|
Please clean up the quality of your posting. This thread has definitely taken a turn for the worse. |
On June 16 2014 10:41 VasHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:23 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:19 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:16 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:10 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:47 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 09:27 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:10 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 09:06 Swagasaurus wrote:On June 16 2014 08:23 VasHeR wrote:
[quote]
Narcissism = comparing urself to doctors and lawyers while you're bashing random people on the internet.
Can you stop having flame wars in every single TL thread u post in? In your expert opinion, is it really appropriate to keep doing that? Was going to say this but he beat me to it. TB no one with a brain is going to dispute that you know what you're talking about when it comes to video games. It's just the way you go about attacking anyone who disagrees with you that comes across as really nasty/arrogant. Just because you've had a successful career in the field of video games that doesn't mean your opinion on non-game related subjects is any more or less 'valuable'. But we are talking about game related subjects, so that's irrelevant. Maybe if people didn't want flamewars they shouldn't be hurling insults at me whenever they get the chance *shrug*. You mistake attacking people for defense, I don't go out of my way to attack people, they start shit with me and then they complain that I respond in kind. "Oh, I called that guy an arrogant hypocritical narcissist and now he doesn't seem to want to treat me with respect, I wonder how that happened?". Well gee I dunno, maybe some of the armchair psychologists in this thread could tell you. Not sure if lying or delusional. What a wannabe martyr. Took about 2 seconds to find something worth discrediting your claim here. On December 19 2013 12:48 TotalBiscuit wrote:On December 19 2013 11:54 GraFx wrote:
this is the first piece youve written that didnt make me hate you. kudos. If it makes you feel any better about that I think you're a little shit :x On December 17 2013 09:09 TotalBiscuit wrote:On December 17 2013 08:55 IcedBacon wrote:
Yeah... can't wait for bitcoins to crash :p "Can't wait for this prizepool and event to be ruined, presumably because I'm a terrible person" Nice *defense* Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples. Is this not obvious, oh wise one? Nice job linking quotes that supposedly debunk my argument when both of them were attacks. One wished ill on the event, the players and myself by gloating over the possibility of bitcoins crashing, the other said "oh grats, this is the first time I don't hate you", a completely unnecessary and unprovoked insult. You might wanna try harder if you're looking for evidence that what I say is unprovoked. You might wanna dig even deeper to find a response that is actually offensive and not tongue-in-cheek. The little kissy face not give it away that I wasn't being particularly serious? Do I have to spell it out? Unsurprisingly you are also attacking me, including such choice phrases as "lying" "delusional" and "wannabe martyr". Next time, try coming into a discussion with clean hands.
The problem I have with this is that there is no measure to what "words" are hurtful enough to warrant punishment.
This person hurt another persons feelings, but he didn't swear, he didn't break any rules, he just attacked a popular player. If what he said was 50% as offensive would he be banned? 80%? Where is the threshhold? Its an arbitrary punishment for an arbitrary crime.
So while I love Minigun, and never heard of Ruff, I'm overall against the idea of a witch hunt over words conveyed via the internet.
Its just words.
Keystrokes cannot hurt me, and IMHO you're wasting your energy if you let them effect you.
Nobody in their right mind actually believes this. Of course words hurt. Keystrokes can't hurt you? Pretty sure they can, you are simply fortunate enough not to have had to suffer someone going after you in a really personal way. I hope you never do. If you are the judge on what is "attacking" and what is "defending," then I have no doubt that you will always be 100% right in your own mind. So I guess the answer was delusional. Nice job dodging this part "Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples." Did it seem irrelevant in this context to you? Nice attempt to dodge the debunk of your supposed "evidence". Glad to see you bailed on it quickly though, trying to argue that you somehow proved that I go around attacking people with those quotes would have been a waste of everyones time. See, I already get held to a higher standard of conduct, which is demonstrated by the fact that I can't post in a thread without someone trying to hold me to account for something or other. Literally everything I say online has some sort of consequence, I'm still getting shit on for dumb things I said 7 years ago. I've quite literally received death-threats for confusing an 8-bit pixel art characters gender. So don't talk to me about higher standard of conduct. My higher standard of conduct is trying to bring some common sense into the discussion, sharing my experience when it's relevant and not mocking people who have chronic diseases. That and not attacking people unprovoked. Higher standards does not give you carte blanche to go after me with your insults and attacks and then have you retreat to some imagined refuge when you get bitten back for doing so. You will not get a "Thank you for your feedback" message from me, I'm not customer service and you're not a customer, I don't have to put up with your shit, thank god. What dodge? I said you embellished. That seemed pretty direct. More delusions And now you dodge the rest of the post. I said you embellished. Well that and you called me a lying, delusional wannabe martyr, or had you forgotten that? I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). You misunderstand this concept. I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence. How easy it is to tell someone they should act to a higher standard when you don't have to do it yourself. Armchair morality at its finest. You have misunderstood the concept of the moral highground, something you cease to hold when you decide to call people lying, delusional wannabe martyrs while simultaneously trying to lecture them on how they should treat others. You've done a fantastic job of proving my point that my posts are in response to attacks. I think we're about done here. There's little value to be extracted from this discussion anymore, or at least none that's worth the effort. You accuse me of dodging again... but then say "we're done here." Neat trick. You want to talk about dodging? Read your own statement.. "I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence......................." Nice change topic. "I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). " My argument is that your perspective is unnecessarily combative. You jump at the first opportunity to start flame wars with people. The last few pages of this thread should be evidence enough of that, but I'm sure you'll say it was everyone's fault except yours.
