Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: GOON GARDEN on January 03, 2016, 11:59:54 pm
-
In this game, I repeatedly choose gold over KC with 7$ turns.
I win by a large margin.
KC is skippable in a lot of games that lack + buy or there is a viable sprint strategy that is too fast for anyone to actually build up to a megaturn.
https://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160103/log.0.1451844058550.txt
-
1. Welcome to the forums!
2. In this game, there's +Buy and there's Mountebank, the exact opposite of a sprint strategy. It's hard, but I'm not convinced that KC is skippable here. You can use Procession as a bootstrap early on to gain lots of Margraves and 1-2 Mountebanks, then pick up King's Court.
It's hard to get through the junking of Mountebank, but KC-Margrave is tons of draw and a decent attack.
Edit: going for Mountebank-BM is a reasonable choice, but I'm saying that when your opponent doesn't pick up Margrave until turn 17, this game isn't valid proof against going for KC. There are definitely boards where KC is skippable but I haven't seen one in a while.
-
Well, I skipped KC in this game and my score almost doubled that of my opponent, who bought 6 king's courts and two margraves.
I realize there is a + buy here, but that is offset by the presence of montebank, which IMO adds to the power of sprint strategies and slows down engines too much in many cases.
My opponent even hit me with KC + montebank (another reason someone might argue KC is not skippable here) but I still won 38 - 20. That is a pretty large margin of victory.
My strategy was simple: Buy plenty of gold and a few montebanks and buy provinces before my opponent could have a megaturn.
Edit: going for Mountebank-BM is a reasonable choice, but I'm saying that when your opponent doesn't pick up Margrave until turn 17, this game isn't valid proof against going for KC. There are definitely boards where KC is skippable but I haven't seen one in a while.
That's just the thing, though, its hard to acquire the necessary cards rapidly enough. My opponent didn't pick up margrave until turn 17 because he had to worry about getting montebank and also had to worry about getting KC's.
My whole point is that it takes too long to get all the cards needed and have them all line up in place when there is montebank mucking things up.
. You can use Procession as a bootstrap early on to gain lots of Margraves and 1-2 Mountebanks, then pick up King's Court.
The temptation of "bootstrapping" one's deck with procession is notoriously swingy. It could work, or it could result in dismal failure and "KC" would be skipped, not by choice but because you wouldn't hit 7+ until it is too late. Such a strategy is far more risky than BM + montebank.
So if the bootstrapping with procession is necessary to make KC + margrave engine viable, to me, that does not make the KC strategy more enticing since the bootstrapping is itself, risky
I have won a lot of games by skipping KC and letting my opponent fall into the trap of overbuilding with KC. Now that I am posting here I will share other examples later
-
Welcome to the forums! I'd like to tell you about my little friend. His name is Scout, and he can make your dreams into reality? What do you say?
Anyway, on topic, you successfully skipped KC in one game against an opponent who appears to have played suboptimally. One game is not enough to dub a card 'skippable.'
-
Anyway, on topic, you successfully skipped KC in one game against an opponent who appears to have played suboptimally. One game is not enough to dub a card 'skippable.'
I am not basing my opinion on one game, but countless games I have won in this manner, i.e. BM or sprint strategy against opponents who build engines with KC where KC is, in my opinion, skippable. This game is to serve as an illustration of an anomoly -- 6 KC deck vs zero KC deck - result? 38 - 20 in favor of zero KC deck.
Although my opponent played suboptimally, I won 38-20. That's a pretty large margin for someone who had zero KC's against a player who had 6, Sub-optimal playing or not.
-
Anyway, on topic, you successfully skipped KC in one game against an opponent who appears to have played suboptimally. One game is not enough to dub a card 'skippable.'
I am not basing my opinion on one game, but countless games I have won in this manner, i.e. BM or sprint strategy against opponents who build engines with KC where KC is, in my opinion, skippable. This game is to serve as an illustration of an anomoly -- 6 KC deck vs zero KC deck - result? 38 - 20 in favor of zero KC deck.
Although my opponent played suboptimally, I won 38-20. That's a pretty large margin for someone who had zero KC's against a player who had 6, Sub-optimal playing or not.
You should challenge someone who you see a lot on the forum (if you're planning on sticking around). Build a board with KC and skip it.
-
Anyway, on topic, you successfully skipped KC in one game against an opponent who appears to have played suboptimally. One game is not enough to dub a card 'skippable.'
I am not basing my opinion on one game, but countless games I have won in this manner, i.e. BM or sprint strategy against opponents who build engines with KC where KC is, in my opinion, skippable. This game is to serve as an illustration of an anomoly -- 6 KC deck vs zero KC deck - result? 38 - 20 in favor of zero KC deck.
Although my opponent played suboptimally, I won 38-20. That's a pretty large margin for someone who had zero KC's against a player who had 6, Sub-optimal playing or not.
You should challenge someone who you see a lot on the forum (if you're planning on sticking around). Build a board with KC and skip it.
I don't like to build boards. But the next time I see a board that is randomly generated that I think is a good example of skippable KC, I will.
Maybe you would like to take up the challenge yourself.
-
Anyway, on topic, you successfully skipped KC in one game against an opponent who appears to have played suboptimally. One game is not enough to dub a card 'skippable.'
I am not basing my opinion on one game, but countless games I have won in this manner, i.e. BM or sprint strategy against opponents who build engines with KC where KC is, in my opinion, skippable. This game is to serve as an illustration of an anomoly -- 6 KC deck vs zero KC deck - result? 38 - 20 in favor of zero KC deck.
Although my opponent played suboptimally, I won 38-20. That's a pretty large margin for someone who had zero KC's against a player who had 6, Sub-optimal playing or not.
You should challenge someone who you see a lot on the forum (if you're planning on sticking around). Build a board with KC and skip it.
I don't like to build boards. But the next time I see a board that is randomly generated that I think is a good example of skippable KC, I will.
Maybe you would like to take up the challenge yourself.
Oh, boy. I'm not great at Dominion, you might be able to beat me. And what do you mean, 'good example of skipping KC?' Are there certain boards where you would refuse to skip KC?
-
Of course there are boards in which KC is not skippable. Nobody is suggesting such a ludicrous notion. In the majority of cases, KC is not skippable.
There are many seasoned players who believe KC is never skippable. These players are wrong.
When I say "more skippable" it means "more frequently skippable" than the consensus believes.
-
In this game, I repeatedly choose gold over KC with 7$ turns.
I win by a large margin.
KC is skippable in a lot of games that lack + buy or there is a viable sprint strategy that is too fast for anyone to actually build up to a megaturn.
https://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160103/log.0.1451844058550.txt
Here is a suggested variant of your post:
In this game, I repeatedly choose gold over KC with 7$ turns.
I win by a large margin.
Is KC skippable in this game, as I think? What do you think?
https://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160103/log.0.1451844058550.txt
-
Well, I skipped KC in this game and my score almost doubled that of my opponent, who bought 6 king's courts and two margraves.
And 18 stop cards in addition to the starting 10 and the junk he got from your Mountebanks. You can't really expect to draw KC-KC-Margrave very often when your deck looks like that.
I played a couple of games against bots and it does seem like building the engine is better than not on this kingdom. You just have to buy Mountebank as soon as you can, a second Mountebank as soon as you can, not buy any Silvers after the first one, not buy any Tributes, Secret Chambers or Nomad Camps, buy enough Margraves, and not get too unlucky draws in the early game. Even then, you can't expect your engine to work every turn, but KCing Baron and two Mountebanks is just so good that as long as it works every other turn or so (which is a more reasonable thing to expect), you should win against an opponent who's doing the best he can with just three cards every turn.
What's worth noting is that KC strategies tend to be very difficult to play right and they can backfire hard if you can't (as demonstrated by your opponent here). It probably would have increased your opponent's chances of winning that particular game if he had ignored KC, and it also explains why skipping KC has been successful for you.
Also, winning 38-20 is not really proof of anything. Sometimes you just completely crush your opponent and win by a margin of one point, and sometimes it's an extremely close game that ends 48-0.
-
Well, I skipped KC in this game and my score almost doubled that of my opponent, who bought 6 king's courts and two margraves.
And 18 stop cards in addition to the starting 10 and the junk he got from your Mountebanks. You can't really expect to draw KC-KC-Margrave very often when your deck looks like that.
I played a couple of games against bots and it does seem like building the engine is better than not on this kingdom. You just have to buy Mountebank as soon as you can, a second Mountebank as soon as you can, not buy any Silvers after the first one, not buy any Tributes, Secret Chambers or Nomad Camps, buy enough Margraves, and not get too unlucky draws in the early game. Even then, you can't expect your engine to work every turn, but KCing Baron and two Mountebanks is just so good that as long as it works every other turn or so (which is a more reasonable thing to expect), you should win against an opponent who's doing the best he can with just three cards every turn.
What's worth noting is that KC strategies tend to be very difficult to play right and they can backfire hard if you can't (as demonstrated by your opponent here). It probably would have increased your opponent's chances of winning that particular game if he had ignored KC, and it also explains why skipping KC has been successful for you.
Also, winning 38-20 is not really proof of anything. Sometimes you just completely crush your opponent and win by a margin of one point, and sometimes it's an extremely close game that ends 48-0.
Generally speaking, the closer two scores are in a game the greater the likelihood that luck was the determining factor in the game. Generally, you can't truly "dominate" the opponent in a game that ends with you leading by one point, because had the draws been a bit different, in many cases you could have lost instead of one.
I never rested my argument on the score in this game, nor did I rest my argument on this game. It's just an illustration of my argument.
My opinion is this: KC is indeed skippable in some cases. That is all I am saying.
I find it rich that players will say "KC strategies are hard to play right" as if it is more skill based than other strategies--that is half true but not the whole truth of the matter. KC makes the game more of a "crapshoot" in that it all depends on cards lining up properly in just the right configuration, which may or may not happen when someone is getting hit with curses / coppers and or ruins.
I would change your statement of "KC strategies are hard to play right" to "KC strategies are extremely swingy in some cases, and optimal playing / action card saturation will mitigate that weakness inherent of KC strategies on some boards".
The success of a KC strategy is dependent on getting huge megaturns before the VP piles have been significantly or completely depleted. There are more cases than you admit where the sprint strategy is simply too fast and the game ends before the player's engine falls into place, or the player's engine does go off into a mega turn but it is already too late.
-
I find it rich that players will say "KC strategies are hard to play right" as if it is more skill based than other strategies--that is half true but not the whole truth of the matter. KC makes the game more of a "crapshoot" in that it all depends on cards lining up properly in just the right configuration, which may or may not happen when someone is getting hit with curses / coppers and or ruins.
This seems relevant:
You make your own shuffle luck.
-
You make your own shuffle luck.
[/quote]
I would qualify that statement to: "You make your own shuffle luck most of the time" - If you play well, you will PROBABLY get good draws, and EVENTUALLY you are going to get good draws
But it is entirely possible for a sprint strategy to cut the game short before the player gets "an even distribution" of draws that they deserve. Especially with cards like montebank bogging everything down.
Which means that in the majority of cases, you will get good draws if you build well.
But you can still play optimally and have uncommonly bad draws for a short number of turns - And a short number of turns is all that is needed for a sprint strategy to succeed
-
You know, more doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to card quantity. A deck with 2 King's Courts could have been better than one with 6 of them in this game. A hand of 5 King's Courts is useless after all.
Seasoned players might say that KC is never skippable because it's better to assume that a KC or two that you can spike will improve your deck more than anything else you can do. A card not being skippable doesn't mean you will necessarily lose if you don't get it but your opponent does. It just suggests that the optimal strategy includes the card in question.
That said, given that you junked your opponent very strongly with Mountebank, I would not argue that getting Gold over KC was a mistake. In a game with junking and no trashing, it's better to get cards that rely less on lining up with other ones.
In this game though, there was +buy and any "sprint strategy" would suffer a lot from Mountebank and Margrave. So why not argue that KC is weakened in games with lots of junk being distributed and no way to trash them?
I do encourage you to find more examples of games where pursuing KC appeared to be a mistake. It's a good leaning opportunity regardless of how others feel about their outcome.
-
That said, given that you junked your opponent very strongly with Mountebank, I would not argue that getting Gold over KC was a mistake. In a game with junking and no trashing, it's better to get cards that rely less on lining up with other ones.
Exactly my point
In this game though, there was +buy and any "sprint strategy" would suffer a lot from Mountebank and Margrave. So why not argue that KC is weakened in games with lots of junk being distributed and no way to trash them?
Good question. And you are quite right. I should focus on what you emphasized since that is far more relevant in the game log I included in OP. And I agree completely --In 1-1 I tend to skip KC in favor of gold in games where there is junking and no way to trash. This is even more true when the game is 3 or more players.
A lot of players would argue you should still go for KC + junker, especially in the case of montebank because they believe that monty + KC is the holy grail in such a board.
However, as the game log in OP shows, my opponent hit me with "KC + monty" and it was not the be all end all--- This was in part because it took too long to line up.
Thanks for your encouragement, I will continue to do share games in which I feel KC is skippable.
-
Generally speaking, the closer two scores are in a game the greater the likelihood that luck was the determining factor in the game. Generally, you can't truly "dominate" the opponent in a game that ends with you leading by one point, because had the draws been a bit different, in many cases you could have lost instead of one.
Not in the case where you're at the point where you can 3-pile and buy an Estate for the win while your opponent is still struggling to build his engine.
My opinion is this: KC is indeed skippable in some cases. That is all I am saying.
That's not an opinion, that's objectively true. It just sounds like you're overestimating how common those cases are.
I find it rich that players will say "KC strategies are hard to play right" as if it is more skill based than other strategies--that is half true but not the whole truth of the matter. KC makes the game more of a "crapshoot" in that it all depends on cards lining up properly in just the right configuration, which may or may not happen when someone is getting hit with curses / coppers and or ruins.
I would change your statement of "KC strategies are hard to play right" to "KC strategies are extremely swingy in some cases, and optimal playing / action card saturation will mitigate that weakness inherent of KC strategies on some boards".
That statement contradicts itself. There is no weakness inherent of KC strategies if optimal playing mitigates it. I wouldn't say that KC strategies are extremely swingy either — it's not really much more difficult to line up two KCs and a Margrave than it is to line up two Golds and a Silver, and the fact that the former is a triple Province/tons of pile control and give your opponent 6 Coppers turn while the latter is a single Province turn doesn't make it swingier, it just makes it better.
The success of a KC strategy is dependent on getting huge megaturns before the VP piles have been significantly or completely depleted. There are more cases than you admit where the sprint strategy is simply too fast and the game ends before the player's engine falls into place, or the player's engine does go off into a mega turn but it is already too late.
There are more cases than you admit where the engine is too slow only because the engine player built it suboptimally.
-
I think the core idea is that no matter how good a card is there will be boards that exist where you shouldn't get them.
Conversely, no matter how bad a card, there will be boards that you will want them. The important thing is to recognize those boards.
Now is this board one where you want to skip KC? I don't think so, but it really depends on how early you spike 7. You might already be at a point where you have too much junk to effectively use KC. But I don't think so.
-
Yes, KC is skippable. Boards with heavy junking make KC not so good, and so do heavy BM boards. However, most of the time, KC is such a powerhouse that you can turn Pearl Diver into a useful card. Of the most powerful cards in the game, KC is much more skippable than say Mountebank or Chapel or Ambassador. That still doesn't change the fact that it is super ultra strong most of the time.
-
Generally speaking, the closer two scores are in a game the greater the likelihood that luck was the determining factor in the game. Generally, you can't truly "dominate" the opponent in a game that ends with you leading by one point, because had the draws been a bit different, in many cases you could have lost instead of one.
Not in the case where you're at the point where you can 3-pile and buy an Estate for the win while your opponent is still struggling to build his engine.
I know that. That's why I qualified the statement with "generally" -- But I guess you ignored my careful wording so it would be easier to have a counterpoint.
-
Yes, KC is skippable. Boards with heavy junking make KC not so good, and so do heavy BM boards. However, most of the time, KC is such a powerhouse that you can turn Pearl Diver into a useful card. Of the most powerful cards in the game, KC is much more skippable than say Mountebank or Chapel or Ambassador. That still doesn't change the fact that it is super ultra strong most of the time.
At least Chapel and Ambassador are more skippable than KC.
-
I think the core idea is that no matter how good a card is there will be boards that exist where you shouldn't get them.
Conversely, no matter how bad a card, there will be boards that you will want them. The important thing is to recognize those boards.
Now is this board one where you want to skip KC? I don't think so, but it really depends on how early you spike 7. You might already be at a point where you have too much junk to effectively use KC. But I don't think so.
Exactly. Even KC has cases where it should not be purchased. That is all I am saying. And that point should not be controversial. (Yet Awalcus is making extraordinary stretches to try uphold the sacred cow status of KC)
Also, there are games where a KC should be purchased if there is an early 7, like you said.
And there are also games where a KC should be purchased if there is 7 -- and yet one should not go so far as to spend 8$ on a KC.
Furthermore, we have to apply the "Return on Investment" question to the case of KC.
There are circumstances that lead the KC to fail to give ROI before the game is complete.
-
That statement contradicts itself. There is no weakness inherent of KC strategies if optimal playing mitigates it.
Just because I conceded that optimal playing mitigates the weakness does not mean it eliminates the weakness completely
it just means it reduces the weakness to an extent. Still, if your opponent has a sprint strategy there is always the possibility that you are (for example) drawing dead KC's in spite of the fact that you bought plenty of villages and before you "regress to the mean" to use a statistics term, the game ends, either by the opponent exhausting three piles or by depleting or almost depleting the VP piles so as to render any megaturn that you will ultimately have insufficient for a comeback.
-
[
There are more cases than you admit where the engine is too slow only because the engine player built it suboptimally.
*shrugs* Maybe I just need to play against elite players more often. I didn't even go so far as to say that KC is skippable often, I just said it is skippable more often than the consensus would have you believe. I am challenging the notion that KC is never skippable, I am not trying to argue that it is skippable often, I personally skip it (ball park guess) in 8 percent of games in which KC is present.
-
I don't think KC is more skippable than I think.
-
Just because I conceded that optimal playing mitigates the weakness does not mean it eliminates the weakness completely
it just means it reduces the weakness to an extent. Still, if your opponent has a sprint strategy there is always the possibility that you are (for example) drawing dead KC's in spite of the fact that you bought plenty of villages and before you "regress to the mean" to use a statistics term, the game ends, either by the opponent exhausting three piles or by depleting or almost depleting the VP piles so as to render any megaturn that you will ultimately have insufficient for a comeback.
If optimal playing includes buying King's Court, it's not weak.
Legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. Most of them require more than one specific card in the game except for Rebuild, and it's commonplace for KC engines to beat a Rebuild rush. An Ironworks/Gardens rush can beat a KC engine fairly often I'd imagine, but all three appearing in the same kingdom is already rare enough that I have to rely on my imagination more than actual experience. Acquiring over 50% of the available VP takes so long I don't think a KC engine has to care about that at all.
