Print

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

[piecewise]

This is to stop people from having long arguments in the mission thread. Now you can have them here.

[Ozarck]

I like kittens.

[Strider03]

This is going to get bad pretty quick. Are the five guys with the weird rifles the ones soon to be coming into Robert M's view?

[Ozarck]

((I did NOT support Ed, including several IC statements to that effect. "Support" does not mean "follow blindly". In any case, my action is posted, let this be the end of this.))

Milo, Piecewise Does not read conversational text. Not even IC conversational text. He only goes by bolded actions.
If you wanted to disagree with Ed arming the bomb, you needed to edit your post to say something like:
Do not let Ed arm the bomb.

Then, because my action was: if my teammates agree, arm the bomb, then the bomb would not have been armed.

As it was, your only stated action was to support your teammates in any way possible, so that's what PW went with.

I'm saying, don't be upset with PW for making the events happen this way - it was as reasonable an interpretation of the bolded actions as was available to him.

Now, I don't care if your guy grabs the bomb or whatever - my action was conditional for a reason. I wasn't acting like a mad bomber or a crazy person. I wanted input. I even RP'd the conversation.

finally, a note about "not understanding people."
There is a difference between not understanding people, and being unable to communicate, or communicating rudely.

So I am going to explain a rather basic part of what people are like here, and make a suggestion about how to act accordingly. If this seems obvious and basic to you, well, I mean no offense. I am merely responding to your comment in the thread about it.

1) "People usually prefer to have things explained factually,
a) without insulting language such as "crazy," "madman," "stupid" etc,
b) without modifiers like "obviously" or universal claims like "no one would ever think like that" or whatever.

2) people tend to be willing to discuss reasons for and against courses of action, if their conversational partner appears willing to listen.

A suggestion:
if you don't understand why someone would do something, or you disagree with what they are doing or their thinking:
1) remain calm (easier said than done - ask anyone I have argued with)
2) make an 'I' statement, like "I disagree with that action" or "I don't understand what you are doing." This usually is seen as an invitation to explain.
3) state your reasons for your viewpoint. You did okay with this in thread. You gave specific examples of what you thought would happen if the bomb went off.

a second suggestion:
do not resort to ultimatums. "My way or the highway" is not a fun way for other people to play a game with you. If it's "my way or the highway," then stick to single player. Even most GMs do not have the luxury of that kind of attitude.

One last thing!
Most of us here are bad with people, at least in some way. We're all flawed. We can get our backs up, we can be rude, we can be stubborn, and sometimes we can be just plain dumb. I personally have grown to like pretty much everyone I play these games with - even the ones i have had the biggest arguments with.

I say this as an encouragement. Just because we argue, have a hard time communicating, and in general can be irritating, doesn't mean we can't have a good time together, learn, and become friends. Hang in there, buddy!

[Madman198237]

For the LOVE OF GOODNESS!

You idiots!

Come on!

Milo's ENTIRELY CORRECT!


No soldier with half a brain (Or even less) would arm a short-fused bomb in the middle of a weapons depot with the team scattered among the buildings.

Milo, defuse that bomb, or, even better, grab the dumb thing and run it outside. Sling it towards a AAA or something.

[Ozarck]

You idiots!

No soldier with half a brain (Or even less) would ...

1) "People usually prefer to have things explained factually,
a) without insulting language such as "crazy," "madman," "stupid" etc,
b) without modifiers like "obviously" or universal claims like "no one would ever think like that" or whatever.

2) people tend to be willing to discuss reasons for and against courses of action, if their conversational partner appears willing to listen.

A suggestion:
if you don't understand why someone would do something, or you disagree with what they are doing or their thinking:
1) remain calm (easier said than done - ask anyone I have argued with)

[Strider03]

Sling it towards a AAA or something.

Oh, yeah! Take out those insurance guys!! They're real scum.
((Also, if you mean an antiaircraft gun, we've got friendlies in some of the nearby ones now, so be careful))

[Ozarck]

There are six AA just north of the Munitions buildings. They are unmanned. the friendlies are in teh guns north of the Hangar, so, probably out of range of a toss.