Alright, we've got to the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of this discussion. It was definitely very amusing to read your posts, particularly when you think you have the moral authority to lecture people on how they should be responding, after opening up with the statement "lying delusional wannabe martyr". Unfortunately it seems you don't have anything new to say so yeah, I will go on believing that it was actually your fault, since you were the one who attacked me in the first place and that's clear to see to anyone reading this.
Best Regards.
|
On June 16 2014 10:07 JacobShock wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 08:33 Doodsmack wrote:
Team ROOT isn't exactly putting its best foot forward itself when Minigun goes to Twitter to address the situation, and his teammate iaguz comments "What a cunt". Oh come on, that's like the weakest attempt at changing direction I have ever read..
It's highly relevant.
|
On June 16 2014 10:46 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:41 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:23 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:19 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:16 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:10 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:47 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 09:27 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:10 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 09:06 Swagasaurus wrote:
[quote]
Was going to say this but he beat me to it. TB no one with a brain is going to dispute that you know what you're talking about when it comes to video games. It's just the way you go about attacking anyone who disagrees with you that comes across as really nasty/arrogant.
Just because you've had a successful career in the field of video games that doesn't mean your opinion on non-game related subjects is any more or less 'valuable'. But we are talking about game related subjects, so that's irrelevant. Maybe if people didn't want flamewars they shouldn't be hurling insults at me whenever they get the chance *shrug*. You mistake attacking people for defense, I don't go out of my way to attack people, they start shit with me and then they complain that I respond in kind. "Oh, I called that guy an arrogant hypocritical narcissist and now he doesn't seem to want to treat me with respect, I wonder how that happened?". Well gee I dunno, maybe some of the armchair psychologists in this thread could tell you. Not sure if lying or delusional. What a wannabe martyr. Took about 2 seconds to find something worth discrediting your claim here. On December 19 2013 12:48 TotalBiscuit wrote:On December 19 2013 11:54 GraFx wrote:
this is the first piece youve written that didnt make me hate you. kudos. If it makes you feel any better about that I think you're a little shit :x On December 17 2013 09:09 TotalBiscuit wrote:On December 17 2013 08:55 IcedBacon wrote:
Yeah... can't wait for bitcoins to crash :p "Can't wait for this prizepool and event to be ruined, presumably because I'm a terrible person" Nice *defense* Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples. Is this not obvious, oh wise one? Nice job linking quotes that supposedly debunk my argument when both of them were attacks. One wished ill on the event, the players and myself by gloating over the possibility of bitcoins crashing, the other said "oh grats, this is the first time I don't hate you", a completely unnecessary and unprovoked insult. You might wanna try harder if you're looking for evidence that what I say is unprovoked. You might wanna dig even deeper to find a response that is actually offensive and not tongue-in-cheek. The little kissy face not give it away that I wasn't being particularly serious? Do I have to spell it out? Unsurprisingly you are also attacking me, including such choice phrases as "lying" "delusional" and "wannabe martyr". Next time, try coming into a discussion with clean hands.
The problem I have with this is that there is no measure to what "words" are hurtful enough to warrant punishment.
This person hurt another persons feelings, but he didn't swear, he didn't break any rules, he just attacked a popular player. If what he said was 50% as offensive would he be banned? 80%? Where is the threshhold? Its an arbitrary punishment for an arbitrary crime.
So while I love Minigun, and never heard of Ruff, I'm overall against the idea of a witch hunt over words conveyed via the internet.
Its just words.
Keystrokes cannot hurt me, and IMHO you're wasting your energy if you let them effect you.