-
Just because I conceded that optimal playing mitigates the weakness does not mean it eliminates the weakness completely
it just means it reduces the weakness to an extent. Still, if your opponent has a sprint strategy there is always the possibility that you are (for example) drawing dead KC's in spite of the fact that you bought plenty of villages and before you "regress to the mean" to use a statistics term, the game ends, either by the opponent exhausting three piles or by depleting or almost depleting the VP piles so as to render any megaturn that you will ultimately have insufficient for a comeback.
If optimal playing includes buying King's Court, it's not weak.
Legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. Most of them require more than one specific card in the game except for Rebuild, and it's commonplace for KC engines to beat a Rebuild rush. An Ironworks/Gardens rush can beat a KC engine fairly often I'd imagine, but all three appearing in the same kingdom is already rare enough that I have to rely on my imagination more than actual experience. Acquiring over 50% of the available VP takes so long I don't think a KC engine has to care about that at all.
Yes, legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. But that is not the only situation in which KC engines might not be the best strategy. Furthermore, "rare" is good enough for the sake of my argument, since All I am saying is that there are rare cases in which KC is skippable. So "rare" is all I need to bolster my argument.
You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. It would take a lot of time for me to break this down for you and hash all this out since you stubbornly insist KC is a good choice in all games. It isn't. So instead of getting bogged down in minutiae I will simply add game logs that illustrate my point as I encounter them in the future.
-
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
-
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion
-
Yes, legit rush strategies are somewhat rare. But that is not the only situation in which KC engines might not be the best strategy. Furthermore, "rare" is good enough for the sake of my argument, since All I am saying is that there are rare cases in which KC is skippable. So "rare" is all I need to bolster my argument.
You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. It would take a lot of time for me to break this down for you and hash all this out since you stubbornly insist KC is a good choice in all games. It isn't. So instead of getting bogged down in minutiae I will simply add game logs that illustrate my point as I encounter them in the future.
I have already acknowledged that there are obviously cases where you should skip KC, It just sounds like you're overestimating how common those cases are.
You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.
That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.
-
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion
I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.
-
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion
I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.
If it's not the best choice, it's not a good choice.
-
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion
I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.
If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.
-
[
That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.
Why am I not surprised that you disagreed with my assertion that you disagree for the sake of disagreeing? ;D
There is productive disagreeing and there is disagreeing that is nothing more than petty diversions. You are of the latter category
-
There is productive disagreeing and there is disagreeing that is nothing more than petty diversions. You are of the latter category
If our disagreement is a petty diversion, you're just as much guilty of it as I am.
-
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion
I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.
If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.
No, I mean about 99% of the time KC is equal to or greater than Gold. Only on boards with Junking AND no trashing would I think skipping King's Court was for sure the right play.
-
That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.
This post illustrates the whole problem with your approach to discussions.
-
That is not true. I disagree because others are wrong.
This post illustrates the whole problem with your approach to discussions.
The only problem is that not everyone has the same approach. Luckily, a lot of people do, too.
-
I just gave you your first respect on the forums! I feel so special! I even gave you two respect! Man, I'm such a nice guy.
Awaclus is the type of person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing, I can be too. Are you, Goon Garden?
No I do not enjoy disagreeing and I hoped we could all agree that no card is a good choice 100% of the time and no card is a bad choice 100% since that is the most sober way to think about dominion
I think everyone here knows no card is the best choice 100% of the time, but KC is almost always a good choice.
If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.
This statement is probably what this whole thread boils down to. So often on these forums people fall victim to making statements that are too strong or hyperbolic in some way, and they become misleading. The combination of that and the pedantry of these forums is sort of inconvenient, because there's two whole pages of discussion here and the most important statement in there (this one) is really tough to find and all of the respect goes towards the people who make little jokes. Oh well, it is what it is. In any case, I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson from this.
And I want to be clear, I'm not singling you out, goon garden -- if anything it's most of the other people on these forums that are guilty of this (myself included, though I try really hard to contain myself and properly qualify my statements and I think others should as well).
You make your own shuffle luck.
I would qualify that statement to: "You make your own shuffle luck most of the time" - If you play well, you will PROBABLY get good draws, and EVENTUALLY you are going to get good draws
My likeness was invoked here so I should respond. Let me begin here by stating my opinion on the game that was linked. Whether or not to go for King's Court here is a close call, in my opinion. There's no trashing, so it's tough to line up your business against a powerful junking attack. On the other hand, there's huge draw and huge potential for payload so if you manage to line up your business then there's a great reward -- the junking attack decreases your chances of lining things up on any given turn but it also makes the game take longer so you get more chances to line things up. The statement "junking attacks make KC less worth it" is just too simple to really be said about all kingdoms in Dominion and have it mean anything worthwhile at all; there are so many other things to consider.
On that note I should mention that one game log where both players probably played far from perfectly (this is almost every game, BTW. Playing anywhere close to perfectly is unbelievably hard for anyone, including all of the people around here) is not going to convince anyone of anything. Yeah you won by a lot, but if your opponent played KC even slightly wrong on this board, he's not going to accomplish anything at all. That's not to say your strategy isn't better, it just means this one game doesn't mean all that much. Money is a conservative strategy on this board, and as I said before, it's close between money and KC shenanigans -- so it's going to be high-variance, depending on whether or not your opponent can line up his cards before you've locked up the game on points.
"You make your own shuffle luck" doesn't literally mean that (we've all seen the jokes where that means you get to stack your deck, lolol). The point of that statement is that when you lose, don't blame your draws: always look at your (and your opponent's) play critically and try and find things to do better. The day you start blaming your draws for losses is the same day you stop getting better at Dominion, so don't do that. You can add your own interpretation, but when I say YMYOSL, that's what I mean, and it's taken me a long way since when I started playing.
Sure you're going to actually lose games because you actually got bad draws. Dominion is a high-variance game no matter which cards are in the kingdom; this is no excuse to stop trying to get better at Dominion.
-
This statement is probably what this whole thread boils down to. So often on these forums people fall victim to making statements that are too strong or hyperbolic in some way, and they become misleading. The combination of that and the pedantry of these forums is sort of inconvenient, because there's two whole pages of discussion here and the most important statement in there (this one) is really tough to find and all of the respect goes towards the people who make little jokes. Oh well, it is what it is. In any case, I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson from this.
And I want to be clear, I'm not singling you out, goon garden -- if anything it's most of the other people on these forums that are guilty of this (myself included, though I try really hard to contain myself and properly qualify my statements and I think others should as well).
You make your own shuffle luck.
I would qualify that statement to: "You make your own shuffle luck most of the time" - If you play well, you will PROBABLY get good draws, and EVENTUALLY you are going to get good draws
My likeness was invoked here so I should respond. Let me begin here by stating my opinion on the game that was linked. Whether or not to go for King's Court here is a close call, in my opinion. There's no trashing, so it's tough to line up your business against a powerful junking attack. On the other hand, there's huge draw and huge potential for payload so if you manage to line up your business then there's a great reward -- the junking attack decreases your chances of lining things up on any given turn but it also makes the game take longer so you get more chances to line things up. The statement "junking attacks make KC less worth it" is just too simple to really be said about all kingdoms in Dominion and have it mean anything worthwhile at all; there are so many other things to consider.
On that note I should mention that one game log where both players probably played far from perfectly (this is almost every game, BTW. Playing anywhere close to perfectly is unbelievably hard for anyone, including all of the people around here) is not going to convince anyone of anything. Yeah you won by a lot, but if your opponent played KC even slightly wrong on this board, he's not going to accomplish anything at all. That's not to say your strategy isn't better, it just means this one game doesn't mean all that much. Money is a conservative strategy on this board, and as I said before, it's close between money and KC shenanigans -- so it's going to be high-variance, depending on whether or not your opponent can line up his cards before you've locked up the game on points.
"You make your own shuffle luck" doesn't literally mean that (we've all seen the jokes where that means you get to stack your deck, lolol). The point of that statement is that when you lose, don't blame your draws: always look at your (and your opponent's) play critically and try and find things to do better. The day you start blaming your draws for losses is the same day you stop getting better at Dominion, so don't do that. You can add your own interpretation, but when I say YMYOSL, that's what I mean, and it's taken me a long way since when I started playing.
Sure you're going to actually lose games because you actually got bad draws. Dominion is a high-variance game no matter which cards are in the kingdom; this is no excuse to stop trying to get better at Dominion.
AdamH, I appreciate your insights and constructive criticism. You are more judicious than most, we could all learn a lot from you.
I freely admit that I am prone to hyperbole, I did learn from this experience.
I agree that bad draws should not be blamed on bad luck. However I want to avoid anyone taking "YMYSL" so far as to delude oneself that Dominion is as exact as chess, when I view it as random to the extent that it sometimes takes a certain amount of turns for someone's draws to "regress toward the mean"....
And I can't go further into this subject without rambling on about statistics, and its really not important
I am grateful for your post, and you have won my respect
-
Arguing with Awaclus is far more skippable than people think.
-
(we've all seen the jokes where that means you get to stack your deck, lolol)
I've played a game with Governor and Ghost Ship where it literally meant that.
EDIT: Does anyone want to play this board on MF? I don't have Hinterlands though.
-
If by "almost always", you mean 90 - 93% of the time, I agree wholeheartedly.
Okay, I see the problem.
"Far more skippable than people think" (what you said in the the title) is hyperbolic and vague.
"90-93% of the time" is much more specific and useful. We can argue the difference between 93% and 97%, but that's not "far more."
-
Sometimes you just completely crush your opponent and win by a margin of one point, and sometimes it's an extremely close game that ends 48-0.
This is absolutely true. I was just explaining this to a new player last week. Many, if not most, close games are decided 5 Provinces to 3. That's a 12 point difference, which can sound like a lot. If both players are going for a massive Goons engine, or a KC-Bridge or NV-Bridge engine, then the game could easily end 51-3, even though the winning player may have just been 1 turn faster, or gotten a luckier hand sooner.
On the other hand, a huge engine can make the potential to win at any time, while the other player is going no where at all. In this case, this huge engine may easily 3-pile while buying a single Estate to win by 1.
The key is to remember that the object is NOT to get the most points. It's to end the game when you have more points than your opponent.
-
We can argue the difference between 93% and 97%, but that's not "far more."
No? I think saying "King's Court is skippable more than twice as often as people think" counts as "far more".
-
Welcome to Forum: dominionstrategy, the place where people will argue purely speculative percentages down to the first decimal.
;)
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Actually I think the actual number is far more than that. Probably 42%.
-
Turns out the engine really sucks on this board when your opponent isn't Lord Bottington. Against the bot, it's better to go for the engine though.
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Actually I think the actual number is far more than that. Probably 42%.
3% of all statistics are far more made up than people think.
-
Anyway, main problem here is that most people here see in report that both of you make lot of blunders. If you instead used title: 'tribute is terrible card.' then we would agree. For example if opponent got second mountebank instead tribute turn 7 could be kc-mountebank instead kc-tribute which basically wins game. As this is mb slog you want three of them, so its probable that you could line kc with mountebank Another obvious problem is that none of you rushes duchies which is correct on junking slogs as getting golds and provinces takes too long.
As KC here you want it but depending on draws you couldn't rely that you will buy it reasonably early. Also when spiking 8 should be province. and you want duchy over kc or gold when you are greening.
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
-
Anyway, main problem here is that most people here see in report that both of you make lot of blunders. If you instead used title: 'tribute is terrible card.' then we would agree. For example if opponent got second mountebank instead tribute turn 7 could be kc-mountebank instead kc-tribute which basically wins game. As this is mb slog you want three of them, so its probable that you could line kc with mountebank Another obvious problem is that none of you rushes duchies which is correct on junking slogs as getting golds and provinces takes too long.
As KC here you want it but depending on draws you couldn't rely that you will buy it reasonably early. Also when spiking 8 should be province. and you want duchy over kc or gold when you are greening.
I am the king of killing duchies, if I didn't rush the duchies early, I must have had a decent reason for doing so -- Probably because I wanted to end the game before he had some big turns that resulted from his overbuilding.. Sometimes sprinting for the provinces is the fastest way to end the game in 2P - and it depletes the lion's share of the VP
By the way, aggressively killing duchies is a good idea for a 3P slog with MB, I admit I bought too many gold in this game but I had a lot of VP ahead of my opponent throughout the entire game so I just decided to exhaust the province piles as soon as possible to end the game becuase I felt that would be faster than three piling using duchie as one of the piles
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
Its a joke used to insult people who throw figures around without referring to actual recorded data.. I did "make up" the percentage but that is based off of memory, which is good enough for our present purposes
-
Turns out the engine really sucks on this board when your opponent isn't Lord Bottington. Against the bot, it's better to go for the engine though.
Which brings up another issue with KC -- Not all boards provide the cards for you to get a ROI that is rapid enough
-
Turns out the engine really sucks on this board when your opponent isn't Lord Bottington. Against the bot, it's better to go for the engine though.
Which brings up another issue with KC -- Not all boards provide the cards for you to get a ROI that is rapid enough
ROI? Sorry, Internet lingo is not my strong suit.
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
Its a joke used to insult people who throw figures around without referring to actual recorded data.. I did "make up" the percentage but that is based off of memory, which is good enough for our present purposes
Please don't feel insulted.
-
Turns out the engine really sucks on this board when your opponent isn't Lord Bottington. Against the bot, it's better to go for the engine though.
Which brings up another issue with KC -- Not all boards provide the cards for you to get a ROI that is rapid enough
ROI? Sorry, Internet lingo is not my strong suit.
For decades, ROI has meant "return on investment"
In this case that includes the opportunity cost of buying the card and when you buy the card.
-
Man, why is this thread even still going? (Don't answer that, because I've already got some inklings as to why.)
To me, this reads as lots of people making posts about the one part of the post they disagree with, people replying only to the part of the counterargument they dislike, and so on back and forth for 50 posts. Over time people check out of the thread as they realize how pointless it is, until only the obstinate people are left. See how the argument has shifted from "This game is an argument for when you can skip KC" vs "You can't base this conclusion from one game where your opponent misplays", to "My point is valid" vs "You got to your point through faulty reasoning and here's some edge cases to your point", to "STOP YELLING ABOUT MINOR DETAILS IN MY POST" vs "STOP YELLING ABOUT MINOR DETAILS IN MY POST."
This thread ended about 30 posts ago and it's only still going because it's nice drama. I know I'm adding to that drama with this post and I'm not any better for saying this stuff than anybody else here, but still, this is just dumb and no one outside of the argument even cares about the ideas or who wins. They only care about the argument as entertainment in and of itself. So if you want to keep being unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest. Otherwise, just drop it.
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
Why are you using percentages then? If you simply estimate without any data as backup, you can reflect that in your language, which should be more vague to say the least.
-
Man, why is this thread even still going? (Don't answer that, because I've already got some inklings as to why.)
To me, this reads as lots of people making posts about the one part of the post they disagree with, people replying only to the part of the counterargument they dislike, and so on back and forth for 50 posts. Over time people check out of the thread as they realize how pointless it is, until only the obstinate people are left. See how the argument has shifted from "This game is an argument for when you can skip KC" vs "You can't base this conclusion from one game where your opponent misplays", to "My point is valid" vs "You got to your point through faulty reasoning and here's some edge cases to your point", to "STOP YELLING ABOUT MINOR DETAILS IN MY POST" vs "STOP YELLING ABOUT MINOR DETAILS IN MY POST."
This thread ended about 30 posts ago and it's only still going because it's nice drama. I know I'm adding to that drama with this post and I'm not any better for saying this stuff than anybody else here, but still, this is just dumb and no one outside of the argument even cares about the ideas or who wins. They only care about the argument as entertainment in and of itself. So if you want to keep being unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest. Otherwise, just drop it.
DISREGARD THIS POST KC IS SKIPPABLE ON 78.4% OF BOARDS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A GREAT FOOL AND I PITY YOU
-
unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest.
That's my job!
-
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
Why are you using percentages then? If you simply estimate without any data as backup, you can reflect that in your language, which should be more vague to say the least.
I am using percentages for ease of communication, and I do think they are not innacurate. We are trying to make a generalization about how often you can skip KC, not land a mars rover, so settle down.
When I say "90-93%", take it with a grain of salt, instead of getting salty.
The percentages I gave actually were far less vague than language which is subjective. Everyone has a slightly different percentile number that they imagine when saying "most of the time" or "almost always"
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
-
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
But is it just a little bit off-putting, or really, really off-putting?
(I really wish I didn't have to put this was a joke in bold here, but I feel it might be necessary.)
Seriously, though, man, this forum is all about nitpicking. Usually it's more substantive than petty, though, trust us.
-
I am the king of killing duchies, if I didn't rush the duchies early, I must have had a decent reason for doing so -- Probably because I wanted to end the game before he had some big turns that resulted from his overbuilding.. Sometimes sprinting for the provinces is the fastest way to end the game in 2P - and it depletes the lion's share of the VP
This is an interesting thing to talk about. I played three games on stream (I guess I could highlight them and link them) of this kingdom, all from the money side. Depending on how things went, sometimes I went hard for Duchies earlier on, and other times I stayed with Province/Gold for quite some time before turning for Duchies (like I only got Duchies when I thought I wouldn't shuffle again for the rest of the game or when I was going for 50% VP). Maybe I didn't do a very good job of explaining on stream but I haven't re-watched it yet.
The point is that with the same kingdom and the same strategies by each player, it can sometimes be correct to go for Duchies and sometimes be correct to stick with Provinces for a while. It depends on the answers to the questions "how do I win?" and "how do I lose?" and playing to maximize the chances of the first, while minimizing your chances of the second. You have to keep a close eye on the score and the capabilities of your opponent's deck.
OK I guess I should highlight those games. It's tough to talk about without more context. I'll get on that at some point.
Edit: Stream highlight (http://www.twitch.tv/adamhorton/v/33708089)
-
This thread ended about 30 posts ago and it's only still going because it's nice drama. I know I'm adding to that drama with this post and I'm not any better for saying this stuff than anybody else here, but still, this is just dumb and no one outside of the argument even cares about the ideas or who wins. They only care about the argument as entertainment in and of itself. So if you want to keep being unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest. Otherwise, just drop it.
I think another reason we are all still posting here is that there's like maybe two actual discussions of Dominion on this forum per day, and we're bored. This is the most in depth discussion about anything we've had in awhile. I'm tempted to make more threads with sweeping generalizations just to stir the pot a bit and get some discussion about Dominion going. It's what Roadrunner manages to do every time he says anything about Scout; clearly I should start doing that about Gear or something.
-
This thread ended about 30 posts ago and it's only still going because it's nice drama. I know I'm adding to that drama with this post and I'm not any better for saying this stuff than anybody else here, but still, this is just dumb and no one outside of the argument even cares about the ideas or who wins. They only care about the argument as entertainment in and of itself. So if you want to keep being unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest. Otherwise, just drop it.
I think another reason we are all still posting here is that there's like maybe two actual discussions of Dominion on this forum per day, and we're bored. This is the most in depth discussion about anything we've had in awhile. I'm tempted to make more threads with sweeping generalizations just to stir the pot a bit and get some discussion about Dominion going. It's what Roadrunner manages to do every time he says anything about Scout; clearly I should start doing that about Gear or something.