[Madman198237]

AAA in Anti-Aircraft-Artillery.


And the way I addressed you arguing lunatics is perfectly fine, because Milo was right the entire time.

You should NOT have just killed everyone's characters like that (Assuming Milo can't defuse it/move it/whatever), and you most CERTAINLY should not try to justify it IC, because you're a soldier.

The most important rule of the US military is "Leave no man behind". Leaving a fellow soldier behind on the field of battle is punishable by death.

So you're dead even if that bomb doesn't kill you.

[Ozarck]

no. "I can be rude because I'm right" is not a valid argument. The two things are mutually exclusive.

you are losing credibility by sticking to that tired line of argument.

and again, the threats are pretty ridiculous.

Tell me, madman, have you played a PW game before?

[Madman198237]

I know enough about PW games.

The solution is USUALLY not to kill your buddies.

I don't give a rip if PW games usually have INSANE moralities, you're basically ruining the game for everyone else by turning the whole blasted place into a fireball.


You do NOT have an IC reason to violate the most basic rules of your army that way, you don't have an OOC reason to justify, well, anything, and yet Milo and I are wrong because we're rude and right, yet you're wrong and....still kinda rude, don't you think? Outright denying that we have a point because we have not addressed you in the way you wish to be addressed is not a good reason to ignore the facts.

[Ozarck]

I am not even addressing your 'point.'

I am, and have been since the start, addressing your attitude and communication.

I do not intend to argue your point with you, since you demonstrate an unwillingness to hear.

Until you decide you are ready to have a civil conversation, I have no interest in the 'right and wrong' of the situation.

[Madman198237]

Look, Ozarck, what you've done is terrible from an RP/IC/OOC perspective.

Admit that, and we can all move on. Especially if your character has a change of heart and goes and disarms the charge.


Also, not addressing my point is just a way of committing some lovely ad hominem, and proving that you probably don't have a point.

[Ozarck]

I am not even addressing your 'point.'

I do not intend to argue your point with you, since you demonstrate an unwillingness to hear.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: A new challenger approaches! (click to show/hide)

Milo's ENTIRELY CORRECT!

Is he now?  Nobody has proven that or provided any argument for why he is correct.  It has purely been he said-she said, with little evidence provided on either side.  Both sides seem to think they're correct.  Since one cannot judge either side based upon their evidence then, I'm left with five possible criteria:

• Which side has more support, making sense to the most people?  Ozarck's.
• Which side personally makes more sense to me?  Ozarck's, though less overwhelmingly than the other criteria.
• Which side benefits me more?  Ozarck's.  Either he blows up a lot of Nazis, clearing one flank for the team, and providing a wonderful distraction, or he blows up such a large portion of the base that our job gets even easier despite the casualties.
• Which side has been more reasonable and calm during discussion?  Uh, Ozarck hasn't yet called anyone crazy or an idiot, soooo....
• Which side was willing to cooperate with their opposition to some degree, not threatening to murder their allies?  ...Ozarck, as he said, specifically put in his action that he wouldn't arm the bomb if his teammates disagreed.  Not his fault Milo didn't communicate to Piecewise that he didn't want to be cooperative, despite his action saying to be cooperative.

Now then, I'd like to provide the evidence that supports Ozarck's opinion.  I'm just sure you have your own, don't need me to provide it.

The rest of the team is a long distance from the munitions dump.  Remember, one square is actually a very large area, fully enclosing the area of effect of a high caliber artillery shell, or at least one large vehicle (possibly several large vehicles).  So, at least four hundred feet away.  The munitions dump is pretty lightly stocked--nothing larger than 100lb bombs, from PW's description, which don't have an effect radius even close to that distance.  Doubly not when there's intervening constructions, and they're *inside* a solidly built munitions dump.  Unless you think the nazis, despite heavily fortifying this base against attack, placed a flimsy and bomb-vulnerable munitions dump right next to their hanger.

A further argument in support of the explosion being more minor is that Piecewise practically encouraged Ozarck to bomb it, and despite his reputation, he tends towards avoiding wipes if possible--I mean, there's more complaints about ER not being lethal enough than there are about it being too lethal.  This is a game, and it would be very strange for a game to have a bombable target which when bombed would kill half the team.