Nobody in their right mind actually believes this. Of course words hurt. Keystrokes can't hurt you? Pretty sure they can, you are simply fortunate enough not to have had to suffer someone going after you in a really personal way. I hope you never do. If you are the judge on what is "attacking" and what is "defending," then I have no doubt that you will always be 100% right in your own mind. So I guess the answer was delusional. Nice job dodging this part "Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples." Did it seem irrelevant in this context to you? Nice attempt to dodge the debunk of your supposed "evidence". Glad to see you bailed on it quickly though, trying to argue that you somehow proved that I go around attacking people with those quotes would have been a waste of everyones time. See, I already get held to a higher standard of conduct, which is demonstrated by the fact that I can't post in a thread without someone trying to hold me to account for something or other. Literally everything I say online has some sort of consequence, I'm still getting shit on for dumb things I said 7 years ago. I've quite literally received death-threats for confusing an 8-bit pixel art characters gender. So don't talk to me about higher standard of conduct. My higher standard of conduct is trying to bring some common sense into the discussion, sharing my experience when it's relevant and not mocking people who have chronic diseases. That and not attacking people unprovoked. Higher standards does not give you carte blanche to go after me with your insults and attacks and then have you retreat to some imagined refuge when you get bitten back for doing so. You will not get a "Thank you for your feedback" message from me, I'm not customer service and you're not a customer, I don't have to put up with your shit, thank god. What dodge? I said you embellished. That seemed pretty direct. More delusions And now you dodge the rest of the post. I said you embellished. Well that and you called me a lying, delusional wannabe martyr, or had you forgotten that? I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). You misunderstand this concept. I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence. How easy it is to tell someone they should act to a higher standard when you don't have to do it yourself. Armchair morality at its finest. You have misunderstood the concept of the moral highground, something you cease to hold when you decide to call people lying, delusional wannabe martyrs while simultaneously trying to lecture them on how they should treat others. You've done a fantastic job of proving my point that my posts are in response to attacks. I think we're about done here. There's little value to be extracted from this discussion anymore, or at least none that's worth the effort. You accuse me of dodging again... but then say "we're done here." Neat trick. You want to talk about dodging? Read your own statement.. "I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence......................." Nice change topic. "I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). " My argument is that your perspective is unnecessarily combative. You jump at the first opportunity to start flame wars with people. The last few pages of this thread should be evidence enough of that, but I'm sure you'll say it was everyone's fault except yours. Alright, we've got to the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of this discussion. It was definitely very amusing to read your posts, particularly when you think you have the moral authority to lecture people on how they should be responding, after opening up with the statement "lying delusional wannabe martyr". Unfortunately it seems you don't have anything new to say so yeah, I will go on believing that it was actually your fault, since you were the one who attacked me in the first place and that's clear to see to anyone reading this. Best Regards.
For some reason, I read everything you post with an English accent in my head, which makes it way better. Vasher is just one of those weirdos who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is living a fantasy world.
And I do, and it has unicorns.
|
On June 16 2014 02:47 Psychonian wrote:
Oh dayum. Good on you guys for making the hard decision, I agree that you made the right choice. Mad props.
I'd hardly call any decision concerning Ruff "hard."
|
On June 16 2014 10:53 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:46 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:41 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:23 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:19 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:16 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:10 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:47 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 09:27 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:10 TotalBiscuit wrote:
[quote]
But we are talking about game related subjects, so that's irrelevant.
Maybe if people didn't want flamewars they shouldn't be hurling insults at me whenever they get the chance *shrug*. You mistake attacking people for defense, I don't go out of my way to attack people, they start shit with me and then they complain that I respond in kind. "Oh, I called that guy an arrogant hypocritical narcissist and now he doesn't seem to want to treat me with respect, I wonder how that happened?". Well gee I dunno, maybe some of the armchair psychologists in this thread could tell you. Not sure if lying or delusional. What a wannabe martyr. Took about 2 seconds to find something worth discrediting your claim here. On December 19 2013 12:48 TotalBiscuit wrote:
[quote]
If it makes you feel any better about that I think you're a little shit :x On December 17 2013 09:09 TotalBiscuit wrote:
[quote]
"Can't wait for this prizepool and event to be ruined, presumably because I'm a terrible person" Nice *defense* Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples. Is this not obvious, oh wise one? Nice job linking quotes that supposedly debunk my argument when both of them were attacks. One wished ill on the event, the players and myself by gloating over the possibility of bitcoins crashing, the other said "oh grats, this is the first time I don't hate you", a completely unnecessary and unprovoked insult. You might wanna try harder if you're looking for evidence that what I say is unprovoked. You might wanna dig even deeper to find a response that is actually offensive and not tongue-in-cheek. The little kissy face not give it away that I wasn't being particularly serious? Do I have to spell it out? Unsurprisingly you are also attacking me, including such choice phrases as "lying" "delusional" and "wannabe martyr". Next time, try coming into a discussion with clean hands.