I'm not bored of discussing Dominion. It's just really hard to do around here because people want to make jokes instead of discussing Dominion, threads get off-topic and it hinders discussion. There's so much about Adventures that just hasn't been talked about, and yeah having it online would help but certainly it isn't because we're out of things to talk about related to Dominion. If only there was a way we could have some type of thread where people couldn't post things that are off-topic... hmm...
Of course this same discussion was already had and a lot of people disagreed with what I said. That's fine, they're allowed to disagree. I'm right and they're all wrong, but they can still think that, it's OK.
It's much easier for me to ignore the trolls now, though. So I can just attempt to have a good discussion and not acknowledge those who are just trying to get in the way. If it happens, great! If it doesn't, I'll be sad but I've now realized that nobody here cares about people who are sad because of this. OK, I'll just deal with it on my own, that was the guidance I was given so I suppose that's the guidance people should get if they're also upset about the same thing.
I don't think stirring the pot will help, though. People are still willing to post, but the ones who actually want to talk about Dominion (I'm assuming others out there think similarly to me) don't want to respond to people who are deliberately trying to be misleading.
-
Hey, trolling is a great way to fight boredom!
It's also very easy, because usually there are a lot of attack vectors for any given argument:
- Language, i.e. grammar / spelling
- Vague quantification (I used 'usually' myself, other examples include 'far more' and 'people')
- Focusing on a single word or statement and ignoring the rest
- Deliberate misinterpretation
- Etc...
That being said, I think KC is far less skippable than people think.
-
KC is three times as skippable as people think.
-
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
But is it just a little bit off-putting, or really, really off-putting?
(I really wish I didn't have to put this was a joke in bold here, but I feel it might be necessary.)
Seriously, though, man, this forum is all about nitpicking. Usually it's more substantive than petty, though, trust us.
This forum is only 93% about nitpicking.
-
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
But is it just a little bit off-putting, or really, really off-putting?
(I really wish I didn't have to put this was a joke in bold here, but I feel it might be necessary.)
Seriously, though, man, this forum is all about nitpicking. Usually it's more substantive than petty, though, trust us.
This forum is only 93% about nitpicking.
Well, I have already had enough of this horrid forum.
Bye.
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
-
This thread ended about 30 posts ago and it's only still going because it's nice drama. I know I'm adding to that drama with this post and I'm not any better for saying this stuff than anybody else here, but still, this is just dumb and no one outside of the argument even cares about the ideas or who wins. They only care about the argument as entertainment in and of itself. So if you want to keep being unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest. Otherwise, just drop it.
I think another reason we are all still posting here is that there's like maybe two actual discussions of Dominion on this forum per day, and we're bored. This is the most in depth discussion about anything we've had in awhile. I'm tempted to make more threads with sweeping generalizations just to stir the pot a bit and get some discussion about Dominion going. It's what Roadrunner manages to do every time he says anything about Scout; clearly I should start doing that about Gear or something.
I'm not bored of discussing Dominion. It's just really hard to do around here because people want to make jokes instead of discussing Dominion, threads get off-topic and it hinders discussion. There's so much about Adventures that just hasn't been talked about, and yeah having it online would help but certainly it isn't because we're out of things to talk about related to Dominion. If only there was a way we could have some type of thread where people couldn't post things that are off-topic... hmm...
Of course this same discussion was already had and a lot of people disagreed with what I said. That's fine, they're allowed to disagree. I'm right and they're all wrong, but they can still think that, it's OK.
It's much easier for me to ignore the trolls now, though. So I can just attempt to have a good discussion and not acknowledge those who are just trying to get in the way. If it happens, great! If it doesn't, I'll be sad but I've now realized that nobody here cares about people who are sad because of this. OK, I'll just deal with it on my own, that was the guidance I was given so I suppose that's the guidance people should get if they're also upset about the same thing.
I don't think stirring the pot will help, though. People are still willing to post, but the ones who actually want to talk about Dominion (I'm assuming others out there think similarly to me) don't want to respond to people who are deliberately trying to be misleading.
I'm not bored of discussing Dominion. I'd like to discuss it more; it's why I come here, really. We just don't have many threads to discuss things. By stirring the pot, I'm more suggesting things along the lines of "Gear BM beats engines more often than not. Discuss!" than I am referring to joke replies and the like. The OP's bold statement about KC may be mostly wrong, but jokes aside we had some decent discussion about King's Court for a bit, so his stirring the pot may have been worth it in that sense.
I'd like to see more frequent discussion of Dominion stuff here - maybe statements like these to start threads are the way to do it, I don't know. Anyone got any ideas?
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
You're not funny
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
You're not funny
I'm at least 42% funny.
-
This thread ended about 30 posts ago and it's only still going because it's nice drama. I know I'm adding to that drama with this post and I'm not any better for saying this stuff than anybody else here, but still, this is just dumb and no one outside of the argument even cares about the ideas or who wins. They only care about the argument as entertainment in and of itself. So if you want to keep being unwitting performers that give us something to read, be my guest. Otherwise, just drop it.
I think another reason we are all still posting here is that there's like maybe two actual discussions of Dominion on this forum per day, and we're bored. This is the most in depth discussion about anything we've had in awhile. I'm tempted to make more threads with sweeping generalizations just to stir the pot a bit and get some discussion about Dominion going. It's what Roadrunner manages to do every time he says anything about Scout; clearly I should start doing that about Gear or something.
I'm not bored of discussing Dominion. It's just really hard to do around here because people want to make jokes instead of discussing Dominion, threads get off-topic and it hinders discussion. There's so much about Adventures that just hasn't been talked about, and yeah having it online would help but certainly it isn't because we're out of things to talk about related to Dominion. If only there was a way we could have some type of thread where people couldn't post things that are off-topic... hmm...
Of course this same discussion was already had and a lot of people disagreed with what I said. That's fine, they're allowed to disagree. I'm right and they're all wrong, but they can still think that, it's OK.
It's much easier for me to ignore the trolls now, though. So I can just attempt to have a good discussion and not acknowledge those who are just trying to get in the way. If it happens, great! If it doesn't, I'll be sad but I've now realized that nobody here cares about people who are sad because of this. OK, I'll just deal with it on my own, that was the guidance I was given so I suppose that's the guidance people should get if they're also upset about the same thing.
I don't think stirring the pot will help, though. People are still willing to post, but the ones who actually want to talk about Dominion (I'm assuming others out there think similarly to me) don't want to respond to people who are deliberately trying to be misleading.
I'm not bored of discussing Dominion. I'd like to discuss it more; it's why I come here, really. We just don't have many threads to discuss things. By stirring the pot, I'm more suggesting things along the lines of "Gear BM beats engines more often than not. Discuss!" than I am referring to joke replies and the like. The OP's bold statement about KC may be mostly wrong, but jokes aside we had some decent discussion about King's Court for a bit, so his stirring the pot may have been worth it in that sense.
I'd like to see more frequent discussion of Dominion stuff here - maybe statements like these to start threads are the way to do it, I don't know. Anyone got any ideas?
Well, any "lets brainstorm about Adventures card X" would be fine; these cards don't have articles, but a community discussion that could lead to a preliminary article or even just a set of ideas would beat nothing. I've considered starting a thread about Wine Merchant, for instance, to get people talking about Adventures cards. Sure, we don't have online play for these so its much, much harder to get the data we need, but even discussion about it without that would be preferable.
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
You're not funny
Bro, I totally feel you, man. Like, I've been in your shoes. It's really frustrating to see that this is how we welcome new people to the forums -- the intelligent discussion goes on for a bit and then it gets interrupted and then people are upvoting the troll posts and don't really give a crap that you're frustrated. I've been there and it doesn't feel good and I empathize with you.
In this situation, I think rather than feeding the troll, you should have pressed the "report to moderator" button. It may still not be too late.
And WW, why are you doing this? Seriously, I think you should stop. As a community we have nothing to gain an everything to lose by you/us continuing this. Please.
-
I would welcome the opportunity to talk about Adventures. My only real knowledge of the set comes from the dozen or so games I've played IRL. I understand that a heavy majority of this community plays online, and those experiences are much easier to share (logs) than simply: here's the kingdom, and this is who won.
Edit: also, to Adam's dismay, I have a broken sarcasm filter. I am sure many people here struggle with this as it finds humor in places there otherwise wouldn't be.
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
You're not funny
Bro, I totally feel you, man. Like, I've been in your shoes. It's really frustrating to see that this is how we welcome new people to the forums -- the intelligent discussion goes on for a bit and then it gets interrupted and then people are upvoting the troll posts and don't really give a crap that you're frustrated. I've been there and it doesn't feel good and I empathize with you.
In this situation, I think rather than feeding the troll, you should have pressed the "report to moderator" button. It may still not be too late.
And WW, why are you doing this? Seriously, I think you should stop. As a community we have nothing to gain an everything to lose by you/us continuing this. Please.
Trolls who are talented have their place in a forum, but that witherweaver is decidedly unfunny
I don't mind being roasted but at least make it entertaining
In any case, you're a real gentleman, AdamH. I appreciate your post
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
You're not funny
Bro, I totally feel you, man. Like, I've been in your shoes. It's really frustrating to see that this is how we welcome new people to the forums -- the intelligent discussion goes on for a bit and then it gets interrupted and then people are upvoting the troll posts and don't really give a crap that you're frustrated. I've been there and it doesn't feel good and I empathize with you.
In this situation, I think rather than feeding the troll, you should have pressed the "report to moderator" button. It may still not be too late.
And WW, why are you doing this? Seriously, I think you should stop. As a community we have nothing to gain an everything to lose by you/us continuing this. Please.
You can both talk about Dominion and throw off lighthearted remarks at the same time and the world won't end. But this gets into conversations we've had time and again, so maybe we just better head off to anotter topic.
-
Trolls who are talented have their place in a forum, but that witherweaver is decidedly unfunny
I don't mind being roasted but at least make it entertaining
In any case, you're a real gentleman, AdamH. I appreciate your post
You're not being roasted; I'm not sure why you say that.
-
I mean, the fun being poked at here is how pedantic we on this forum are.
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
I approve! Will you start the first one today?
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
I approve! Will you start the first one today?
Definitely. Expect a thread on Amulet after I get the chance to eat lunch and type up an OP.
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
I approve! Will you start the first one today?
Definitely. Expect a thread on Amulet after I get the chance to eat lunch and type up an OP.
Cool. Nice first choice. We've discussed Amulet some, since it was a previewed card, but I think there's definitely more room for discussion there.
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
I approve! Will you start the first one today?
Definitely. Expect a thread on Amulet after I get the chance to eat lunch and type up an OP.
Cool. Nice first choice. We've discussed Amulet some, since it was a previewed card, but I think there's definitely more room for discussion there.
We've only discussed 53% of Amulet in the Preview thread. So there's far more discussion left than people think.
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
DO IT!
-
Maybe we can do something like a kingdom of the week or something? It seems to be popular on the reddit.
-
You can both talk about Dominion and throw off lighthearted remarks at the same time and the world won't end.
I totally agree with this. In fact, I throw in lighthearted remarks into my posts all of the time. They're everywhere in my Jack article, which is one of the most "serious" and Dominion-related posts I've ever made. OTOH, just count the number of posts in this thread right now and see what percentage of them have no Dominion content whatsoever (I'm not going to do this, I'm speaking rhetorically, but sure someone can do this, that's fine) and you'll see how lighthearted remarks can come at the expense of Dominion content. Like, what if posts with no meaningful Dominion content were just removed? I bet this would read a lot better and lots of people would be happier. It's so easy for those to not be posted, you know?
AdamH. I appreciate your post
<3 <3 <3 <3
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day?
I have actually thought about doing this very seriously. The only thing that has stopped me from actually doing it is the fact that the last several times (I can think of at least 5 off the top of my head) I've tried to use the community as a resource to come up with a collection of ideas like that, the discussion turned non-constructive so quickly and I got so frustrated that I unfollowed the thread. I was told that asking people to stay on topic was the main reason people went off-topic, which is IMO the stupidest thing in the universe.
So I've just been doing more work in the IRL scene and the other mystery thing that's been in the works (which is actually only a couple of weeks from becoming a reality, btw [/teaser]). I sincerely hope it works for you and I will offer whatever Dominion-related insights I can as long as I can stand to continue reading the thread. I'm a little sketch about the Amulet thread to start but of course I'll repeat the opinions I've previously made known because my mind has not been changed.
-
I think maybe you've only had 94-98% enough of this horrid forum.
You're not funny
You're not gone...?
-
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
But is it just a little bit off-putting, or really, really off-putting?
(I really wish I didn't have to put this was a joke in bold here, but I feel it might be necessary.)
Seriously, though, man, this forum is all about nitpicking. Usually it's more substantive than petty, though, trust us.
This forum is only 93% about nitpicking.
Well, I have already had enough of this horrid forum.
Bye.
I haven't been on this forum for too long, but it seems pretty harmless and actually fun. 'Horrid' is definitely not a word I would use. Just get the discussion back to King's Court, or leave the topic and let them get the last word in.
-
We could return to the [serious] tag, if we must? That way the less [serious] comments can be ignored or removed? I mean, at this point there is really very little discussion on the topic as it was "I think I'm right, here's a specific example" vs "I think you're wrong, here's a different example" without much progress to be had.
King's Court [serious] on the other hand may give us insight into a few "skip-able" scenarios that a weaker player may not notice.
-
i think the issue here is that a lot of people don't see the point of further serious discussion. the consensus here seems to be "king's court is clearly as not as skippable as the OP thinks, what else is there to talk about?"
you really need top players willing to dig deeper for things to get beyond that point, and that's hard for any forum - especially in the current era where they're gradually getting killed off by social media. the largest competitive fighting-game forum has tens of thousands of members, yet i see LESS nitty-gritty discussion there than i do here...
-
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
But is it just a little bit off-putting, or really, really off-putting?
(I really wish I didn't have to put this was a joke in bold here, but I feel it might be necessary.)
Seriously, though, man, this forum is all about nitpicking. Usually it's more substantive than petty, though, trust us.
This forum is only 93% about nitpicking.
Well, I have already had enough of this horrid forum.
Bye.
I haven't been on this forum for too long, but it seems pretty harmless and actually fun. 'Horrid' is definitely not a word I would use. Just get the discussion back to King's Court, or leave the topic and let them get the last word in.
My every word is picked apart by a bunch of snooty posters including yourself who takes issue with my word choice of "horrid"...
Being surrounded by a mob picking apart every word is downright horrid considering how short life is.
-
Any reason we can't make a new thread about like, each Adventures card one by one each day? Multiple discussions would go on at once, but that's probably a good thing. I'll just go down the list alphabetically and make a new thread daily. Trolly comment about how good the card is optional.
I'm certainly very glad that Miser is optional, for one.
-
i think the issue here is that a lot of people don't see the point of further serious discussion. the consensus here seems to be "king's court is clearly as not as skippable as the OP thinks, what else is there to talk about?"
you really need top players willing to dig deeper for things to get beyond that point, and that's hard for any forum - especially in the current era where they're gradually getting killed off by social media. the largest competitive fighting-game forum has tens of thousands of members, yet i see LESS nitty-gritty discussion there than i do here...
You seem to think that if the consensus is against OP, that the only possible place to go is for the discussion to devolve into _______.* How about we respectfully agree to disagree like gentleman?
That would be the classy thing to do (and some such as AdamH have done so) I don't think you all realize that the *______ in this thread discredit this forum as a whole more than the OP which can't be discredited because the consensus is against it anyway.
I have no problem if people disagree. I am a kind person. This is not a community I wish to be a part of.
*I refuse to name what is going on because if I do that word choice will be picked apart ad nauseum
-
*I refuse to name what is going on because if I do that word choice will be picked apart ad naseum
It's ad nauseam.
Honestly, I tried to resist, but man, that's two errors in a single word!
-
*I refuse to name what is going on because if I do that word choice will be picked apart ad naseum
It's ad nauseam.
Honestly, I tried to resist, but man, that's two errors in a single word!
See what I mean?
I already corrected the first error.
-
"king's court is clearly as not as skippable as the OP thinks, what else is there to talk about?"
Relevant topics that have been touched on in this thread other than skippability of KC on that particular board include:
- generalizing the cases where KC may be skippable and giving tools to identify them when could come up elsewhere, specifically the effect of junking attacks
- valid and invalid criteria for determining whether one strategy is "better" than another (on that board, yes, but the discussion hasn't been restricted to that board)
- methods for speaking precisely about how good things are and noting its important when communicating in a text setting
All of these I feel are really good, really important topics to be discussed, but the most important thing(s) are the ones that could be talked about here but aren't because of the excess noise happening, such as:
- clarification on a Dominion-related statement either because something wasn't stated clearly enough or, more context is required for someone less familiar with the game
- any question inspired by reading this discussion, as long as it's constructive and Dominion-related, however tangential it may be to the original topic (even if that discussion happens several months from now after people have just stopped talking in this thread)
It may seem silly, but I know for a fact that there are tons of people who lurk on these forums and don't post. One of them decided to stop lurking just to talk about this topic, and because of the excess noise in this thread, regretted doing so at some point. Regardless of how he handled it, the fact remains that there was potential for a new member of this community to be welcomed in and more Dominion-related discussion to take place as a result and this is how the community handled it (by making him feel regret). How many other lurkers do you think will read this thread, see how goon garden felt, and choose to remain lurkers as a result? If the answer is anything other than "absolutely zero, no questions asked" then maybe we owe it to them to not crap all over someone's first thread (and first direct interaction with F.DS) like we have here.
And then there are people here who want to see more Dominion discussion. I'd guess that most of these people are not the same ones that have done the damage in this thread, but if any of the people who made posts in this thread that were not Dominion-related at all feel like there should be more Dominion discussion, then my advice to them is to be the change you want to see.
And if there is no overlap (or even if there is, actually) people can just mash the "report to moderator" button on posts that were completely off-topic and derailed the discussion. This was the guidance I was given; if people get slapped on the wrist and are made more aware that some people out there are not appreciative of their remarks, maybe they will see the damage they have done and be less inclined do more of it in the future -- so far the only feedback they've been given is large amounts of +1s, which is sending a very clear message. So "be the change you want to see" applies here in that if you don't like seeing this and don't think it should be rewarded, then press the closest thing this forum has to a downvote button. In fact, I might be doing that shortly.
-
You can both talk about Dominion and throw off lighthearted remarks at the same time and the world won't end.
I totally agree with this. In fact, I throw in lighthearted remarks into my posts all of the time. They're everywhere in my Jack article, which is one of the most "serious" and Dominion-related posts I've ever made. OTOH, just count the number of posts in this thread right now and see what percentage of them have no Dominion content whatsoever (I'm not going to do this, I'm speaking rhetorically, but sure someone can do this, that's fine) and you'll see how lighthearted remarks can come at the expense of Dominion content. Like, what if posts with no meaningful Dominion content were just removed? I bet this would read a lot better and lots of people would be happier. It's so easy for those to not be posted, you know?
Like, this is exactly my point, that this is not the case. It is not as the expense of Dominion content. If those posts weren't there, there would not be less Dominion content, there would just be less of the lighthearted posts. I guess you can say you're reducing the density of Dominion content. But to me it's like, you read a thread, someone makes a (quite possibly lame) joke, you either chuckle and move on or ignore it and move on. No harm done.