But please, explain to me your point of view.  Clearly, this line of logic is unreasonable and insane; I would very much like to see how your thoughts differ.

No soldier with half a brain (Or even less) would arm a short-fused bomb in the middle of a weapons depot with the team scattered among the buildings.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

The team isn't scattered among the buildings, they're concentrated a fair distance to the north.

Milo, defuse that bomb, or, even better, grab the dumb thing and run it outside. Sling it towards a AAA or something.

You mean "an" AAA "emplacement".  Defusing the bomb is just idiotic anyway, no soldier with half a brain (Or even less) would do that, not when they have zero experience with bombs and plenty of time to just move it somewhere else.

And the way I addressed you arguing lunatics is perfectly fine, because Milo was right the entire time.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

(citation needed; You and I are the only arguing lunatics here.)

You should NOT have just killed everyone's characters like that (Assuming Milo can't defuse it/move it/whatever), and you most CERTAINLY should not try to justify it IC, because you're a soldier.

Oh, we've upgraded to killing everyone's characters now, presumably even the guy who got washed downstream awhile ago.  I guess nuclear weapons research is a lot farther along in this universe.

I especially like how Oz shouldn't even try to justify his character's actions, because his character is a soldier and... therefore is a psychic robot that doesn't have any motivations for its actions?

The most important rule of the US military is "Leave no man behind". Leaving a fellow soldier behind on the field of battle is punishable by death.

Hahaha, oh wow, that's rich.  Let's count the ways you've... creatively interpreted reality.

1) Ozarck isn't leaving anyone behind, and is most certainly putting himself in more danter than most of his allies.  Milo is consciously trying to(?) stay behind, but he's also threatened to shoot Ozarck if he doesn't leave him, so....

2) The most important rule in the US military is, and always has been, to follow orders.  That is drilled into every soldier every day of their service.  Yes, they like to give romantic examples of leaving no man behind, but that is thrown right out the window when it's necessary.

3) There are in fact many examples of the US military leaving people behind.  Usually, those people get regarded as heroes, while those who left them get... nothing, actually, not even punishment.  Usually because they were ordered to leave the heroes behind (see 2 above).

4) Executions in the US military are very, very, very rare, and historically more about race than crime.  Furthermore, though technically desertion is a capital crime in the US Military, literally one man has been executed for it, and there were a whopping forty nine desertion convictions during WWII.  Plus, even if Ed did just run away immediately upon meeting the enemy, that's still not actually desertion, and not a capital crime.

5) Note the fact that we were airdropped onto an enemy base while it was being actively firebombed.  A base which is deep in Poland, during the early days of WWII.  Without any plans for extraction.  We're also specifically part of a group that doesn't carry identification, and officially doesn't exist.  Our COs wouldn't give a flying shit if half our losses were due to teamkilling, because they clearly didn't intend any of to survive.

I know enough about PW games.

The solution is USUALLY not to kill your buddies.

I love how you make an assertion, and IMMEDIATELY prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.  A lot of solutions in PW games have resulted in killing your buddies, hell, we had more deaths to allies than enemy action.

I don't give a rip if PW games usually have INSANE moralities, you're basically ruining the game for everyone else by turning the whole blasted place into a fireball.

Not really.  We had a fair few "Oops I just blew up the entire city/planet/universe" events in ER, and aside from a few specifid people, most actually enjoyed the events.  Piecewise is a very good GM, he makes everything going FUBAR pretty entertaining.

(Speaking as someone who spent most of their gametime trying to avoid deaths, and still got killed twice due to friendly fire, with several more close calls.  Were you, uh, even in ER?)

Also, not addressing my point is just a way of committing some lovely ad hominem, and proving that you probably don't have a point.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Ad hominem counts too, I just stopped linking it because every other line has been a personal insult.  Congratulations, I have literally never before seen a person on this forum simultaneously use three fallacies in one sentence.  You're a very special individual.

...Madman, didn't you say you'd roll a CO if you died?  Pleasepleaseplease hold ti that promise, I need to see your commanding style.[/list]