The problem I have with this is that there is no measure to what "words" are hurtful enough to warrant punishment.
This person hurt another persons feelings, but he didn't swear, he didn't break any rules, he just attacked a popular player. If what he said was 50% as offensive would he be banned? 80%? Where is the threshhold? Its an arbitrary punishment for an arbitrary crime.
So while I love Minigun, and never heard of Ruff, I'm overall against the idea of a witch hunt over words conveyed via the internet.
Its just words.
Keystrokes cannot hurt me, and IMHO you're wasting your energy if you let them effect you.
Nobody in their right mind actually believes this. Of course words hurt. Keystrokes can't hurt you? Pretty sure they can, you are simply fortunate enough not to have had to suffer someone going after you in a really personal way. I hope you never do. If you are the judge on what is "attacking" and what is "defending," then I have no doubt that you will always be 100% right in your own mind. So I guess the answer was delusional. Nice job dodging this part "Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples." Did it seem irrelevant in this context to you? Nice attempt to dodge the debunk of your supposed "evidence". Glad to see you bailed on it quickly though, trying to argue that you somehow proved that I go around attacking people with those quotes would have been a waste of everyones time. See, I already get held to a higher standard of conduct, which is demonstrated by the fact that I can't post in a thread without someone trying to hold me to account for something or other. Literally everything I say online has some sort of consequence, I'm still getting shit on for dumb things I said 7 years ago. I've quite literally received death-threats for confusing an 8-bit pixel art characters gender. So don't talk to me about higher standard of conduct. My higher standard of conduct is trying to bring some common sense into the discussion, sharing my experience when it's relevant and not mocking people who have chronic diseases. That and not attacking people unprovoked. Higher standards does not give you carte blanche to go after me with your insults and attacks and then have you retreat to some imagined refuge when you get bitten back for doing so. You will not get a "Thank you for your feedback" message from me, I'm not customer service and you're not a customer, I don't have to put up with your shit, thank god. What dodge? I said you embellished. That seemed pretty direct. More delusions And now you dodge the rest of the post. I said you embellished. Well that and you called me a lying, delusional wannabe martyr, or had you forgotten that? I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). You misunderstand this concept. I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence. How easy it is to tell someone they should act to a higher standard when you don't have to do it yourself. Armchair morality at its finest. You have misunderstood the concept of the moral highground, something you cease to hold when you decide to call people lying, delusional wannabe martyrs while simultaneously trying to lecture them on how they should treat others. You've done a fantastic job of proving my point that my posts are in response to attacks. I think we're about done here. There's little value to be extracted from this discussion anymore, or at least none that's worth the effort. You accuse me of dodging again... but then say "we're done here." Neat trick. You want to talk about dodging? Read your own statement.. "I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence......................." Nice change topic. "I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). " My argument is that your perspective is unnecessarily combative. You jump at the first opportunity to start flame wars with people. The last few pages of this thread should be evidence enough of that, but I'm sure you'll say it was everyone's fault except yours. Alright, we've got to the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of this discussion. It was definitely very amusing to read your posts, particularly when you think you have the moral authority to lecture people on how they should be responding, after opening up with the statement "lying delusional wannabe martyr". Unfortunately it seems you don't have anything new to say so yeah, I will go on believing that it was actually your fault, since you were the one who attacked me in the first place and that's clear to see to anyone reading this. Best Regards. For some reason, I read everything you post with an English accent in my head, which makes it way better. Vasher is just one of those weirdos who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is living a fantasy world. And I do, and it has unicorns.
I guess you have to maintain a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when you spend pages trying to lecture someone on how to treat others in threads after trying to dig up 6+ month old quotes to support your argument and opening with "lying, delusional wannabe martyr". It's to be expected.
|
On June 16 2014 10:54 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:53 ninazerg wrote:On June 16 2014 10:46 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:41 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:23 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:19 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:16 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:10 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:47 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 09:27 VasHeR wrote:
[quote]
Not sure if lying or delusional. What a wannabe martyr.
Took about 2 seconds to find something worth discrediting your claim here.