-
GOON GARDEN, i'm with you on a lot of this. my post was meant to describe a common pattern of behavior here, not to say that it's right. i will say that anywhere i've been, new posters who strongly challenge common assumptions get treated like this if not worse - seems to come with the territory, unfortunately.
adam, everything you seem to be looking for would be much better accomplished on twitter were it not for the fact that hardly anybody here uses it. you would expect the character limit to hurt your chances of quality discussion, but that's more than made up for by the extra options you have to regulate things (blocking, etc.). every twitter thread is basically its own mini-forum where everyone has mod powers that only apply to their own experience there, and i think that's a huge boon to [serious] stuff; there's a reason black lives matter originated on twitter and not a forum. buuuuuuut the eurogame world is 5 years behind the times here so i can understand why you keep holding out hope!
-
You can both talk about Dominion and throw off lighthearted remarks at the same time and the world won't end.
I totally agree with this. In fact, I throw in lighthearted remarks into my posts all of the time. They're everywhere in my Jack article, which is one of the most "serious" and Dominion-related posts I've ever made. OTOH, just count the number of posts in this thread right now and see what percentage of them have no Dominion content whatsoever (I'm not going to do this, I'm speaking rhetorically, but sure someone can do this, that's fine) and you'll see how lighthearted remarks can come at the expense of Dominion content. Like, what if posts with no meaningful Dominion content were just removed? I bet this would read a lot better and lots of people would be happier. It's so easy for those to not be posted, you know?
Like, this is exactly my point, that this is not the case. It is not as the expense of Dominion content. If those posts weren't there, there would not be less Dominion content, there would just be less of the lighthearted posts. I guess you can say you're reducing the density of Dominion content. But to me it's like, you read a thread, someone makes a (quite possibly lame) joke, you either chuckle and move on or ignore it and move on. No harm done.
I for one don't post actual content that relates to Dominion on this forum any more, and I once did if you look back at my history, because of this exact reason. Maybe it is me that needs to grow a thicker skin and be tougher on the Internet. But you know what, I am not going to. That is my personality. So is it my problem or yours? Probably mine but that doesn't erase the fact that you can't just say "no harm done" and "move on" and let it just sit at that. Although a lack of my posts about Dominion might not be "harm." You can be the judge of that...
But I know I am less likely to post something (even something like this makes me hesitant and squeamish to post given the anticipated reaction) and I know there are others out there like me. And I am not even saying that people should stop reacting and posting the things they do. All I am saying is that it is naive to think that people are as ready and willing to just ignore stupid jokes as you are. Jokes do have an effect on the amount of Dominion content. Because I am posting less because of them. Others are too. Is it worth it? I can't answer that.
-
just count the number of posts in this thread right now and see what percentage of them have no Dominion content whatsoever and you'll see how lighthearted remarks can come at the expense of Dominion content.
Like, this is exactly my point, that this is not the case. It is not as the expense of Dominion content. If those posts weren't there, there would not be less Dominion content, there would just be less of the lighthearted posts. I guess you can say you're reducing the density of Dominion content. But to me it's like, you read a thread, someone makes a (quite possibly lame) joke, you either chuckle and move on or ignore it and move on. No harm done.
It is exactly my point that it is the case, and I feel like you aren't getting it. Perhaps I have communicated my point suboptimally, so allow me to attempt this again.
Let's take a thread with X posts that are all about Dominion, with zero of them off-topic. Every post is relevant to the discussion or to Dominion or whatever. Now let's pepper in Y posts that are one line each, with a little quip that isn't related to anything, but generates a nice, hearty chuckle for some, who then press the +1 button. Let's also say that Y does not exceed 1/5 of X, this number is arbitrary but it just means that we still have more Dominion commentary than quips. There are now X+Y posts in the thread, and we still have our X posts about Dominion, which we didn't change, so we didn't take away from the Dominion discussion. Yay! An argument could be made that in this ideal case, we have not lost anything Dominion-related, and we added in our chuckles and +1s while nobody really minded our quips because they were short, sporadic, and easily ignorable by everyone who cared about discussing Dominion. I don't necessarily agree with this argument (I haven't really decided) but let's just give you this: let's say this is not harmful.
But that's not what happens here, and let me outline the key differences.
1. Many of the little quips are overused, to the point where some people find it irritating to read Scout jokes. They are no longer funny because they are overused.
2. Many of the little quips are about being pedantic, which can often have some uncomfortable effects. These effects include personal offense being taken by someone who was quoted out of context or whose words are being misunderstood and being made light of; and also they can sort of look like they're on-topic but can begin to move the discussion in a direction that can either be very far from what the OP really wanted to talk about, or worse, onto something not related to Dominion at all. So one post goes partially off-topic, and the next one goes even more, and 5 posts later in this chain we're talking about something completely unrelated.
Some would say that if the OP is upset about a change in topic or takes personal offense where none was intended that "lol this is the internet, just get used to it or gtfo, don't be so sensitive." I realize I may be in the minority in saying this, and my argument here isn't the most compelling thing ever, but here it is: Really? Are you serious? What the H? Is that really the image you want this community to give off? Especially in someone's first thread, when we can't respect what they ask for? Yeah this is the internet but jeez, have some decency. At least try and to be open-minded enough to realize that not everyone shares the "dwi or gtfo" mentality and maybe we would be a more welcoming place if we didn't end up doing that to people who are new here?
3. The quips are not evenly peppered in, they come in deluges of 5-10 posts made in like an hour's time. This is significant because after one of these little tangents, it's harder for someone to come in and read that and just go back to talking about Dominion. It's even harder when they do so only to have their posts nitpicked by even more posts that are off-topic. It's even harder when the short posts where little thought went into them are rewarded by +1s while the posts that someone spent a while thinking about and had thought and *gasp* actual Dominion insight or questions don't get nearly the same treatment. I spent 15 minutes typing up something I think is thoughtful and I see 5 one-liners were posted while I was typing that have completely changed the subject, now I feel weird making my post and even weirder when it vanishes in a sea of getting made fun of or indifference to all of our lovely quips! Quips are so great!
4. The number of these posts is greater than 1/5 of X. I don't know what the number in this thread was, and I don't know what the right number is, but suffice it to say that the people who think similarly to what I'm describing wish they were less in number than what they are. Maybe zero isn't the perfect number for Y, but golly gee it's probably less than what it is now; enough so that it's not taking more value away from these people than the quippers could possibly be getting.
Even if you don't agree with these, can you at least understand why someone out there could feel like the quips are taking away from the discussion at hand? If you at least recognize that someone out there could possibly feel differently than you do, then is it too much to ask to respect that person's wishes when they ask for the quips and nitpicks to stop?
The answer I've seen from this community so far has been "yes, that is too much to ask." I will refer to my previously mentioned "Really? Are you serious? What the H? Is that really the image you want this community to give off?" argument.
adam, everything you seem to be looking for would be much better accomplished on twitter were it not for the fact that hardly anybody here uses it. you would expect the character limit to hurt your chances of quality discussion, but that's more than made up for by the extra options you have to regulate things (blocking, etc.). every twitter thread is basically its own mini-forum where everyone has mod powers that only apply to their own experience there, and i think that's a huge boon to [serious] stuff; there's a reason black lives matter originated on twitter and not a forum.
Umm, pardon my ignorance. You are clearly much more well-versed in the Twitters than I am (you saw my attempt, it was pathetic, I felt like a fish out of water). I was thinking more along the lines of Reddit, a very large community where [serious] tags are respected and lots of really, really great discussion takes place as a result. If this is not a valid comparison then please tell me, because I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you.
buuuuuuut the eurogame world is 5 years behind the times here so i can understand why you keep holding out hope!
I don't think you meant any offense by this, but it doesn't quite seem appropriate. If I asked you to not make comments like that would you do it? Maybe I'm just missing the point? I don't think I'm that far behind the times, am I? I'm pretty hep with what the cool kids have to say, cowabunga! Bee's knees! Bully for F.DS!
-
just count the number of posts in this thread right now and see what percentage of them have no Dominion content whatsoever and you'll see how lighthearted remarks can come at the expense of Dominion content.
Like, this is exactly my point, that this is not the case. It is not as the expense of Dominion content. If those posts weren't there, there would not be less Dominion content, there would just be less of the lighthearted posts. I guess you can say you're reducing the density of Dominion content. But to me it's like, you read a thread, someone makes a (quite possibly lame) joke, you either chuckle and move on or ignore it and move on. No harm done.
It is exactly my point that it is the case, and I feel like you aren't getting it. Perhaps I have communicated my point suboptimally, so allow me to attempt this again.
(snip for brevity)
It's not that I don't get it, it's just that I don't agree. From my perspective, it feels like you don't get it, but I guess we just see it differently. Well, that much is clear, that I'm saying I don't think it's the case and you're saying that it is.
To me the sentiment is not so much "lol this is the internet, just get used to it or gtfo, don't be so sensitive", and I think that's an unfair representation of the people on this forum. Because I think that, while perhaps a little bit brash, the people that frequent this community are overall intelligent and nice people. It's rather something like "look, we probably derailed your thread with random off-topic comments, and now we're going on about something else, but this is just because we're a weird sort with weird humor, and we don't mean any disrespect or offense to you. I'm sorry if you don't like us, but we're not going to be too personally invested in it anyway."
Honestly, I appreciate the wit from people that post here. Not me, I'm not witty, but there are quite a few, and they make me chuckle, and that makes my day better. I suppose I'm also interested in the auxiliary topics moreso than Dominion itself, so there's a bit of an inherent gap between us there.
-
I'm not sure I would have more than 100 posts if I was required to post Dominion-related content all the time. I just don't have that much to say that wasn't already said by people with more knowledge or experience than me.
I could go on for quite a while when it comes to cars or movies though, as I have quite a bit of practice there. Even then it gets to a point where I would be repeating myself as there is only so much content to work with.
-
Being surrounded by a mob picking apart every word is downright horrid considering how short life is.
That's a great epitaph. I think I will use it on every post of mine from now on, considering how short life is.
-
It's not that I don't get it, it's just that I don't agree. From my perspective, it feels like you don't get it, but I guess we just see it differently. Well, that much is clear, that I'm saying I don't think it's the case and you're saying that it is.
That's cool. I'm not saying you have to agree with me and I hold no delusions that I'll change your mind. But can you see how people would feel the way I'm describing, and do you have any desire to make this forum a place where those people can have what they want too? That's sort of where I'm going with this... Like, it seems reasonable at least to stop trolling when the OP specifically asks you to stop trolling, instead of trolling the fact that he asked you to stop trolling. That would be a really good start and it doesn't seem like you would lose much enjoyment by doing that.
Honestly, I appreciate the wit from people that post here. Not me, I'm not witty, but there are quite a few, and they make me chuckle, and that makes my day better. I suppose I'm also interested in the auxiliary topics moreso than Dominion itself, so there's a bit of an inherent gap between us there.
I'm not sure I would have more than 100 posts if I was required to post Dominion-related content all the time. I just don't have that much to say that wasn't already said by people with more knowledge or experience than me.
I could go on for quite a while when it comes to cars or movies though, as I have quite a bit of practice there. Even then it gets to a point where I would be repeating myself as there is only so much content to work with.
Like, I don't see why the General Discussion forum isn't good enough for this. Why can't that discussion all go there and then all of the Dominion discussion go here, then it's all organized. I love it when things are organized, you should see my desks at work and my Dominion box and my board games when they're all nice and put-away. It's like, so totally amazeballs. I just don't see how everyone can't be happy with that! Let the Dominion discussion be what it is without augmenting it with things that aren't Dominion "just to keep it going," I would bet large amounts of money that this would result in more and higher-quality Dominion-related discussion than what we currently have.
-
It is bad when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by jokes. It is worse when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by people ranting about how bad it this that all threads about discussing Dominion are being killed off by jokes, considering how short life is.
EDIT: Damn, I nearly forgot.
-
Being surrounded by a mob picking apart every word is downright horrid considering how short life is.
That's a great epitaph. I think I will use it on every post of mine from now on, considering how short life is.
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
You aren't any funnier or wittier than a parrot is when it repeats a phrase.
And with that being said, I am reminded that posting on this forum is pretty much the least rewarding thing I could possibly be doing with my time.
-
It is bad when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by jokes. It is worse when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by people ranting about how bad it this that all threads about discussing Dominion are being killed off by jokes, considering how short life is.
EDIT: Damn, I nearly forgot.
How can something that is already derailed be derailed again? AdamH is one of the few gentlemen in this thread and you accuse him of derailing a thread when he is actually the only constructive poster in this thread and his attempt to try to turn the derailed thread into something positive is both noble and laudable.
-
It is bad when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by jokes. It is worse when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by people ranting about how bad it this that all threads about discussing Dominion are being killed off by jokes, considering how short life is.
EDIT: Damn, I nearly forgot.
How can something that is already derailed be derailed again? AdamH is one of the few gentlemen in this thread and you accuse him of derailing a thread when he is actually the only constructive poster in this thread and his attempt to try to turn the derailed thread into something positive is both noble and laudable.
I don't think it was that derailed to begin with. And while this is certainly a worthwile discussion to have, you kinda grow tired of it when you read it like me for the umpteenth time on this forum, considering how short life is.
-
I have this sinking feeling that the f.ds regulars are not the trolls in this scenario.
-
This thread is kinda funny if you read it pretending its one the forum mafia games.
I'm calling an Awaclus/Goon Garden scum team.
WW I can't get any kind of decent read on here, as per usual.
-
Like, I don't see why the General Discussion forum isn't good enough for this. Why can't that discussion all go there and then all of the Dominion discussion go here, then it's all organized.
I think the way to understand this is just to turn it back on yourself. Why do you personally have these huge posts about this topic in this thread that wanted to be about King's Court? This was the place, this is where the conversation was happening. You didn't start a thread somewhere else to say this off-topic stuff; other people also didn't. I would not expect them to in the future either.
I think anyone who starts a thread with the premise "KC is far more skippable than people think," and then amends that to saying it's good 90-93% of the time, should expect to be ribbed.
-
Life is too short to spend time talking about how short life is, considering how short life is.
-
I think anyone who starts a thread with the premise "KC is far more skippable than people think," and then amends that to saying it's good 90-93% of the time, should expect to be ribbed.
In his defense, if he were of the opinion that people considered it good 100% of the time, then 90-93% of the time is far (well, infinitely) more skippable.
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
-
Well, to be frank, and without pointing any accusatory fingers at the OP, the way his post was worded pretty much begged for the start of a flame war.
That was most unfortunate, and surely unintentional, but I think this thread would have brought much more satisfaction to many of the parties involved had the tone of that one first post been more diplomatical.
This doesn't justify us providing fuel to the kindle, resulting in a heated discussion about KC, then about heated discussions, then about the single parties involved (yuk) and then a light-hearted poking fun at the whole matter, and then again turning to the good old issue of should funnies be limited on f:ds.
I think this thread's intopicness (and civilty, never forget about civilty!) were beyond redemption long before the pack of jokes came.
-
It is bad when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by jokes. It is worse when every thread that tries to start a discussion about Dominion is killed off by people ranting about how bad it this that all threads about discussing Dominion are being killed off by jokes, considering how short life is.
EDIT: Damn, I nearly forgot.
How can something that is already derailed be derailed again? AdamH is one of the few gentlemen in this thread and you accuse him of derailing a thread when he is actually the only constructive poster in this thread and his attempt to try to turn the derailed thread into something positive is both noble and laudable.
The argument is that threads would go like this:
Dominion Content
Jokes
Dominion Content
Rather than this:
Dominion Content
Jokes
Comments on how jokes are getting us off-topic
Big argument about how jokes always get us off-topic
And now we never get back to the original discussion. It may have gotten off-topic before, but it either would have died off (if people decided there was nothing left to add to the original discussion), or we would have gotten back on-topic. Instead, we have now gotten into a completely off-topic discussion and it looks unlikely that we will ever get back on-topic.
The fact that AdamH has been nice to you and (I think) more reasonable than some of the others here in that regard doesn't make what he's saying about this topic right or more productive. I think his comments are much more derailing than the jokes people were making earlier in the thread.
That being said, I agree with him that people took it too far. I think it's okay to poke fun at other users, but it was clear that you were upset by it and it should have stopped after that. I think the community needs to make more of an effort to be careful with this, especially with new users, who are not familiar with us and don't see it as much as a joke about something they said, but more as a joke about them personally.
If you're wondering why you got the response you did, I think it is because of the thread title. In fact, most of what you said in thread sounds completely reasonable to me, and probably would have been to most people here, had you not made such a bold claim in the title. I don't think it's nitpicking to complain about that one particular statement, because when you put it as the title, it's natural to assume that that's the main claim you are trying to back up. You made some good points about King's Court, but none of them support the claim that it is "far more skippable than people think". In fact, I don't think you ever stated how skippable you think everyone else thinks KC is, which seems like it would be a really important things to discuss before you can make that conclusion.
-
Like, I don't see why the General Discussion forum isn't good enough for this. Why can't that discussion all go there and then all of the Dominion discussion go here, then it's all organized.
I think the way to understand this is just to turn it back on yourself. Why do you personally have these huge posts about this topic in this thread that wanted to be about King's Court? This was the place, this is where the conversation was happening. You didn't start a thread somewhere else to say this off-topic stuff; other people also didn't. I would not expect them to in the future either.
Two reasons:
First, I don't know of a better place. If you can suggest one I'll be happy to do it there. I have suggested a place for discussion about cars and how short life is: the General Discussion forum. If I had the power I'd split off the thread and move those posts over there, so maybe we pester Theory and ask him to do it? I mean I'd actually be happy if that happened but I have never been successful in the past in doing so. I think the system is broken so I have to fix the system from inside the system, or something like that.
Second, I'm not the one that started the derailing of this thread, in fact I've worked harder than most to bring it back on track. Sure my recent posts haven't been on the original topic but at this point I think you'd agree that I'm at least in the good graces of the OP. Goon garden is upset because of the direction that this went and has a really bad taste in his mouth -- maybe he's speaking more from a place of anger but I've been exactly there before and I feel like I can help bridge the gap between him and the people who have made him upset. I feel like there's a lot of value in that, wouldn't you say? So yeah I can make the case why my words belong here, but it's much harder to do for other posts in this thread like the ones that caused Goon garden to become upset in the first place.
I think anyone who starts a thread with the premise "KC is far more skippable than people think," and then amends that to saying it's good 90-93% of the time, should expect to be ribbed.
I really, really, disagree with you, man. I feel like this thread was awesome up until that point: OP made a statement, some people expressed constructive disagreement with parts of it and clarification was made, then once everybody knew what they were talking about we found out we didn't disagree as much as we did before, but some new opinions were brought forward and an intelligent, constructive discussion was had. Maybe you wouldn't have phrased it in the same way as him but I think what he was saying was at least clear.
Why would you make fun of someone for that? Like, seriously, what kind of person are you? Maybe if there was some way to clearly show you're being sarcastic you could pull it off? In any case, that failed, and when he said he didn't appreciate it, are you really trying to justify the fact that people just doubled down on it and continued when it was clearly bothering him? That is not a nice thing to do.
