules. Moreover, I still read their posts, I just don't believe them over the other facts. Don't twist my words, it's rude.

Secondly, I fail to see how you can claim that I don't address your points when I'm doing so right now.

Thirdly, in what way am I arguing at " something which isn't even nearly the tenth of the way done"? I'm arguing at the rules, not the world you're making.

Fourthly, I'm trying to address the issue.

Fifthly, he's responding to my posts here. How can he pay more attention if I PM him? Will he respond to each of my PMs twice or what?

Sixthly, I understand what you think, but he's dodged my questions as long as he could and gave me veiled insults when he was posting in the public forum. I don't think he'll stop when we go into private messages. I want to at least be able to hold him accountable for his words.

Seventhly, you haven't actually addressed my main issues. I don't care if this thread is a little cluttered; I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there's no turns. Not much being lost. And, speaking as a GM, I am perfectly willing to dig past a few more posts of debate. I don't complain when people talk a lot in my threads, I certainly don't complain if people ask me why I run things the way I do. If there is an actual problem, I fix it. All I'm asking is for Irony to either fix the problem or explain why he can't in a way that is actually, you know, sensible.

[Tiruin]

((Then PM him, @all points mentioned. We care if this thread is a little cluttered even if you don't.

The best way to address the issue is to talk to him firsthand, and not trusting that method is, as you say, rude. Now let us stop this talk, and wait for the next turn. Your process is different from most others', so please.

PM him. Despite anything else you saw before, PM him. You haven't tried that yet. Try it.))

[GreatWyrmGold]

Why would it be better?

[IronyOwl]

That's four votes. Out of, what, fourteen players?

We're continuing this via PM or not at all. It's really not fair to annoy a fourth of the game's playerbase just for you.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So, no answers for me then?

Bluntly put, I wouldn't mind if this game died. Not at all. I don't get what the game is supposed to be or how we're expected to do anything.

[IronyOwl]

So, no answers for me then?

I was working on it, but now I have something different to PM you about.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Bluntly put, I wouldn't mind if this game died. Not at all. I don't get what the game is supposed to be or how we're expected to do anything.

Why do you think you're alone in all of these?

I have no earthly idea. However, very nearly no one else has spoken up. Most that have have only expressed their opinions about me.

And, frankly, the former only matters for me trying to understand your rules. The latter is the big one. How are we supposed to forge a whole world if we need to make each individual species as well as the places they live, one species or one region at a time?

[Tsuchigumo550]

No, we've repeatedly attempted to give you answers. Most of us, who didn't immediately quit trying when they saw the pages upon pages of argument.

Yet again, you're back to the "we need every individual item" thing.

THIS IS THE SIMPLEST FUCKING WAY I CAN PUT THIS.
We do not NEED thousands of species, we need the ones that Irony and everyone else has been stating over and over again.We need a single food chain to stop the starvation. The reason things are starving is because there aren't any creatures filling the important roles. There are no rats, because no one has made them, and no one can eat the rats, or anything else on the "rat" level of the food chain, because nothing is there yet.

Bluntly put, I wouldn't mind if you stopped posting here. Not at all. I don't get how after five pages you still won't accept how the game works or how you expect any of us or Irony to magically fix something that isn't broken.

This game is about problems arising from what we're doing as gods, and trying to not suck as gods. If the people are starving, a good god makes food. Not all gods CAN make food, or do so well, so it's understandable for some gods to be off dicking around making monuments. Later on, I can see something like "People are dying because this creature is strong, they can't defend themselves" or something. Would you argue then that there's hundreds of individual ways to hunt a creature, and there's no way that hunting is not working because there's literally thousands of ways to kill things? Hopefully not. This game is about doing something, having something happen because of your actions, and then adapting to it. In response to hunting being bad- a god of invention could give the idea for a spear. Doing, watching, then adapting.

[IronyOwl]

Bluntly put, I wouldn't mind if this game died. Not at all. I don't get what the game is supposed to be or how we're expected to do anything.

Why do you think you're alone in all of these?

I have no earthly idea. However, very nearly no one else has spoken up. Most that have have only expressed their opinions about me.

And, frankly, the former only matters for me trying to understand your rules. The latter is the big one. How are we supposed to forge a whole world if we need to make each individual species as well as the places they live, one species or one region at a time?

...

Stop shitting up the thread for everyone else. We have four votes for not doing this anymore, and just yours for continuing. Why is it so important to you that everyone hears this even when they don't want to? Do you need a certain threshold before you're willing to admit that you're making the game worse for other people? What threshold would that be?


As for the issue, though, I can tell you exactly why it is. It's because you have awful communication skills. That's why I brought it up as the very first response after the turn, because that's the deeper problem and I knew damned well it was going to continue to be more important than anything else.

Arguing with you about the game isn't going to do anything because that's not where the problem is. The problem is with you. And until you are able to admit or at least consider that, you're never going to get better and this argument is never going to bear anything useful.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Tsuchigumo: In case you haven't noticed, I'm currently more focused on how we need to make rats than on the thousands of species we "need".

Irony: There you go with your ad hominem again. And have you considered the possibility that there are multiple problems?

[IronyOwl]

Irony: There you go with your ad hominem again. And have you considered the possibility that there are multiple problems?

It's not an ad hominem, it's pointing out a problem. I don't need to point out that you're terrible at communicating to justify my responses, but they're not going to matter if you're genuinely terrible at communicating, now are they?

Case in point: You have once again glossed over everything to say "STOP INSULTING ME!" and insinuate that there are other vague forces at work. That's not how a meaningful conversation works.

Do you want to have a meaningful conversation?


As for considering that there may be multiple problems, yes, I have. I have great faith in my ability to analyze myself for problems.

Case in point for this? I changed my methodology after the turn. I argued with you for page after page and accomplished nothing. So then I went back and reconsidered what I did wrong. The result still isn't what you wanted, but I'd say it's still covering more ground than the old clusterfuck.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You're blaming my problems for the argument, and saying that because I'm a terrible communicator you don't have to answer my arguments. See the ad hominem yet? Even if it doesn't qualify, it's still extremely rude.

Perhaps we should start over.

What are the benefits of leaving out the minor animals? You tried to answer, I asked for clarification, and with your apparently-perfect communication skills you avoided answering the question, instead focusing on the fact that I was talking. So tell me: Why are you forcing us to make every minor creature separately?