[quote]
[quote]
Nice *defense*
Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples. Is this not obvious, oh wise one? Nice job linking quotes that supposedly debunk my argument when both of them were attacks. One wished ill on the event, the players and myself by gloating over the possibility of bitcoins crashing, the other said "oh grats, this is the first time I don't hate you", a completely unnecessary and unprovoked insult. You might wanna try harder if you're looking for evidence that what I say is unprovoked. You might wanna dig even deeper to find a response that is actually offensive and not tongue-in-cheek. The little kissy face not give it away that I wasn't being particularly serious? Do I have to spell it out? Unsurprisingly you are also attacking me, including such choice phrases as "lying" "delusional" and "wannabe martyr". Next time, try coming into a discussion with clean hands.
The problem I have with this is that there is no measure to what "words" are hurtful enough to warrant punishment.
This person hurt another persons feelings, but he didn't swear, he didn't break any rules, he just attacked a popular player. If what he said was 50% as offensive would he be banned? 80%? Where is the threshhold? Its an arbitrary punishment for an arbitrary crime.
So while I love Minigun, and never heard of Ruff, I'm overall against the idea of a witch hunt over words conveyed via the internet.
Its just words.
Keystrokes cannot hurt me, and IMHO you're wasting your energy if you let them effect you.
Nobody in their right mind actually believes this. Of course words hurt. Keystrokes can't hurt you? Pretty sure they can, you are simply fortunate enough not to have had to suffer someone going after you in a really personal way. I hope you never do. If you are the judge on what is "attacking" and what is "defending," then I have no doubt that you will always be 100% right in your own mind. So I guess the answer was delusional. Nice job dodging this part "Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples." Did it seem irrelevant in this context to you? Nice attempt to dodge the debunk of your supposed "evidence". Glad to see you bailed on it quickly though, trying to argue that you somehow proved that I go around attacking people with those quotes would have been a waste of everyones time. See, I already get held to a higher standard of conduct, which is demonstrated by the fact that I can't post in a thread without someone trying to hold me to account for something or other. Literally everything I say online has some sort of consequence, I'm still getting shit on for dumb things I said 7 years ago. I've quite literally received death-threats for confusing an 8-bit pixel art characters gender. So don't talk to me about higher standard of conduct. My higher standard of conduct is trying to bring some common sense into the discussion, sharing my experience when it's relevant and not mocking people who have chronic diseases. That and not attacking people unprovoked. Higher standards does not give you carte blanche to go after me with your insults and attacks and then have you retreat to some imagined refuge when you get bitten back for doing so. You will not get a "Thank you for your feedback" message from me, I'm not customer service and you're not a customer, I don't have to put up with your shit, thank god. What dodge? I said you embellished. That seemed pretty direct. More delusions And now you dodge the rest of the post. I said you embellished. Well that and you called me a lying, delusional wannabe martyr, or had you forgotten that? I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). You misunderstand this concept. I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence. How easy it is to tell someone they should act to a higher standard when you don't have to do it yourself. Armchair morality at its finest. You have misunderstood the concept of the moral highground, something you cease to hold when you decide to call people lying, delusional wannabe martyrs while simultaneously trying to lecture them on how they should treat others. You've done a fantastic job of proving my point that my posts are in response to attacks. I think we're about done here. There's little value to be extracted from this discussion anymore, or at least none that's worth the effort. You accuse me of dodging again... but then say "we're done here." Neat trick. You want to talk about dodging? Read your own statement.. "I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence......................." Nice change topic. "I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). " My argument is that your perspective is unnecessarily combative. You jump at the first opportunity to start flame wars with people. The last few pages of this thread should be evidence enough of that, but I'm sure you'll say it was everyone's fault except yours. Alright, we've got to the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of this discussion. It was definitely very amusing to read your posts, particularly when you think you have the moral authority to lecture people on how they should be responding, after opening up with the statement "lying delusional wannabe martyr". Unfortunately it seems you don't have anything new to say so yeah, I will go on believing that it was actually your fault, since you were the one who attacked me in the first place and that's clear to see to anyone reading this. Best Regards. For some reason, I read everything you post with an English accent in my head, which makes it way better. Vasher is just one of those weirdos who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is living a fantasy world. And I do, and it has unicorns. I guess you have to maintain a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when you spend pages trying to lecture someone on how to treat others in threads after trying to dig up 6+ month old quotes to support your argument and opening with "lying, delusional wannabe martyr". It's to be expected.