Donald, I love you man, you should have seen me squee when I saw my wife's wedding present to me -- your autograph. You know how much that meant to me. But if that's how you would treat people, then you aren't exactly someone I would want to be bros with. I really think you should reconsider that.
-
Like, I don't see why the General Discussion forum isn't good enough for this. Why can't that discussion all go there and then all of the Dominion discussion go here, then it's all organized.
I think the way to understand this is just to turn it back on yourself. Why do you personally have these huge posts about this topic in this thread that wanted to be about King's Court? This was the place, this is where the conversation was happening. You didn't start a thread somewhere else to say this off-topic stuff; other people also didn't. I would not expect them to in the future either.
I think anyone who starts a thread with the premise "KC is far more skippable than people think," and then amends that to saying it's good 90-93% of the time, should expect to be ribbed.
The thread was already derailed by trolls. AdamH is one of the only constructive people in here and he is the sole reason my first experience with this forum was not completely negative.
As for KC, I was under the impression that the consensus was that KC is never skippable because of some comments I had seen, hence the "90-93%" being considered "far more than people think" I expect to be ribbed for indulging in hyperbole when I make threads so people can poke fun at me if they wish, but the way in which it was done was far more irritating than it was amusing. Furthermore, people were mocking me in a most distasteful way simply for estimating the percentage of KC games that are skippable.
-
I am absolutely sickened by all the folks giving AdamH flack
I had a pretty bad day today, and it didn't get any better when I logged onto this forum. AdamH was the only person I interacted with today who didn't add to the pain I was already feeling, but in fact alleviated it somewhat and gave me a reason to be positive.
This thread was going to turn into drama regardless of AdamH's posts -- And if the thread got off track, its my hyperbole in the title that should be blamed, not AdamH.
Whatever you think of what he has to say, do not blame him, that is absolutely ludicrous. Blame me or blame the trolls.
You have no idea what someone might be going through when you mock them or heap negativity on them. Life is too hard for us to be unkind.
Remember, this is a community. The health of the community supercedes the agenda of this thread, especially when it was destined to be a train wreck (due to my penchant for hyperbole)
You have finite time and energy each day. You can use it to add to people's pain or you can make people smile and feel good. Choose wisely.
-
I have not seen anyone here seriously suggest that KC is a must-buy on every board.
And I should apologize for bringing Adam into the thread, by mentioning one of his recurring jokes. (Which was relevant to the discussion, but I digress...)
-
The thread was already derailed by trolls. AdamH is one of the only constructive people in here and he is the sole reason my first experience with this forum was not completely negative.
As for KC, I was under the impression that the consensus was that KC is never skippable because of some comments I had seen, hence the "90-93%" being considered "far more than people think" I expect to be ribbed for indulging in hyperbole when I make threads so people can poke fun at me if they wish, but the way in which it was done was far more irritating than it was amusing. Furthermore, people were mocking me in a most distasteful way simply for estimating the percentage of KC games that are skippable.
I'm sorry that you felt that, and I see how it could have come through that way.
If it can make you feel better, it was never my intention to mock you in the few joking posts I made on the matter. I was rather commenting on the (in my opinion) pointlessness of arguing about finely defined percentages in general. I'm confident nobody else was specifically picking at you in the ensuing percentage galore, and was rather going for the general funniness. :)
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
I was referring to the fact that we could die at any time and the science of life extension won't change the fact that we could die at any time. SO be kind to others, is what I was saying.
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
Calling the creator of Dominion a 'douchebag' on his own forum is generally a bad idea.
-
TheExpressicist's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true) with card stats for the top 20 players (a year ago) showed a gain rate of 82% for King's Court
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
Calling the creator of Dominion a 'douchebag' on his own forum is generally a bad idea.
Go ahead, ban me, doing so would be doing me a favor really
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
Calling the creator of Dominion a 'douchebag' on his own forum is generally a bad idea.
Go ahead, ban me, doing so would be doing me a favor really
If you really feel that bad, you should click away from the forum for an hour or so. I've done that before, back when all the n00bs (like Stef and Wandering Winder) tried to tell me Scout wasn't good.
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
I was referring to the fact that we could die at any time and the science of life extension won't change the fact that we could die at any time. SO be kind to others, is what I was saying.
See, it's like, you're saying everyone else is being all rude and insulting to you, when really it's just you insulting other people.
-
TheExpressicist's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true) with card stats for the top 20 players (a year ago) showed a gain rate of 82% for King's Court
Well, then it's settled.
-
TheExpressicist's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true) with card stats for the top 20 players (a year ago) showed a gain rate of 82% for King's Court
And a win rate with of 71% with vs 49% without which suggests that they should buy it more. Problem is, being so expensive, many of the games when they didn't buy it, they realistically wanted it and never got the occasion to buy it.
Do I miss councilroom.
-
What I mean is that life is short and anyone could die at any time. Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself, and life is too short to waste your time engaging in the unfunny mockery of others.
I just hope I live to see the day when scientists have extended the human lifespan so far that unfunny mockery of others can finally be a truly rewarding activity.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
I was referring to the fact that we could die at any time and the science of life extension won't change the fact that we could die at any time. SO be kind to others, is what I was saying.
See, it's like, you're saying everyone else is being all rude and insulting to you, when really it's just you insulting other people.
I insulted ONE person. ONE. And I do regret it already. Sorry Donald. But your comment was very unkind and I did nothing to provoke you. Sorry for retaliating with further unkindness. I guess I just got fed up with all of this. I wish the mods could just close this thread so I could forget about this awful experience.
-
You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.
There is productive disagreeing and there is disagreeing that is nothing more than petty diversions. You are of the latter category
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
You're not funny
that witherweaver is decidedly unfunny
[I am] Being surrounded by a mob
Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself
[...]
You aren't any funnier or wittier than a parrot is when it repeats a phrase.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
-
To be fair, KC probably is far more skippable than I think. (or rather, as I act)
This thread most definitely does not need to be locked nor does anyone need to be banned.
I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that derailing threads with jokes, tangents, memes, whatever is bad for dominionstrategyforum living up to its name.
I also think that nitpicking is essential otherwise we would run out of things to talk about too fast. Also it's fun(ny).
-
TheExpressicist's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true) with card stats for the top 20 players (a year ago) showed a gain rate of 82% for King's Court
And a win rate with of 71% with vs 49% without which suggests that they should buy it more. Problem is, being so expensive, many of the games when they didn't buy it, they realistically wanted it and never got the occasion to buy it.
Do I miss councilroom.
And that win% rate suggests that of the 82% of games it was gained, only 86% of those games did that player win. This suggests that the original assertion of 90%-93% is actually too high, and that KC is more skip-able than originally thought.
-
Like, I don't see why the General Discussion forum isn't good enough for this. Why can't that discussion all go there and then all of the Dominion discussion go here, then it's all organized.
I think the way to understand this is just to turn it back on yourself. Why do you personally have these huge posts about this topic in this thread that wanted to be about King's Court? This was the place, this is where the conversation was happening. You didn't start a thread somewhere else to say this off-topic stuff; other people also didn't. I would not expect them to in the future either.
Two reasons:
It was a rhetorical question, but I don't mind that you answered it. If looking at yourself as another guy posting off-topic is impossible, well I don't have a second way to explain it to you. You, Adam H., have devoted more time in this thread to off-topic posts than anyone. "They started it" isn't much of an excuse.
I think anyone who starts a thread with the premise "KC is far more skippable than people think," and then amends that to saying it's good 90-93% of the time, should expect to be ribbed.
I really, really, disagree with you, man.
I do not feel like I put that especially harshly, note my use of the word "rib;" neither did I phrase it in such a way that it even took into account any particular actual post, which man I do not have the time to pore over, I am too busy with unfunny mockery.
I am confident that there are nuns who would rib someone for that particular communication failure. I do not think that particular activity establishes someone as a Bad Person. What is that Mark Twain quote. All I care to know is that a man is a human being--that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.
But if that's how you would treat people, then you aren't exactly someone I would want to be bros with. I really think you should reconsider that.
I am some guy. If it's important to you that I be someone in particular, well, I am probably not that person. If you're a dog person, who knows, I may be a cat person. It will be like that for thing after thing, until I am just some monster with all the wrong pets.
And I don't know if you're a dog person or a cat person. That isn't a level at which we interact. So far, we mostly talk about how you don't like the forums but I do.
-
I wish the mods could just close this thread so I could forget about this awful experience.
Just shut down your computer and go for a walk, preferably through some enchanting forest if you're fortunate enough to live near one. Taking a run could also help. Your mood is not in the hand of the mods and it's self-debilitating to pretend otherwise.
-
You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.
There is productive disagreeing and there is disagreeing that is nothing more than petty diversions. You are of the latter category
The amount of petty nitpicking in this forum is offputting to say the least
You're not funny
that witherweaver is decidedly unfunny
[I am] Being surrounded by a mob
Life is too short to waste time being subjected to people such as yourself
[...]
You aren't any funnier or wittier than a parrot is when it repeats a phrase.
I hope you live long enough to outgrow the douche bag mindset that inspired that comment
You forgot the part where he called everyone 'snotty' and went after me when I wasn't trying to be militious.
-
ugh. Its almost 6 AM here and I can't sleep. I normally don't have any trouble sleeping.
To the posters who continually mock me:Please leave me alone. I guess I didn't realize how shitty I was feeling until I got embroiled in arguments and a lot of negative crap in my life came up to the surface. I feel pretty depressed about life right now. I am not blaming this forum for how I feel right now but obviously someone who is in a fragile state such as myself shouldn't be posting here.
-
Calling the creator of Dominion a 'douchebag' on his own forum is generally a bad idea.
Man this isn't my forum. I just hang out here, like anyone. I guess I do get to moderate two sub-forums, but so does uh Robz888. Oh man Ozle has a sub-forum. That shows you just how serious moderating sub-forums is.
-
TheExpressicist's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13mQ1humtQbPLY9nbKscR65dV7hbGPdI3AQkNjMHZpeM/pubhtml?gid=495443102&single=true) with card stats for the top 20 players (a year ago) showed a gain rate of 82% for King's Court
Oh man Mic, now you've gone too far. You just couldn't leave it alone, could you. *disgust*
-
ugh. Its almost 6 AM here and I can't sleep. I normally don't have any trouble sleeping.
To the posters who continually mock me:Please leave me alone. I guess I didn't realize how shitty I was feeling until I got embroiled in arguments and a lot of negative crap in my life came up to the surface. I feel pretty depressed about life right now. I am not blaming this forum for how I feel right now but obviously someone who is in a fragile state such as myself shouldn't be posting here.
I hope you feel better soon!
-
Calling the creator of Dominion a 'douchebag' on his own forum is generally a bad idea.
Man this isn't my forum. I just hang out here, like anyone. I guess I do get to moderate two sub-forums, but so does uh Robz888. Oh man Ozle has a sub-forum. That shows you just how serious moderating sub-forums is.
I'm pretty sure you're theory, but I personally consider it your forum. You invented Dominion!
-
ugh. Its almost 6 AM here and I can't sleep. I normally don't have any trouble sleeping.
To the posters who continually mock me:Please leave me alone. I guess I didn't realize how shitty I was feeling until I got embroiled in arguments and a lot of negative crap in my life came up to the surface. I feel pretty depressed about life right now. I am not blaming this forum for how I feel right now but obviously someone who is in a fragile state such as myself shouldn't be posting here.
Now this, I can't and won't mock. In fact it's refreshing to see someone being this forward. Even assuming this isn't mental illness and is just plain "I've had a bad day/week," man, self care is important.
Someone above (SCSN?) suggested taking a walk, and I advise the same if that's your thing. Walk away for a while, nap, shower, decompress, play a game, whatever you do to feel better. You do you.
I'm literally typing this while in front of a therapy light. I've been there, dude. Go, do some self care, come back later and we can all forget how this thread played out.
-
1. Many of the little quips are overused, to the point where some people find it irritating to read Scout jokes. They are no longer funny because they are overused.
No, they are funny precisely because they are "overused". They're parts of the board culture and while the culture is supposed to evolve over time, it comes mostly in the form of inclusion of new in-jokes. Old in-jokes die when they cease to be in-jokes, but that really doesn't happen very often when the community is like this.
2. Many of the little quips are about being pedantic, which can often have some uncomfortable effects. These effects include personal offense being taken by someone who was quoted out of context or whose words are being misunderstood and being made light of; and also they can sort of look like they're on-topic but can begin to move the discussion in a direction that can either be very far from what the OP really wanted to talk about, or worse, onto something not related to Dominion at all. So one post goes partially off-topic, and the next one goes even more, and 5 posts later in this chain we're talking about something completely unrelated.
Some would say that if the OP is upset about a change in topic or takes personal offense where none was intended that "lol this is the internet, just get used to it or gtfo, don't be so sensitive." I realize I may be in the minority in saying this, and my argument here isn't the most compelling thing ever, but here it is: Really? Are you serious? What the H? Is that really the image you want this community to give off? Especially in someone's first thread, when we can't respect what they ask for? Yeah this is the internet but jeez, have some decency. At least try and to be open-minded enough to realize that not everyone shares the "dwi or gtfo" mentality and maybe we would be a more welcoming place if we didn't end up doing that to people who are new here?
Most newbies have no problems with the community as far as I can tell. The other option is having strict moderation, and strict moderation needs rules to be in place, and rules are the exact opposite of welcoming because nobody ever bothers to read them and then they post something which is technically not allowed and get warned by a moderator or banned or something.
3. The quips are not evenly peppered in, they come in deluges of 5-10 posts made in like an hour's time. This is significant because after one of these little tangents, it's harder for someone to come in and read that and just go back to talking about Dominion. It's even harder when they do so only to have their posts nitpicked by even more posts that are off-topic. It's even harder when the short posts where little thought went into them are rewarded by +1s while the posts that someone spent a while thinking about and had thought and *gasp* actual Dominion insight or questions don't get nearly the same treatment. I spent 15 minutes typing up something I think is thoughtful and I see 5 one-liners were posted while I was typing that have completely changed the subject, now I feel weird making my post and even weirder when it vanishes in a sea of getting made fun of or indifference to all of our lovely quips! Quips are so great!
It's not at all harder to come in and go back to talking about Dominion. Just click on the "Post Reply" button, type your post in the biggest of the text fields and click the "Post" button when you're done, just like you would when everyone is already talking about Dominion. It's not an IRL conversation so it doesn't have to flow like one.
4. The number of these posts is greater than 1/5 of X. I don't know what the number in this thread was, and I don't know what the right number is, but suffice it to say that the people who think similarly to what I'm describing wish they were less in number than what they are. Maybe zero isn't the perfect number for Y, but golly gee it's probably less than what it is now; enough so that it's not taking more value away from these people than the quippers could possibly be getting.
I'm rather comfortable with the 475+/500 that's pretty typical of threads on /a/.
Even if you don't agree with these, can you at least understand why someone out there could feel like the quips are taking away from the discussion at hand? If you at least recognize that someone out there could possibly feel differently than you do, then is it too much to ask to respect that person's wishes when they ask for the quips and nitpicks to stop?
The answer I've seen from this community so far has been "yes, that is too much to ask." I will refer to my previously mentioned "Really? Are you serious? What the H? Is that really the image you want this community to give off?" argument.
No, it is certainly beyond my comprehension why someone feels like anything added to the discussion takes something away from it. That's seems a lot like a contradiction to me.
And yes, it is obviously too much to ask. I don't usually read long Dominion related posts because they're tl;dr, do you not feel that it would be too much to ask to respect my wishes if I asked for the long Dominion related posting to stop?
-
ugh. Its almost 6 AM here and I can't sleep. I normally don't have any trouble sleeping.
To the posters who continually mock me:Please leave me alone. I guess I didn't realize how shitty I was feeling until I got embroiled in arguments and a lot of negative crap in my life came up to the surface. I feel pretty depressed about life right now. I am not blaming this forum for how I feel right now but obviously someone who is in a fragile state such as myself shouldn't be posting here.
Now this, I can't and won't mock. In fact it's refreshing to see someone being this forward. Even assuming this isn't mental illness and is just plain "I've had a bad day/week," man, self care is important.
Someone above (SCSN?) suggested taking a walk, and I advise the same if that's your thing. Walk away for a while, nap, shower, decompress, play a game, whatever you do to feel better. You do you.
I'm literally typing this while in front of a therapy light. I've been there, dude. Go, do some self care, come back later and we can all forget how this thread played out.
Therapy light?
-
ugh. Its almost 6 AM here and I can't sleep. I normally don't have any trouble sleeping.
To the posters who continually mock me:Please leave me alone. I guess I didn't realize how shitty I was feeling until I got embroiled in arguments and a lot of negative crap in my life came up to the surface. I feel pretty depressed about life right now. I am not blaming this forum for how I feel right now but obviously someone who is in a fragile state such as myself shouldn't be posting here.
Now this, I can't and won't mock. In fact it's refreshing to see someone being this forward. Even assuming this isn't mental illness and is just plain "I've had a bad day/week," man, self care is important.
Someone above (SCSN?) suggested taking a walk, and I advise the same if that's your thing. Walk away for a while, nap, shower, decompress, play a game, whatever you do to feel better. You do you.
I'm literally typing this while in front of a therapy light. I've been there, dude. Go, do some self care, come back later and we can all forget how this thread played out.
Therapy light?
10000 lux of full-spectrum light about 30 cm from your face for 20-30 min. Used for seasonal affective disorder and sometimes depression, especially in northern latitudes in winter.
-
10000 lux of full-spectrum light about 30 cm from your face for 20-30 min. Used for seasonal affective disorder and sometimes depression, especially in northern latitudes in winter.
Wow and this like.. makes you feel better? I feel like I wouldn't want a light shining directly on my face.
-
10000 lux of full-spectrum light about 30 cm from your face for 20-30 min. Used for seasonal affective disorder and sometimes depression, especially in northern latitudes in winter.
Wow and this like.. makes you feel better? I feel like I wouldn't want a light shining directly on my face.
I suppose it's to simulate sunlight. IIRC, Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) has a lot to do with the decrease in light during winter. It literally gets depressing.
Reading through the thread, I think the main issue is that the discussion is vague. The initial claim was that "KC is far more skippable than people think". Well, that doesn't actually say anything meaningful if we don't establish how skippable KC is according to general consensus, and how skippable it is according to the OP. GOON GARDEN later gave his own numbers of 90-93% unskippable, but that doesn't sound far off from [my understanding of] the general consensus. McQ provided some hard data that even suggests a slightly lower percentage.
It didn't help that the initial proof of the claim isn't particularly good proof of anything, which is what a lot of the earlier critical commentary was about.
And then everybody overreacted and drama ensued. I am glad I stayed out of that, and I hope that this post maintains neutrality enough that I continue to stay out of it here. :)
-
10000 lux of full-spectrum light about 30 cm from your face for 20-30 min. Used for seasonal affective disorder and sometimes depression, especially in northern latitudes in winter.
Wow and this like.. makes you feel better? I feel like I wouldn't want a light shining directly on my face.
I suppose it's to simulate sunlight. IIRC, Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) has a lot to do with the decrease in light during winter. It literally gets depressing.