You know, the weird thing is, now that I think about this, it's even stranger for him to call you a "wannabe martyr" when you actually are fighting cancer. Martyrs are like infested terrans blow themselves up, when you're clearly trying to win the fight against cancer.
|
On a lighter note I kind of want to declare myself TL Forum's Unofficial lying delusional wannabe martyr. It's better than Bronze League Hero at any rate
|
On June 16 2014 10:57 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:54 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:53 ninazerg wrote:On June 16 2014 10:46 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:41 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:23 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:19 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:16 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:10 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 09:47 TotalBiscuit wrote:
[quote]
Nice job linking quotes that supposedly debunk my argument when both of them were attacks. One wished ill on the event, the players and myself by gloating over the possibility of bitcoins crashing, the other said "oh grats, this is the first time I don't hate you", a completely unnecessary and unprovoked insult.
You might wanna try harder if you're looking for evidence that what I say is unprovoked. You might wanna dig even deeper to find a response that is actually offensive and not tongue-in-cheek. The little kissy face not give it away that I wasn't being particularly serious? Do I have to spell it out? Unsurprisingly you are also attacking me, including such choice phrases as "lying" "delusional" and "wannabe martyr". Next time, try coming into a discussion with clean hands.
[quote]
Nobody in their right mind actually believes this. Of course words hurt. Keystrokes can't hurt you? Pretty sure they can, you are simply fortunate enough not to have had to suffer someone going after you in a really personal way. I hope you never do. If you are the judge on what is "attacking" and what is "defending," then I have no doubt that you will always be 100% right in your own mind. So I guess the answer was delusional. Nice job dodging this part "Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples." Did it seem irrelevant in this context to you? Nice attempt to dodge the debunk of your supposed "evidence". Glad to see you bailed on it quickly though, trying to argue that you somehow proved that I go around attacking people with those quotes would have been a waste of everyones time. See, I already get held to a higher standard of conduct, which is demonstrated by the fact that I can't post in a thread without someone trying to hold me to account for something or other. Literally everything I say online has some sort of consequence, I'm still getting shit on for dumb things I said 7 years ago. I've quite literally received death-threats for confusing an 8-bit pixel art characters gender. So don't talk to me about higher standard of conduct. My higher standard of conduct is trying to bring some common sense into the discussion, sharing my experience when it's relevant and not mocking people who have chronic diseases. That and not attacking people unprovoked. Higher standards does not give you carte blanche to go after me with your insults and attacks and then have you retreat to some imagined refuge when you get bitten back for doing so. You will not get a "Thank you for your feedback" message from me, I'm not customer service and you're not a customer, I don't have to put up with your shit, thank god. What dodge? I said you embellished. That seemed pretty direct. More delusions And now you dodge the rest of the post. I said you embellished. Well that and you called me a lying, delusional wannabe martyr, or had you forgotten that? I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). You misunderstand this concept. I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence. How easy it is to tell someone they should act to a higher standard when you don't have to do it yourself. Armchair morality at its finest. You have misunderstood the concept of the moral highground, something you cease to hold when you decide to call people lying, delusional wannabe martyrs while simultaneously trying to lecture them on how they should treat others. You've done a fantastic job of proving my point that my posts are in response to attacks. I think we're about done here. There's little value to be extracted from this discussion anymore, or at least none that's worth the effort. You accuse me of dodging again... but then say "we're done here." Neat trick. You want to talk about dodging? Read your own statement.. "I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence......................." Nice change topic. "I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). " My argument is that your perspective is unnecessarily combative. You jump at the first opportunity to start flame wars with people. The last few pages of this thread should be evidence enough of that, but I'm sure you'll say it was everyone's fault except yours. Alright, we've got to the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of this discussion. It was definitely very amusing to read your posts, particularly when you think you have the moral authority to lecture people on how they should be responding, after opening up with the statement "lying delusional wannabe martyr". Unfortunately it seems you don't have anything new to say so yeah, I will go on believing that it was actually your fault, since you were the one who attacked me in the first place and that's clear to see to anyone reading this. Best Regards. For some reason, I read everything you post with an English accent in my head, which makes it way better. Vasher is just one of those weirdos who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is living a fantasy world. And I do, and it has unicorns. I guess you have to maintain a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when you spend pages trying to lecture someone on how to treat others in threads after trying to dig up 6+ month old quotes to support your argument and opening with "lying, delusional wannabe martyr". It's to be expected. You know, the weird thing is, now that I think about this, it's even stranger for him to call you a "wannabe martyr" when you actually are fighting cancer. Martyrs are like infested terrans blow themselves up, when you're clearly trying to win the fight against cancer.