Yeah, I've heard claims that it has to do with Vitamin D. (Sunlight stimulates your body into producing it.) For a while I took some extra Vitamin D (I usually take a multivitamin and a couple other things), but I can't really tell if it had any effect. Probably not.
-
10000 lux of full-spectrum light about 30 cm from your face for 20-30 min. Used for seasonal affective disorder and sometimes depression, especially in northern latitudes in winter.
Wow and this like.. makes you feel better? I feel like I wouldn't want a light shining directly on my face.
The light is actually angled downward somewhat, and has a screen that makes it very diffuse. The research has shown that it's actually neurons in the bottom of the retina that are keyed to sunlight (which isn't surprising if you consider where the sun is), so you don't want it directed straight into your eyes anyway.
-
(The thread has gone a million directions since I started this, but I still want to post it because this is the internet and no one can stop me.)
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
Its a joke used to insult people who throw figures around without referring to actual recorded data.. I did "make up" the percentage but that is based off of memory, which is good enough for our present purposes
I was indeed poking some fun a people who use made up statistics. It was not directed only at you, and I did not intend it to be insulting. Given the direction of the thread, it is understandable that jokes could be taken in that way, and I am sorry I offended you. I do strongly agree with the sentiment the joke conveys. When people throw statistics around in these forums, they are relavant to the conversation less than 10% of the time and and have less than a %1 chance of being accurate. (...see what I did there)
You claim that your estimate based on memory is "good enough for our present purposes". While "good enough" is totally subjective, your number isn't supported terribly well by your recently logged games; however, the sample size is probably too small to make a meaningful percentage claim from. Based on the 37 pro games that included King's Court that you have played on the new system, in which you have skipped it 7 times, there is a less than 3% chance that you think King's Court is skippable 7-10% of the time. To get a ~95% confidence interval I would need to say that you skip (and presumably, think you should skip) King's Court 9-33% of the time (unskippable 67-91%)
Human memory is an incredibly bad source to base statistics on. This is not only because of the fact that it can't reliably hold the quantity of trials neccesary to generate useful statistics, but also because it is just downright bad at remembering these types of things.
Now, I did some math (probably incorrectly), and it was fun, but, even if the data was better, and my math and application of it was perfect, I consider it all totally irrelavent. Maybe it helps support my opinion that made up statistics are not worth using to defend an argument, but we need a well defined argument to start with before we attempt to support it with anything. I do feel that the response you have received in this thread is in part due to the way you positioned, stated, and defended your argument. This has been touched on by a couple posters while I have been very slowly finding time to write this.
The biggest issue I have with your position ("KC is far more skippable than people think.") is that it is incredibly hard to define. The primary reason is that what "people think" is not a single position. There is a general concensus on the forum that KC is "rarely skippable", but in my opinion, getting more specific than that is not defesable. What "rarely skippable" means to f.ds as a percentage is impossible to nail down because everyone can have a different picutre in their head as to what it looks like.
Another issue I see is that the position posed is very combatitive. Presumably, everyone who reads your assertion is a person, and considers themselves part of this community. To the reader, your position becomes "I think KC is far more skippable than you do". You can argue that this is pedantic picking apart of wording, but the emotion your position evokes is important. After reading your discussion in this thread, I would estimate, that I consider KC approximately the same level of skippable as you do, but I don't agree with your claimed position.
The last comment I would make is that the position is execptionally difficult to defend. Even if we had a definitive position from the community that KC was unskippable on 82% of boards, attempting to defend an arguement that the number is too high is an exceptionally tall order, and a single game of Dominion is barely going to scratch the surface.
Since I have criticized the argument as written, I feel obligated to give my opinion on a better way to state and defend this position. A less combatitive position could be "KC can be skipped more often than some think" For this discussion I personally would have gone with a questioning title such as "What type of boards make KC skippable?" instead of a claim statement. For the post itself, I would defend the position in this way: "This is a board I played recently where I believe the general concensus would say to go for King's Court. I think that it should be skipped due to the presence of strong junking without trashing despite the presence of +buy. I was able to beat my opponent decisively by ignoring King's Court and pursuing a money-based strategy. Do you think King's Court should be skipped on this board?"
I think we could stand to be more friendly around here when debating topics like this even if we think the person we are arguing with is an idiot. I think a lot of arguments get heated based on a difference in opinion that is effectively non-existent. We see in this thread, that the OP's position wasn't even on the side of the stats from top 20 players that he thought it was. I suspect the "100% of games are engines" caracature of reality that is pervasive around here and the attitudes that go with it shaped his argument.
-
yyyyyyyyyyyiiiiikes this thread accumulated 2 pages within a day, and i'm doing 50 per page i think.
my recommendation, is, upvote donx's posts because he made a board game that is probably your favorite, and whenever you encounter king's court, ask yourself, what are the odds numerically that this would line up with action cards, and is it better to be able to line it up with action cards than win a fifth of the game? kc+monument wins a tenth of the game (although in this case the fractions are different than that because you are playing a game with kc and monument) and gives you $6. i'm already sold. kc+witch does the same thing, kinda, and draws you 6 cards which is real effin neato.
@goon garden: why just one goon and one garden? and also, definitely leave the forum, for at least a week. i personally appreciate that you started a thread that attempted to improve our collective understanding of a card. if executed properly, that takes us about a thousandth of the way to being perfect players which is very nontrivial because we can knock out like two of these threads a day. however, reception and counter-reception was yucky and now we are a thousandth of the way away from being perfect dominion players i think, which is, uh, nontrivial.
watch agdq (http://www.twitch.tv/gamesdonequick), go to a park and eat birds, talk to a dentist.
-
adam, everything you seem to be looking for would be much better accomplished on twitter were it not for the fact that hardly anybody here uses it. you would expect the character limit to hurt your chances of quality discussion, but that's more than made up for by the extra options you have to regulate things (blocking, etc.). every twitter thread is basically its own mini-forum where everyone has mod powers that only apply to their own experience there, and i think that's a huge boon to [serious] stuff; there's a reason black lives matter originated on twitter and not a forum.
Umm, pardon my ignorance. You are clearly much more well-versed in the Twitters than I am (you saw my attempt, it was pathetic, I felt like a fish out of water). I was thinking more along the lines of Reddit, a very large community where [serious] tags are respected and lots of really, really great discussion takes place as a result. If this is not a valid comparison then please tell me, because I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you.
the problem with reddit is that it's not all that likely to attract the kind of people who care about the game to the extent that we do here. there's also the fact that trolling is a more central aspect of reddit than twitter, but i wouldn't be so concerned with that; the real problem is that your dream [serious] subreddit could very well turn into a ghost town. BGG would be a more natural fit than reddit, and look at how many people there go "big money OP" or "dominion old game".
the wider culture of your reddits and 4chans tends to discourage active participation in the scenes you're interested in. to continue the analogy from my last post, the main subreddit for competitive fighting games has done cool things like sponsor top international players...but it's also a cesspit obsessed with drama & sleaze where you see nary a word on strategy or becoming a better player. top players also rarely post there unless their name is getting dragged though the mud - they save their thoughts for twitter & facebook, where they won't be forced to deal with "YOU FUCKED A TRANNY LOLOLOL" x100.
twitter tends to be one of the best avenues for building interest in a hardcore scene because it's a lot more public in nature than facebook, but still lets you keep the conversations in check in a way that no forum can. things like blocking and muting are a lot nicer than having to ban someone from an entire site, as you might imagine. twitter also attracts people from a wider range of backgrounds than forums do, meaning you have a chance of finding people who really get into dominion and join the league. with a place like reddit you might attract more stream viewers, but probably not people who'll go any farther than that.
the big hiccup is that hardcore communities gaining a following through twitter tend to do so once a bunch of people from the established sites get active on there. that's what we're missing atm.
now re: my line about eurogamers and social media...
I don't think you meant any offense by this, but it doesn't quite seem appropriate. If I asked you to not make comments like that would you do it? Maybe I'm just missing the point? I don't think I'm that far behind the times, am I? I'm pretty hep with what the cool kids have to say, cowabunga! Bee's knees! Bully for F.DS!
i meant that as a statement on not just this forum, but even the likes of BGG as well. from what i can tell, "board game twitter" just isn't a Thing the way that, say, "social justice twitter" is. what i mean is that plenty of people talk about board games once in a while, but there's hardly anyone whose entire presence is built around them.
i was trying to say that since dominion players haven't gotten into this stuff yet, this forum is the best we've got so it's reasonable for you to focus your efforts here for the time being. but i will try not to say it that way toward you in the future!
-
OK OK. Wow that's a lot of stuff, I leave to go play board games and dang. Umm, to summarize.
@DXV: It seems you weren't trying to defend the part that made me not want to bro out with you. So yeah, uhh that's cool. It seemed like you were saying something but you weren't. Let's just say we both didn't communicate effectively.
There are a lot of people saying reasons why they wouldn't like [serious] threads. I guess you haven't changed my mind and I haven't changed yours. OK. I really don't understand the people who say they don't understand why people wouldn't want a place for that, and that's kind of funny that I said that. I amuse myself.
@funkdoc: I think I understand what you're saying here. These are good arguments why Dominion forums haven't succeeded in those places as much as this one has succeeded. That doesn't equate (in my mind) to an argument why any particular thing would be better here, though. This is a forum, it's not like we've tried Dominion people discussing things in similar forums with different rules. Who knows, it could be better? The real reason is because I asked what people wanted and people said no for reasons I don't like.
I guess independent of what people think the right thing to do on that front is, and also even independent of how Goon Garden has reacted to all of the many things that have happened in this thread, I'd like to think that we as a community can learn from the way this has gone and realize that people deserve to be treated better than what happened here. Maybe the people who like to post off-topic things will think a little more carefully about what they post in the future? I dunno. I'm certainly going to be a little more happy about my use of the report button, that's for sure, as actually trying to engage in actual discourse with them and be nice about it has led people to point fingers at me saying "LOL UR OFF TOPIC TOO!!!" Hilarious. I'm super-amused.
-
Well, I feel awful.
1. Apologies to everyone here, mosly Goon Garden and Adam, but let's just call this an apology for rearing my trolly head in the first place.
2. What does a [serious] tag do?
3. What does the report button do?
4. Is this a reoccurring thing where someone joins the forum, presents a different idea, then gets shot down?
5. What are we disagreeing about?
-
they save their thoughts for twitter & facebook, where they won't be forced to deal with "YOU FUCKED A TRANNY LOLOLOL" x100.
So many people are down on auto-erotic fantasies.
-
they save their thoughts for twitter & facebook, where they won't be forced to deal with "YOU FUCKED A TRANNY LOLOLOL" x100.
So many people are down on auto-erotic fantasies.
I see what you did there...
-
10000 lux of full-spectrum light about 30 cm from your face for 20-30 min. Used for seasonal affective disorder and sometimes depression, especially in northern latitudes in winter.
Wow and this like.. makes you feel better? I feel like I wouldn't want a light shining directly on my face.
I suppose it's to simulate sunlight. IIRC, Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) has a lot to do with the decrease in light during winter. It literally gets depressing.
Yeah, I've heard claims that it has to do with Vitamin D. (Sunlight stimulates your body into producing it.) For a while I took some extra Vitamin D (I usually take a multivitamin and a couple other things), but I can't really tell if it had any effect. Probably not.
I have "solar panels on my back" that generate less energy during winter, so I take vit D and occasionally do the light therapy thing.
It's because my skin complexion is somewhat darker than plain Caucasians; my great-grandfather is from the Caribbean and his dark complexion (probably a dominant gene) survived all the way down to me, though it has been watered down by my other family members who are mostly white.
I don't know if any of it helps, but I believe it does, so it does.
-
2. What does a [serious] tag do?
It doesn't do anything. It just means the OP wants the discussion to be "serious".
3. What does the report button do?
It notifies the mods about the post.
4. Is this a reoccurring thing where someone joins the forum, presents a different idea, then gets shot down?
It has occurred a few times, but it's not really a thing.
5. What are we disagreeing about?
Whether or not funposting is fun.
-
4. Is this a reoccurring thing where someone joins the forum, presents a different idea, then gets shot down?
It has occurred a few times, but it's not really a thing.
It's a rite of passage.
I think this is just internet forums in general. After a while, some sort of consensus tends to be formed and the veterans start to form some sort of elitist group and anything that isn't in line with the consensus is heavily scrutinized.
Being active on a strategy forum is a great way to get to a decent level fast, but it's also a great way to stop improving as you'll stop trying crazy ideas the group doesn't agree with.
Let's say the people on these forums have an average Isotropic level of 30 which was pretty good, 40+ was elite. If you're new here and start reading articles and discussing and implementing ideas, you can get to 30 pretty quickly. Because most answers will be ~lvl 30 answers, any player below lvl 30 will be quickly pulled up, but conversely anyone above lvl 30 will be pulled down.
It would be great if the forum had weighted posts based on someone's skill level.
I mean, I can give perfectly fine Dominion advice, but it will be lvl 35 advice or thereabouts.
If you want to grow beyond that, you can only really talk to Stef, Mic, SCSN or someone like that.
-
(The thread has gone a million directions since I started this, but I still want to post it because this is the internet and no one can stop me.)
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
Its a joke used to insult people who throw figures around without referring to actual recorded data.. I did "make up" the percentage but that is based off of memory, which is good enough for our present purposes
I was indeed poking some fun a people who use made up statistics. It was not directed only at you, and I did not intend it to be insulting. Given the direction of the thread, it is understandable that jokes could be taken in that way, and I am sorry I offended you. I do strongly agree with the sentiment the joke conveys. When people throw statistics around in these forums, they are relavant to the conversation less than 10% of the time and and have less than a %1 chance of being accurate. (...see what I did there)
You claim that your estimate based on memory is "good enough for our present purposes". While "good enough" is totally subjective, your number isn't supported terribly well by your recently logged games; however, the sample size is probably too small to make a meaningful percentage claim from. Based on the 37 pro games that included King's Court that you have played on the new system, in which you have skipped it 7 times, there is a less than 3% chance that you think King's Court is skippable 7-10% of the time. To get a ~95% confidence interval I would need to say that you skip (and presumably, think you should skip) King's Court 9-33% of the time (unskippable 67-91%)
Human memory is an incredibly bad source to base statistics on. This is not only because of the fact that it can't reliably hold the quantity of trials neccesary to generate useful statistics, but also because it is just downright bad at remembering these types of things.
Now, I did some math (probably incorrectly), and it was fun, but, even if the data was better, and my math and application of it was perfect, I consider it all totally irrelavent. Maybe it helps support my opinion that made up statistics are not worth using to defend an argument, but we need a well defined argument to start with before we attempt to support it with anything. I do feel that the response you have received in this thread is in part due to the way you positioned, stated, and defended your argument. This has been touched on by a couple posters while I have been very slowly finding time to write this.
The biggest issue I have with your position ("KC is far more skippable than people think.") is that it is incredibly hard to define. The primary reason is that what "people think" is not a single position. There is a general concensus on the forum that KC is "rarely skippable", but in my opinion, getting more specific than that is not defesable. What "rarely skippable" means to f.ds as a percentage is impossible to nail down because everyone can have a different picutre in their head as to what it looks like.
Another issue I see is that the position posed is very combatitive. Presumably, everyone who reads your assertion is a person, and considers themselves part of this community. To the reader, your position becomes "I think KC is far more skippable than you do". You can argue that this is pedantic picking apart of wording, but the emotion your position evokes is important. After reading your discussion in this thread, I would estimate, that I consider KC approximately the same level of skippable as you do, but I don't agree with your claimed position.
The last comment I would make is that the position is execptionally difficult to defend. Even if we had a definitive position from the community that KC was unskippable on 82% of boards, attempting to defend an arguement that the number is too high is an exceptionally tall order, and a single game of Dominion is barely going to scratch the surface.
Since I have criticized the argument as written, I feel obligated to give my opinion on a better way to state and defend this position. A less combatitive position could be "KC can be skipped more often than some think" For this discussion I personally would have gone with a questioning title such as "What type of boards make KC skippable?" instead of a claim statement. For the post itself, I would defend the position in this way: "This is a board I played recently where I believe the general concensus would say to go for King's Court. I think that it should be skipped due to the presence of strong junking without trashing despite the presence of +buy. I was able to beat my opponent decisively by ignoring King's Court and pursuing a money-based strategy. Do you think King's Court should be skipped on this board?"
I think we could stand to be more friendly around here when debating topics like this even if we think the person we are arguing with is an idiot. I think a lot of arguments get heated based on a difference in opinion that is effectively non-existent. We see in this thread, that the OP's position wasn't even on the side of the stats from top 20 players that he thought it was. I suspect the "100% of games are engines" caracature of reality that is pervasive around here and the attitudes that go with it shaped his argument.
I agree with most of what you say. A lot of your objections are valid within the constraints specified by my counterpoint:
By "present purposes" I meant "for the purpose of beginning a conversation on the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI."
If our "present purpose" was doing an experiment on KC, then the criticism of my ballpark estimate would be justified.
Furthermore, my assertion that KC is skippable 7-10% of games is a hypothesis. (I apologize for not making that clear from the outset) I am making an observation (albeit one based on memory)
and all scientific inquiry begins with observation, and all observations are flawed by frame of reference and all observations are tainted by the faculty of flawed memory.
This is the problem of some rationalists who are a bit overzealous in their passion for science. They see me making an estimate based on memory and they cry foul just because it lacks scientific rigor.
My ideas are admittedly "half-baked" but that's because I am in the beginning stages of my inquiry into this topic. This is just the beginning of the discussion that was prompted by my personal experience playing dominion.
If people really care enough about academic rigor, perhaps we should apply the scientific method to Dominion and write scholarly articles on them.
I am aware of my shortcomings and my shortcomings are mostly in terms of not communicating my ideas very well, rather than a weakness in my ideas per se.
My choice of words for this thread title was regrettable.
The reason why I don't make great effort to articulate my ideas with more scientific rigor is because doing so would require me to write more words, and I don't think I am important enough to ask people to read a long article in which I postulate my thoughts on KC, and also because I lack the patience to collect data, even though I know exactly what needs to be done with it.
And lastly, as for your criticism of my memory based 90-93%, I realize memory is an unreliable instrument. So are the senses, yet science begins by empirical evidence (from the five senses, and all sensory information is unreliable. That is an argument for proceeding through the scientific process, but it is not an argument again making the first step.
And I fully realize that in making this thread, I was merely making the first step in the scientific process, some posters seem to think that I have delusions of having completed the scientific process when I suffer no such delusion.
-
I'm certainly going to be a little more happy about my use of the report button, that's for sure, as actually trying to engage in actual discourse with them and be nice about it has led people to point fingers at me saying "LOL UR OFF TOPIC TOO!!!" Hilarious. I'm super-amused.
My thread was ill-conceived and poorly titled, so it was damned to wander off topic from the outset.
I am glad you are amused, it didn't amuse me at all. I mean, here is someone actually being a kind human being to me when I was having an awful day and it really made me feel a lot better, and to me that is worth much more than focusing on the topic of KC - Which nobody was in the mood to do any way.
I learned a while ago to always try to be kind, because you never know how awful someone else might be feeling, and you might be the only person who shows them kindness that day. :)
I feel better today, thank you to the posters who posted kindly to me in this thread, and sorry I didn't have time to respond to all of them. Your empathy and positive regard is truly appreciated.
-
So jokes aside, has there actually been a consensus on KC on this particular board? (I mean the one linked in the original post: https://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160103/log.0.1451844058550.txt.)
I think Awaclus said that when he tested against other players, KC didn't perform that well. Or at least he said:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=post;quote=556766;topic=14521.25;last_msg=557154
I can see the point that you can't combat Mountebank junking so it's hard to line your KC up, and you also have to pick up some Margraves. I think it may be the kind of thing where if your KC lines up with Mountebank early, you probably win, otherwise not.
-
So jokes aside, has there actually been a consensus on KC on this particular board? (I mean the one linked in the original post: https://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160103/log.0.1451844058550.txt.)
I think Awaclus said that when he tested against other players, KC didn't perform that well. Or at least he said:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=post;quote=556766;topic=14521.25;last_msg=557154
I can see the point that you can't combat Mountebank junking so it's hard to line your KC up, and you also have to pick up some Margraves. I think it may be the kind of thing where if your KC lines up with Mountebank early, you probably win, otherwise not.
When AdamH and Awaclus played this board on stream, Adam (playing money-variants) crushed him every time. I believe that Awaclus was able to line up KC-Mountebank (unblocked) once total during the set, and it still didn't really help him win. I guess those logs would be up now for review; I'll see if I can link them.
EDIT: logs
http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160104/log.0.1451928235206.txt
http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160104/log.0.1451927852989.txt
http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160104/log.0.1451927485920.txt
-
(The thread has gone a million directions since I started this, but I still want to post it because this is the internet and no one can stop me.)
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
Its a joke used to insult people who throw figures around without referring to actual recorded data.. I did "make up" the percentage but that is based off of memory, which is good enough for our present purposes
-snip-
made up statistics are not worth using to defend an argument
-snip-
By "present purposes" I meant "for the purpose of beginning a conversation on the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI."
If our "present purpose" was doing an experiment on KC, then the criticism of my ballpark estimate would be justified.
-snip-
(snips for brevity, not intended to take things out of context. Hopefully I did not.)
So the heart of my position is that I am criticizing the usage of an estimate, and not the accuracy of it. It is my opinion that throwing a number that does not have a solid basis into an argument adds nothing at all to your position, and can create confusion.
If your purpose was to have a conversation on the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI, you succeeded at that by posting and discussing your game log. There was a lot of good discussion that was started from there, and a few users who initially thought KC was good on the board even decided it should be skipped.
I do not feel your estimate added anything to the discussion about KC. Rather, it caused others to question its accuracy, and whether it was or was not "far more" than the general consensus or not.
The main issue that comes from guessing at statistics based on feel is that it generates conflict where there may not be any. It is possible for two people to completely agree on the % of time KC should be skipped in practice, but have completely different estimated percentages based on their personal biases. This is basically what we saw in this thread. Your skip rate for KC in your last 37 games is ~19%, which almost exactly matches the skip rate from top 20 players of ~18%. It is much better to (as you said) discuss "the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI" than to make an attempt to pin a number on the frequency those factors occur.
-
(The thread has gone a million directions since I started this, but I still want to post it because this is the internet and no one can stop me.)
39% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Are you referring to my 90 - 93% estimate?
It's just an estimation but its probably not far off, its not important to be precise to the second decimal point here
I think that's a joke that I get the honor of explaining!
It is implied that the '39%' part was made up on the spot by Deadlock, which he did for comedic effect.
Its a joke used to insult people who throw figures around without referring to actual recorded data.. I did "make up" the percentage but that is based off of memory, which is good enough for our present purposes
-snip-
made up statistics are not worth using to defend an argument
-snip-
By "present purposes" I meant "for the purpose of beginning a conversation on the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI."
If our "present purpose" was doing an experiment on KC, then the criticism of my ballpark estimate would be justified.
-snip-
(snips for brevity, not intended to take things out of context. Hopefully I did not.)
So the heart of my position is that I am criticizing the usage of an estimate, and not the accuracy of it. It is my opinion that throwing a number that does not have a solid basis into an argument adds nothing at all to your position, and can create confusion.
If your purpose was to have a conversation on the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI, you succeeded at that by posting and discussing your game log. There was a lot of good discussion that was started from there, and a few users who initially thought KC was good on the board even decided it should be skipped.
I do not feel your estimate added anything to the discussion about KC. Rather, it caused others to question its accuracy, and whether it was or was not "far more" than the general consensus or not.
The main issue that comes from guessing at statistics based on feel is that it generates conflict where there may not be any. It is possible for two people to completely agree on the % of time KC should be skipped in practice, but have completely different estimated percentages based on their personal biases. This is basically what we saw in this thread. Your skip rate for KC in your last 37 games is ~19%, which almost exactly matches the skip rate from top 20 players of ~18%. It is much better to (as you said) discuss "the factors which compromise KC's ability to give a ROI" than to make an attempt to pin a number on the frequency those factors occur.
This whole post of yours assumes that when I made that estimate that in doing so I intended to make that the center of the discussion, when that is what others did, not I.
I meant to say, Ìn my estimation, I skip KC (in my estimation)__% of games and even when I choose to skip it I do no worse or better than in games where I choose to buy it, and here is why I think it should be skipped in some cases``
But before we could progress the discussion, the contrarian horde had a field day
In a helpful forum, people could have taught me how to find out my skip % of KC so I don`t need to estimate
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
-
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
Sigh... I was really hoping not to get involved in this one. But here goes.
I can assure you that this statement of yours is not the case.
I'm fairly new to these forums, but I know them well enough that I can tell you with some certainty that only a very small percentage of the users on this forum would ever intend to mock or outright attack any new member. It's actually quite a friendly community with the exception of just a few individuals. The large majority of the comments made in this thread that you have seen as being mocking or attacking have come from people who I feel I know well enough to be sure that they had no intention of attacking you. The jokes made were, on the whole, aimed to make fun of some of the tropes and behaviours of this forum as a whole, not aimed to poke fun at you.
-
I'm certainly going to be a little more happy about my use of the report button, that's for sure, as actually trying to engage in actual discourse with them and be nice about it has led people to point fingers at me saying "LOL UR OFF TOPIC TOO!!!" Hilarious. I'm super-amused.
I learned a while ago to always try to be kind, because you never know how awful someone else might be feeling, and you might be the only person who shows them kindness that day. :)
At the risk of being 'that guy', I played two games with you just before Christmas and after both you told me my wins were 'bad' and I didn't deserve them.
Under other circumstances, if my wins were very high-variance luck-based strategies, I wouldn't necessarily have minded, but you seemed very unreasonable. The first game I beat you with an early pile-out facilitated by Highways and +buy. The second, you were going for a Madman megaturn into Duchies/Dukes, but it didn't work against whatever it was I was doing.
The first one was particularly galling because I am a dreadful dominion player, so on the rare occasions when I pull off something like that I do feel a sense of pride.
Now, I don't normally remember the details of games I played a month ago, but this occurence stuck in my head. Kinda ruined my day dude. I'm sorry you had a bad time yesterday, but I would humbly suggest that you practice what you preach. Fo' sheezy.
-
This whole post of yours assumes that when I made that estimate that in doing so I intended to make that the center of the discussion, when that is what others did, not I.
I don't really feel that my comments imply that I make that assumption, but if they do, I will say now that it was not my intention.
I assume only that by by making your estimate that you intended to make it a part of (not the center of) the discussion, and I argue that estimated statistics of this sort have no place in any discussion ever because they are by their very nature meaningless. I'm not sure an actual computed percentage has much place in this discussion either, but at least it is a factual data point that could be used to see how your play compares to others.
-
The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst. I usually don't care about that such things, I mean it's a forum you can say whatever you want. However, I found Deadlock's poke at it amusing and not at all out of place since it raised a valid point. And your response failed to argue against that, you could have left things where they were and be done with it.
-
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.
Edit: I counted (Forgive the numbers not adding up exactly, some posts counted for more than one "type" of post.)
Goon Garden:
On Topic - 15
Off Topic - 22
Humorous - 0
Attacks - 5
Other Replies:
On Topic - 28
Off Topic - 86
Humorous - 20
Attacks - 0
If you go back and read the first two pages, you will notice that the majority are on topic, with a few jokes in there. It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.
-
The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst.
Useless at best? I find value in people saying this kind of stuff. It gives me a rough idea of where their head is at. The problem comes where people take that number and put more value on it than it deserves and try to draw more conclusions from that than you really can.
I don't think that anyone that uses a percentage when talking about Dominion is trying to be super-precise. Maybe instead of making fun of people who use percentages we could learn how to actually understand them from what they are and not read too much into it.
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.
Any number greater than zero is not cool in my book.
-
Overall, I have to say that this has been my favorite thread in well over a month on this forum. Why?
1. Nice long thread with plenty of spice!
2. I've been so focused on "ZOMG King's Court" that it's educational to learn a practical example with possible generalizability for when KC can be a trap card.
3. funkdoc may have just convinced me to start a Twitter account. I'm really living in the early 2000s technologically.
4. Chris is me is starting discussion on Adventures cards. Score! I've only been able to play 2 IRL Adventures games in total! Will be great to see this discussion.
5. The emotional ramifications of feedback are of a particular interest to me, so it strongly piques my interest to see how threads like this play out.
I reread the OP and read through the game log. Just reading that again without any of the subsequent responses, I was certainly NOT thinking that it was intended to be hypothesis-generating. It's quite declarative, with a tone of superiority which admittedly I may be reading too much into.
Then this comes along...
At the risk of being 'that guy', I played two games with you just before Christmas and after both you told me my wins were 'bad' and I didn't deserve them.
And I felt very sad. I'm a horrible sport and I've typed some things on Dominion online which I regret, but I've NEVER told someone their win was "bad" (FWIW, I just almost never type "gg" or "glhf", just either resign or bolt after a game which may be viewed as rude by some players). A win may be lucky, but never bad. This type of attitude acts as confirmation of the tone I thought I read into the OP, but was giving the benefit of the doubt. Tone of communication is extremely important, not just on f.ds, but in real life!! The majority of communication is nonverbal (I won't give any % estimates because well, uh, it was frowned upon in this thread).
-
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.
To be fair, Goon Garden raised a valid point, just the delivery may have been a bit off. He presented a board where some players may have immediately assumed KC was a good buy, but in fact a money strategy is better. Even if the log didn't represent optimal strategic play, his analysis was valid (modulo minor disagreements).
-
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.
Edit: I counted (Forgive the numbers not adding up exactly, some posts counted for more than one "type" of post.)
Goon Garden:
On Topic - 15
Off Topic - 22
Humorous - 0
Attacks - 5
Other Replies:
On Topic - 28
Off Topic - 86
Humorous - 20
Attacks - 0
If you go back and read the first two pages, you will notice that the majority are on topic, with a few jokes in there. It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.
I'm quoting myself to show the numbers I came up with. There was a worthwhile discussion going on before the jokes were found "unfunny" by the OP and started the entire off-topic discussion.
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.
Any number greater than zero is not cool in my book.
Adam, as you can see, I counted no directed insults by regular forum members. Now, does this mean our recurring pedantic jokes were received in the manner they were directed? Possibly not. But there was no aggression on behalf of the "majority" of the forum.
-
The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst.
Useless at best? I find value in people saying this kind of stuff. It gives me a rough idea of where their head is at. The problem comes where people take that number and put more value on it than it deserves and try to draw more conclusions from that than you really can.
I don't think that anyone that uses a percentage when talking about Dominion is trying to be super-precise. Maybe instead of making fun of people who use percentages we could learn how to actually understand them from what they are and not read too much into it.
I guess I just don't see any value in putting a number on something if you are only dealing in rough ideas. I think putting a number on a rough idea is, in and of itself, placing more value on it than it deserves, and drawing any conclusions from it at all would be drawing more conclusions than you can.
I don't disagree that people using percentages to talk about Dominion are not trying to be precise. I am only putting forth the argument that numbers are by definition precise, and should not be used if you aren't trying to be precise. My intention is certainly not to make fun of anyone for using percentages, but to attempt to convince people not to use them in ways that are not meaningful.
-
Adam, as you can see, I counted no directed insults by regular forum members. Now, does this mean our recurring pedantic jokes were received in the manner they were directed? Possibly not. But there was no aggression on behalf of the "majority" of the forum.
You are counting the posts that you think were attacks. I don't know what your definition of "attack" is but whatever it is, it's not the definition that matters. The only definition that matters here is Goon Garden's, and he can point out posts that made him feel uncomfortable in any way, regardless of intent.
I realize a lot of people will disagree with that statement, and I'm not trying to suggest that we cater to every sensitivity of every person who ever posts on this forum, so even Goon Garden's number wouldn't necessarily be something we can put a lot of stock in unless he points out all such posts and then that would start a debate on whether or not it's reasonable for someone to feel offended at that post, which sounds like a waste of everyone's time.
Suffice it to say that I don't buy this line of reasoning in the slightest. You can't say that just because no offense was intended, that we're OK in everything we say here and people need to suck it up and deal with how insensitive it is as long as it isn't an attack by our own definition. Frankly, that definition is terrible and backwards and I think that anyone who stands by it needsto really reconsider the way they interact with people in general, not just on the internet. The fact that Goon Garden specifically asked us to cut out the pedantry and was immediately greeted with pedantry is something that we as a community should not be doing to welcome in new members.
I really really don't want to link specific posts because it puts me right in the middle of this instead of being more of a mediator; I think it's pretty clear the posts I'm talking about. I'm not going to link them.
-
LOL what did i just read 8 pages of
-
Adam, as you can see, I counted no directed insults by regular forum members. Now, does this mean our recurring pedantic jokes were received in the manner they were directed? Possibly not. But there was no aggression on behalf of the "majority" of the forum.
You are counting the posts that you think were attacks. I don't know what your definition of "attack" is but whatever it is, it's not the definition that matters. The only definition that matters here is Goon Garden's, and he can point out posts that made him feel uncomfortable in any way, regardless of intent.
I meant to say "insult" and there is a post much earlier in the thread where someone counted out 8 times GG had "insulted" or "responded aggressively" to previous posters.
As I stated:
It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.
Does he read it that way? I don't know. What I do know is that any counter-argument or contradiction to his posts were met with negativity and aggression. I will gladly go back to discover exactly where this happened if you do not believe me. But no one here came out and insulted this guy, or even flat out said he was wrong. He turned this on himself, sadly, and the forum members who responded were then accused of attacking him. Read through it objectively and you will see what I mean.
-
After the initial discussion was met with these replies, it derailed into nitpicking and humor. Before these, discussion was mostly open to both sides. After this, one side was closed off in favor of finding faults in the argument as a whole.
There are many seasoned players who believe KC is never skippable. These players are wrong.
When I say "more skippable" it means "more frequently skippable" than the consensus believes.
I know that. That's why I qualified the statement with "generally" -- But I guess you ignored my careful wording so it would be easier to have a counterpoint.
You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. It would take a lot of time for me to break this down for you and hash all this out since you stubbornly insist KC is a good choice in all games. It isn't.
Now, I don't necessarily see Awaclus as being argumentative at any point, but at least the disagreement he presented the conversation was still on topic.
-
The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst.
Useless at best? I find value in people saying this kind of stuff. It gives me a rough idea of where their head is at. The problem comes where people take that number and put more value on it than it deserves and try to draw more conclusions from that than you really can.
I don't think that anyone that uses a percentage when talking about Dominion is trying to be super-precise. Maybe instead of making fun of people who use percentages we could learn how to actually understand them from what they are and not read too much into it.
I guess I just don't see any value in putting a number on something if you are only dealing in rough ideas. I think putting a number on a rough idea is, in and of itself, placing more value on it than it deserves, and drawing any conclusions from it at all would be drawing more conclusions than you can.
I don't disagree that people using percentages to talk about Dominion are not trying to be precise. I am only putting forth the argument that numbers are by definition precise, and should not be used if you aren't trying to be precise. My intention is certainly not to make fun of anyone for using percentages, but to attempt to convince people not to use them in ways that are not meaningful.
I haven't been in the mood to jump back into this thread over the last few days, but I just want to say that I don't mind the use of a percentage like "90-93%" to describe something rather than something like "most of the time". Like, Person A says "almost always" and Person B says "usually". It can turn out that Person B's perception of "usually" is higher than Person A's "almost always". Indeed, something like this seemed to happen in the thread until the " 90-93%" came into the picture.
Percentages don't have to be interpreted as needing to be accurate when it's more important that the percentage comparisons be used relatively. Someone saying "I think KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" gives me a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth of KC than "I think KC is usually unskippable".
We are the ones that give meaning to a percentage. Traditionally in science we like to see percentages as being objective. In the context of a forum bouncing off ideas, I don't think it's inherently wrong to interpret a percentage as being subjective and used for relative comparisons.
That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.
-
As I stated:
It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.
Does he read it that way? I don't know. What I do know is that any counter-argument or contradiction to his posts were met with negativity and aggression. I will gladly go back to discover exactly where this happened if you do not believe me. But no one here came out and insulted this guy, or even flat out said he was wrong. He turned this on himself, sadly, and the forum members who responded were then accused of attacking him. Read through it objectively and you will see what I mean.
I read through the thread objectively, it read just like the first time I read through the thread, which was objective. I'm really trying not to take a side here, what I see is happening is that there are two perspectives on this that are different: Goon garden's perspective, and the perspective of the community as a whole (I guess you could say "everyone else" but that's a slight oversimplification. I will make this slight oversimplification). After reading through the thread again, I saw the same 5+ posts that I was thinking of before that I will continue to not point out. They are there, even though some say they aren't and they put your hands over their ears and shout LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Neither party acted perfectly at any point in this entire exchange. I don't see myself as being part of either party, but rather as one of the very few people (and the only one really saying anything) that actually understands where both sides are coming from (namely, the only one that understands where goon garden is coming from other than goon garden). I thought it would be useful to try and help the two sides understand each other. I don't really feel emotionally invested in this but maybe some people seem to think I am. Go back and look at the nasty threads from a couple of months ago, that's what it looks like when I'm emotionally invested. Does this look the same to you?
The thread derailed when Goon Garden said he didn't appreciate the nitpicking (whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter) directed towards him, and instead of being polite and stopping, we continued to poke at it and do more of the exact thing he said he didn't like. The community is trying to wash its hands of any blame here and act like nobody did anything that was the slightest bit objectionable when that's just not the case. Maybe Goon Garden wasn't helping but the community we should have here shouldn't care about that; yes I'm saying that the community should be held to a higher standard than goon garden because if we don't we come across like a bunch of jerks to new people to try and post here. BTW, guess how we're coming across to new people?
The telling thing is that goon garden has taken some time and made several posts afterward looking critically at his own actions: something that has great value in Dominion as well as real life (you make your own IRL luck? Nah, needs work). The community, on the other hand, still refuses to look critically at the way it has treated him. You say you are but if you aren't seeing what I'm seeing, you must be looking with your eyes closed. Look harder, it's there. The community should be acting better, and there are so many people out there who just don't believe that anything the community did here was a problem and that all conflict here was caused 100% by goon garden. No. Wake up, make yourself a better person. I even said it earlier in this same thread about Dominion but here it applies to real life: the day you stop looking at your plays [actions] critically and blame your losses on bad draws [arguments on other people] is the same day you stop getting better at Dominion [being inviting to new people on the forum]. I'm getting like really philosophical all of a sudden, where did this come from? This is weird.