If I wanted to be a martyr I'd be bringing that up every chance I get. I'd prefer if people didn't.
|
On June 16 2014 10:58 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:57 ninazerg wrote:On June 16 2014 10:54 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:53 ninazerg wrote:On June 16 2014 10:46 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:41 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:23 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:19 VasHeR wrote:On June 16 2014 10:16 TotalBiscuit wrote:On June 16 2014 10:10 VasHeR wrote:
[quote]
If you are the judge on what is "attacking" and what is "defending," then I have no doubt that you will always be 100% right in your own mind. So I guess the answer was delusional.
Nice job dodging this part "Also, if you want your opinion to count more because of your position, then you also get held to a higher standard of conduct than random internet peoples." Did it seem irrelevant in this context to you? Nice attempt to dodge the debunk of your supposed "evidence". Glad to see you bailed on it quickly though, trying to argue that you somehow proved that I go around attacking people with those quotes would have been a waste of everyones time. See, I already get held to a higher standard of conduct, which is demonstrated by the fact that I can't post in a thread without someone trying to hold me to account for something or other. Literally everything I say online has some sort of consequence, I'm still getting shit on for dumb things I said 7 years ago. I've quite literally received death-threats for confusing an 8-bit pixel art characters gender. So don't talk to me about higher standard of conduct. My higher standard of conduct is trying to bring some common sense into the discussion, sharing my experience when it's relevant and not mocking people who have chronic diseases. That and not attacking people unprovoked. Higher standards does not give you carte blanche to go after me with your insults and attacks and then have you retreat to some imagined refuge when you get bitten back for doing so. You will not get a "Thank you for your feedback" message from me, I'm not customer service and you're not a customer, I don't have to put up with your shit, thank god. What dodge? I said you embellished. That seemed pretty direct. More delusions And now you dodge the rest of the post. I said you embellished. Well that and you called me a lying, delusional wannabe martyr, or had you forgotten that? I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). You misunderstand this concept. I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence. How easy it is to tell someone they should act to a higher standard when you don't have to do it yourself. Armchair morality at its finest. You have misunderstood the concept of the moral highground, something you cease to hold when you decide to call people lying, delusional wannabe martyrs while simultaneously trying to lecture them on how they should treat others. You've done a fantastic job of proving my point that my posts are in response to attacks. I think we're about done here. There's little value to be extracted from this discussion anymore, or at least none that's worth the effort. You accuse me of dodging again... but then say "we're done here." Neat trick. You want to talk about dodging? Read your own statement.. "I understand the concept quite clearly. I also understand it's extremely easy to try and lecture from a place of no consequence......................." Nice change topic. "I didn't embellish anything, I gave my perspective on things I said (how dare I know my own intent, shameful!). " My argument is that your perspective is unnecessarily combative. You jump at the first opportunity to start flame wars with people. The last few pages of this thread should be evidence enough of that, but I'm sure you'll say it was everyone's fault except yours. Alright, we've got to the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of this discussion. It was definitely very amusing to read your posts, particularly when you think you have the moral authority to lecture people on how they should be responding, after opening up with the statement "lying delusional wannabe martyr". Unfortunately it seems you don't have anything new to say so yeah, I will go on believing that it was actually your fault, since you were the one who attacked me in the first place and that's clear to see to anyone reading this. Best Regards. For some reason, I read everything you post with an English accent in my head, which makes it way better. Vasher is just one of those weirdos who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is living a fantasy world. And I do, and it has unicorns. I guess you have to maintain a strong sense of cognitive dissonance when you spend pages trying to lecture someone on how to treat others in threads after trying to dig up 6+ month old quotes to support your argument and opening with "lying, delusional wannabe martyr". It's to be expected. You know, the weird thing is, now that I think about this, it's even stranger for him to call you a "wannabe martyr" when you actually are fighting cancer. Martyrs are like infested terrans blow themselves up, when you're clearly trying to win the fight against cancer. If I wanted to be a martyr I'd be bringing that up every chance I get. I'd prefer if people didn't.
Well, the TL horse was wearing a top-hat for a couple weeks at least, but I would like you to know that I wish you all the best with your recovery.
|
On June 16 2014 10:52 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 10:07 JacobShock wrote:On June 16 2014 08:33 Doodsmack wrote:
Team ROOT isn't exactly putting its best foot forward itself when Minigun goes to Twitter to address the situation, and his teammate iaguz comments "What a cunt". Oh come on, that's like the weakest attempt at changing direction I have ever read.. It's highly relevant.
No it's not. Iaguz choice of words weren't ROOT's official statement on the matter. It was his reaction to a teammate being lambasted in a pretty fucking personal way. Also Iaguz is Australian so the word cunt has a completely different context to him than it might have to you. So chill out. Again it's not like it was something ROOT got together collectively and thought out.
|
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feelings with his sarcasm, but I'm going to get over it and move on.
|
United States23455 Posts
On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it an move on.
Yeah but that kind of childish behavior cannot be allowed to represent sponsors/teams if we want SC2 to be anything legit. Therefore he got kicked. Totally deserved.
Also if you have any empathy you condemn what he said because it's fucked up
|
On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it and move on.
It's not about crime or punishment. It's about being a decent human being. What is so difficult to understand about that concept?
|
On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it an move on.
When you're a pro player it doesn't work that way though, you're not only representing yourself, you're representing your team and the sponsors who endorse your team. Ruff doing what he did reflects on IvD, to keep him on would be to endorse him.
No being offensive is not a crime but if you're representing your team it's a major misdemeanour, one that has to be punished.
|
On June 16 2014 11:12 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it and move on. It's not about crime or punishment. It's about being a decent human being. What is so difficult to understand about that concept?
Who's to judge, that's what bothers me.
|
On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it an move on.
This is all bollocks. I didn't actually hurt your feelings. I don't know anything about you, I don't have the ability to make personal attacks against you. Being offensive is actually a crime yes, in many countries. Deliberately going out of your way to personally attack people is a crime in many countries and it's certainly an offense under the Battle.net terms of service. Can we stop comparing some random trash-talk to a highly personal targeted insult? I can't personally insult you, I don't know anything about you, Ruff knew a lot about Minigun and used it to make a highly personal attack. He deserved what he got in reply, his gross misconduct got him kicked from his team.
There is no such thing as "just words". Some are what you make of them, some you can choose to interpret in different ways, there is no room to interpret something designed to hurt you personally. None at all.
Here is what is policable from a team managers perspective. The conduct of my players and the public relations of my team with the fanbase and the sponsors. That's actually part of the job, to manage public perception. When your team gets tarnished by player like that it is actually your job to "police" them, discipline them, up to and including removal from the team if you believe it to be necessary. That's how teams work. When you sign a contact with a misconduct clause, you cease to be able to make arguments like "being offensive is not a crime". A crime no, but an offense that can get you fired? Definitely.
Who's to judge, that's what bothers me.
The team manager.... Literally part of their job is to judge.
|
Except his employer doesn't give a shit and is just pissed at him for making shit head public comments about someone who has a life threatening disease. It has nothing to do with SC2, but with his job. His only job. Win at Starcraft and don't be a shit head. He failed at one, so now he doesn't get to do the other professionally.
|
United States23455 Posts
On June 16 2014 11:13 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 11:12 Ben... wrote:On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it and move on. It's not about crime or punishment. It's about being a decent human being. What is so difficult to understand about that concept? Who's to judge, that's what bothers me.
The team giving him money and the sponsors giving them money. Seems reasonable doesn't it?
|
On June 16 2014 11:13 showstealer1829 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 11:08 dsousa wrote:
How much do your feeling have to be hurt before its punishable?
You can't measure it, so you IMO its too subject to bias to be policable.
Being offensive is not a crime. SC2 admins should not be in the business of policing game chats.
Its just words, they are what you make of them.
TB really hurt my feeling with his sarcasms, but I'm going to get over it an move on. When you're a pro player it doesn't work that way though, you're not only representing yourself, you're representing your team and the sponsors who endorse your team. Ruff doing what he did reflects on IvD, to keep him on would be to endorse him. No being offensive is not a crime but if you're representing your team it's a major misdemeanour, one that has to be punished.
I have no problem with the team dumping him for being a jackass. That is a smart move on their part, my point is a finer one about being banned from tournaments.
He didn't commit a crime, he didn't break a rule. He did represent himself and his team poorly.
|
On June 16 2014 11:14 Plansix wrote:
Except his employer doesn't give a shit and is just pissed at him for making shit head public comments about someone who has a life threatening disease. It has nothing to do with SC2, but with his job. His only job. Win at Starcraft and don't be a shit head. He failed at one, so now he doesn't get to do the other professionally.
Actually his employer really does give a shit, because IvD was founded with the purpose of helping and supporting a fellow gamer diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and a member of their management actually has Crohns Disease. Ruff could literally not have picked a a team more likely to kick his ass to the curb for a comment like that.
He didn't commit a crime, he didn't break a rule.
In some countries yes he did and on Battle.net he absolutely did. So not even this is right, not like "it's not a crime" excuses shitty behavior anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