I suppose it's getting difficult to continue this without me pointing directly to the posts I find the most objectionable. I'm not willing to do this publicly. I don't know of a way to point this out even though I think it should be obvious. I'm not sure what to do about this.
-
Quick thing regarding the numbers: I consider some numbers to be acceptable. If you're talking about quartiles, maybe in some case about 10 percentiles. I can live with that, chances are you won't be too far off the actual data. But there comes this assertion (I wouldn't call it hypothesis) of 90-93%. Based on a memory of his limited amount of KC play he's experienced ( I assume nobody has enough games of any card to be this precise). This alone I find hilarious. I don't think making a joke about that is out of place, and it wasn't even made in bad spirit.
To top it off, he skips KC 100% more than he asserted according to Deadlock data, but that's not relevant.
@Adam: Sorry, you can't be a mediator here. You're not necessarily an advocate for Goon Gardens, but you revealed your intended way of moderating such threads in the past and it shows. You definitely have a bias (we all do) in this conflict and saying you're being objective doesn't change that.
But even if that wasn't the case you're comments are more judging than mediating anyway (atleast the later ones). My advice: atleast call those comments you feel uncomfortable about out. I don't mind being among them and I'm pretty sure that most others don't mind either. Otherwise you're just groundlessly accuse all of us.
@Goon Gardens: I don't know why you bring your personal feelings in here. Nobody insulted you personally. However, you did insult other people because they commented in a way you didn't agree with. That unfortunate for you, but you can't control how other people react. If that bothers you, it's not the other people who have to change.
Also, who needs to say "I'm a kind person"? Not the kind people I know of.
-
Person A says "almost always" and Person B says "usually". It can turn out that Person B's perception of "usually" is higher than Person A's "almost always". Indeed, something like this seemed to happen in the thread until the " 90-93%" came into the picture.
Except none of these things actually help determine if peoples perceptions match in reality or not. It is possible that Person A's 90-93% is lower than Person B's 82% because they are being used in the same way as "usually" and "almost always". You don't know where they actually stand until you look at real data, or spend time discussing the actual situation. So, we should be doing that instead of making up numbers.
Percentages don't have to be interpreted as needing to be accurate when it's more important that the percentage comparisons be used relatively. Someone saying "I think KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" gives me a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth of KC than "I think KC is usually unskippable".
The problem is that if your percentages are not accurate, you can't even use them relatively, because they do not have a common basis. I would argue that saying that "KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" does not give you a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth, especially in this case. It is not possible to know if the number someone else has given based on their perception matches the perception that number gives you. It's a bit like silly existential questions like "is the red I see the same as the red you see", except in this case, we can pretty confidently say the answer is no more often than not.
We are the ones that give meaning to a percentage. Traditionally in science we like to see percentages as being objective. In the context of a forum bouncing off ideas, I don't think it's inherently wrong to interpret a percentage as being subjective and used for relative comparisons.
I don't understand how you can make a relative comparison between subjective values. GOON GARDEN says 93% and Kirian (representing consensus) says 97%. Relative comparison says that GOON GARDEN thinks KC should be skipped twice as often as the general consensus. Actual discussion and inspection of data shows that GOON GARDEN probably thinks KC should be skipped approximately the same amount of the time as general consensus. The numbers allowed us to make a relative comparison, but it was completely meaningless, and ultimately incorrect.
That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.
Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective. I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.
-
But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.
I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.
Edit: I counted (Forgive the numbers not adding up exactly, some posts counted for more than one "type" of post.)
Goon Garden:
On Topic - 15
Off Topic - 22
Humorous - 0
Attacks - 5
Other Replies:
On Topic - 28
Off Topic - 86
Humorous - 20
Attacks - 0
If you go back and read the first two pages, you will notice that the majority are on topic, with a few jokes in there. It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.
I never blamed anyone for the thread getting derailed. Actually you can find me saying multiple times that its my fault that the thread was derailed.
I knowingly derailed my own thread because I would prefer that over endless repetition of unfunny jokes that were far more unfriendly than they were funny.
But you wouldn`t note that, would you. Because you would rather ignore that so you have one more thing to scold me for.
I am willing to see my faults and I have admitted them in this thread.
But this forum has been extremely nauseating so far.
I love roasting my friends and I love being roasted. It`s good fun if it is genuinely amusing and good-natured.
But no, I am wrong for disliking it, everything I do is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
-
Person A says "almost always" and Person B says "usually". It can turn out that Person B's perception of "usually" is higher than Person A's "almost always". Indeed, something like this seemed to happen in the thread until the " 90-93%" came into the picture.
Except none of these things actually help determine if peoples perceptions match in reality or not. It is possible that Person A's 90-93% is lower than Person B's 82% because they are being used in the same way as "usually" and "almost always". You don't know where they actually stand until you look at real data, or spend time discussing the actual situation. So, we should be doing that instead of making up numbers.
Percentages don't have to be interpreted as needing to be accurate when it's more important that the percentage comparisons be used relatively. Someone saying "I think KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" gives me a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth of KC than "I think KC is usually unskippable".
The problem is that if your percentages are not accurate, you can't even use them relatively, because they do not have a common basis. I would argue that saying that "KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" does not give you a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth, especially in this case. It is not possible to know if the number someone else has given based on their perception matches the perception that number gives you. It's a bit like silly existential questions like "is the red I see the same as the red you see", except in this case, we can pretty confidently say the answer is no more often than not.
We are the ones that give meaning to a percentage. Traditionally in science we like to see percentages as being objective. In the context of a forum bouncing off ideas, I don't think it's inherently wrong to interpret a percentage as being subjective and used for relative comparisons.
I don't understand how you can make a relative comparison between subjective values. GOON GARDEN says 93% and Kirian (representing consensus) says 97%. Relative comparison says that GOON GARDEN thinks KC should be skipped twice as often as the general consensus. Actual discussion and inspection of data shows that GOON GARDEN probably thinks KC should be skipped approximately the same amount of the time as general consensus. The numbers allowed us to make a relative comparison, but it was completely meaningless, and ultimately incorrect.
That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.
Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective. I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.
I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.
Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.
And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:
Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!
Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.
But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!
-
But this forum has been extremely nauseating so far.
Didn't you say you were done with this forum like 20 posts ago?
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced. People picking apart every fucking thing I say.
My god, and I swear the more people pick apart every detail, the less judicious I am with my words and the way I express things.
Fuck off already
-
Are we done talking about King's Court?
On a more [serious] note, I think F.DS was wrong here. We started out being bad and we're getting worse, but the more we try to make it better, the worse Goon Garden gets. So everyone is just getting worse until we'll spiral back into our barbaric ancestors.
-
But this forum has been extremely nauseating so far.
Didn't you say you were done with this forum like 20 posts ago?
I don`t think some of you realize that even though you have a point, the way you make it is absolutely obnoxious
I have never been berated by so many assholes in my life.
Someone please ban me since I am too stupid to voluntarily stop posting.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced. People picking apart every fucking thing I say.
My god, and I swear the more people pick apart every detail, the less judicious I am with my words and the way I express things.
Fuck off already
If you want things to get better...
And I think someone suggested a walk? Because a walk would be a good idea for a lot of us in this thread.
-
I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.
Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.
And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:
Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!
Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.
But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!
He's not lording it over you. He's just trying to explain his position, which seems to still be necessary since your summary isn't what he's saying at all; he actually says the opposite:
Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective. I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.
Deadlock is being extremely polite and patient, but you're reacting as if he is victimizing you - and this reply wasn't even directed at you. The people in this forum aren't out to get you. Disagreement isn't an insult.
-
I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.
Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.
And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:
Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!
Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.
But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!
He's not lording it over you. He's just trying to explain his position, which seems to still be necessary since your summary isn't what he's saying at all; he actually says the opposite:
Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective. I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.
Deadlock is being extremely polite and patient, but you're reacting as if he is victimizing you - and this reply wasn't even directed at you. The people in this forum aren't out to get you. Disagreement isn't an insult.
Why does it need to be explained? It's obvious that estimation sucks but I didn't realize that this data can be accessed. Explaining exhaustively why estimation sucks and how looking at actual data is superior is pointless and it is insulting to my intelligence. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but some of you disagree in a way that is extremely alienating and irritating.
-
Why does it need to be explained? It's obvious that estimation sucks but I didn't realize that this data can be accessed. Explaining exhaustively why estimation sucks and how looking at actual data is superior is pointless and it is insulting to my intelligence. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but some of you disagree in a way that is extremely alienating and irritating.
Again, the point is not that "data is better than estimation". It's that making up stats is not useful when you want to communicate an estimation. He's explaining exhaustively because people are missing the point.
I don't know why you consider it insulting to your intelligence when his explanation was in response to a different forum member.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.
F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.
F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.
Was that supposed to be funny or witty? :-\
I won't go into which other forums I post on, but the community is way better and way more helpful on any other forum on which I have posted.
And if someone gets roasted, people are actually funny. I don't know where else parroting someone repeatedly is considered funny outside elementary schools and this forum.
Most forums would have someone say: Estimation is unreliable. You can look up your stats here: welcome to the forums.
THE END.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.
F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.
Was that supposed to be funny, or witty?
I won't go into which other forums I post on, but the community is way better and way more helpful.
Most forums would have someone say: Estimation is unreliable. You can look up your stats here: welcome to the forums.
THE END.
It is supposed to be a modified quote by a witty person and quite applicable to this situation.
But while we're at it. Most of people new to the forums make their points very differently aswell. Your rhetoric isn't as charming as you may think it is.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.
F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.
Was that supposed to be funny, or witty?
I won't go into which other forums I post on, but the community is way better and way more helpful.
Most forums would have someone say: Estimation is unreliable. You can look up your stats here: welcome to the forums.
THE END.
It is supposed to be a modified quote by a witty person and quite applicable to this situation.
But while we're at it. Most of people new to the forums make their points very differently aswell. Your rhetoric isn't as charming as you may think it is.
Yeah that's because this forum brings out the worst in me. I feel bad that I lost composure. Honestly in all of my social experiences in life this forum is by far the worst experience.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.
F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.
Was that supposed to be funny, or witty?
I won't go into which other forums I post on, but the community is way better and way more helpful.
Most forums would have someone say: Estimation is unreliable. You can look up your stats here: welcome to the forums.
THE END.
It is supposed to be a modified quote by a witty person and quite applicable to this situation.
But while we're at it. Most of people new to the forums make their points very differently aswell. Your rhetoric isn't as charming as you may think it is.
Yeah that's because this forum brings out the worst in me. I feel bad that I lost composure. Honestly in all of my social experiences in life this forum is by far the worst experience.
Then why don't you leave?
-
I mean, we're pretty pedantic here for sure, and I guess some people might not like that. Personally I think the world would be better if people were more sticklers for precision. So when people are imprecise, we generally take them literally and correct them if it sounds wrong, and I can see how that can come off as picking apart your words. But the only reason we're using your words is that if we didn't we'd be putting words in your mouth, which is bad. I don't think you are being roasted, and in saying so I am picking apart what you said. I have a feeling roasted might not be exactly what you mean, but I don't know exactly what you mean, so I have to assume you said what you meant. That's where I'm a pedantic asshole. I sometimes struggle with this irl too; and I'm sure people have gotten the wrong impression from that before. I doubt I'm alone on that in this forum.
-
That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.
Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective. I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.
For the record, I will say the bolded part is the source of disagreement. I think estimated percentages can be useful as a starting point to understand how someone intuitively understands a situation at times where actual data is limited.
Even if the actual data suggests something different, it could be that the situation surrounding the last few data points (in the case of Dominion, possibly the most recent few games) had a greater influence on someone's perception than the entirety of the data across history. I suppose that's practically the definition of bias, but I think it's good to recognise the bias, or consider the possibility that someone's understanding of what's being considered has changed at some point in time during the time range of the data points.
-
Then why don't you leave?
That's not helping.
-
I mean, we're pretty pedantic here for sure, and I guess some people might not like that. Personally I think the world would be better if people were more sticklers for precision. So when people are imprecise, we generally take them literally and correct them if it sounds wrong, and I can see how that can come off as picking apart your words. But the only reason we're using your words is that if we didn't we'd be putting words in your mouth, which is bad. I don't think you are being roasted, and in saying so I am picking apart what you said. I have a feeling roasted might not be exactly what you mean, but I don't know exactly what you mean, so I have to assume you said what you meant. That's where I'm a pedantic asshole. I sometimes struggle with this irl too; and I'm sure people have gotten the wrong impression from that before. I doubt I'm alone on that in this forum.
You are self aware of the fact, which makes all the difference. I do not think it is "bad" or "wrong" to be that way, as long as you aren't incorrigible and ruthless about the way you go about it. And as long as your endgame is constructive.
See you, I could happily listen as you help me fine tune my thinking. Such a process should be a dance between two minds, rather than a one directional bombardment. And I could have a beer with you and I would be happy to play dominion with you, simply because of what you said here.
I can't say the same for some of the others on here.
-
Then why don't you leave?
That's not helping.
He has made so many posts about how nauseating and awful the forum is and how he was leaving forever and he wishes he was banned. It's a genuine question.
-
Honestly in all of my social experiences in life this forum is by far the worst experience.
OK, that may be literally the stupidest thing I've ever read. And I read The Damnation Of Pythos by David Annandale.
Unless you are four years old, or have spent your life living in a box, this is not your life's worst social experience. You have posted on a forum, and then immediately got over-defensive against the people you have perceived as criticising or belittling you when, and here's the rub, as far as I can tell no one was.
If the attitude you have brought to your discourse here is anything like that which you bring to other dealings in your life... no. No way have you never been treated worse than this.
A tip for you for forums, or the internet in general, from a guy who's been around since the usenet newsgroup days and has avoided posting for a decade and a half because of, well, frankly, people who act like you do, which you can take or leave as you wish. You see a response you don't like; don't respond. You're not obliged to, and you'll probably have a happier life if you don't.
On the other hand you seem compelled to do so, even when your response is just to point out that you don't find a joke funny, which if you don't, ask yourself, what the hell is pointing this out going to achieve?
In fact one of the few posts directed straight at you which you have decided not to reply to was when I posted earlier calling you out for being a right rotter to me last month. No denial, no apology, which is fine by me - I just wasn't going to let you get away with playing the matyr hypocritically - but it strikes me as odd considering everything you have replied to.
My conclusion? Well, I sincerely hope that you are what the kids these days are calling a troll, and you've come here ti amuse yourself by getting into a few arguments and causing a few squabbles between existing forum members. Because, goddamnit man, if your interactions here in the last 48 hours have been enough to really make you as upset as you are claiming to be, then you are in for a pretty shitty life. It gets worse after high school you know.
I will now return to my previously scheduled lurking.
-
Honestly in all of my social experiences in life this forum is by far the worst experience.
OK, that may be literally the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Holy fuck did you seriously just write all that? There's no way I am reading all of that.
I guess I am lucky, because I grew up in a good neighborhood in a good country and the worst social experience I've had next to this one is in high school when the jocks decided to give me wedgies that suspended me in the air by my boxers until my underwear ripped in half (an isolated incident that I did not have to endure routinely)
-
Then why don't you leave?
That's not helping.
He has made so many posts about how nauseating and awful the forum is and how he was leaving forever and he wishes he was banned. It's a genuine question.
He only made one post about leaving, I think. He didn't leave, so obviously he changed his mind. No need to keep bringing it up.
Did he make more than one "ban me" post? I only saw one. If you take it seriously, then he explained there why he doesn't just leave:
Someone please ban me since I am too stupid to voluntarily stop posting.
I don't think it's really serious though.
I agree that the "this forum is the worst" comments are in poor taste and hypocritical.
As a genuine question, there are better ways you could have phrased it. As it is, it sounded like a passive-aggressive "go away". Sorry for misreading it though!
-
Then why don't you leave?
That's not helping.
I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.
I do not share Adam's concerns about this community being perceived poorly based on our interactions with jerks like GOON GARDEN. I think most reasonable people who read this thread are going to see the f.DS regulars (sans Adam) as being on the sane side of this little conversation. And the fact is that most new members who join aren't being treated like this because most of them aren't assholes. Take Roadrunner for example. We tease him a bit about Scout and he teases us back, but it's all good times as far as I can tell. I'm glad to have him here and I hope he's happy to be here. Folks like GOON GARDEN I can do without.
-
Then why don't you leave?
That's not helping.
I think it's a perfectly legitimate question.
I do not share Adam's concerns about this community being perceived poorly based on our interactions with jerks like GOON GARDEN. I think most reasonable people who read this thread are going to see the f.DS regulars (sans Adam) as being on the sane side of this little conversation. And the fact is that most new members who join aren't being treated like this because most of them aren't assholes. Take Roadrunner for example. We tease him a bit about Scout and he teases us back, but it's all good times as far as I can tell. I'm glad to have him here and I hope he's happy to be here. Folks like GOON GARDEN I can do without.
I explained already, but it didn't read like a legitimate question to me. I like Roadrunner. :)
the worst social experience I've had next to this one is in high school when the jocks decided to give me wedgies that suspended me in the air by my boxers until my underwear ripped in half
OK, yes, that does sound much more pleasant than some people saying that King's Court is good and made-up stats are bad.
-
Wedgies hurt.
Just saying
-
Yay, people like Roadrunner!
But do I tease you guys back about Scout? I think I just explain to you how to utilize it. Forgive me for limited knowledge on Jesus Christ, but when he first started telling people about God and stuff, no one listened to him, either. So my account will get destroyed and then everyone will release what a mistake they've made and they won't join Scout in Victory Card heaven. But fear not, for I got my account banned so that you all would make it into Victory Card heaven, to forever play alongside Scout.
-
Although I would like to define "jocks" to make sure we are all on the same page. I would think it is an individual who thinks too highly of himself due to the fact that he is athletically gifted and thus uses his enlarged opinion of himself to bully other individuals.
-
Although I would like to define "jocks" to make sure we are all on the same page. I would think it is an individual who thinks too highly of himself due to the fact that he is athletically gifted and thus uses his enlarged opinion of himself to bully other individuals.
So jocks have to be bullies? I just thought of jocks as arrogant, athletic people.
-
Although I would like to define "jocks" to make sure we are all on the same page. I would think it is an individual who thinks too highly of himself due to the fact that he is athletically gifted and thus uses his enlarged opinion of himself to bully other individuals.
So jocks have to be bullies? I just thought of jocks as arrogant, athletic people.
Good point. "Bully" might not be the right word. I included "enlarged opinion of himself." Maybe just change "bully" to "look down on other people who are not similarly gifted athletically."
And just leave bully as a separate category. Not all jocks are bullies, just as not all bullies are jocks. But you can be both as in the situation described concerning wedgies
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced. People picking apart every fucking thing I say.
My god, and I swear the more people pick apart every detail, the less judicious I am with my words and the way I express things.
Fuck off already
I don't take very kindly to language like this. So I'll keep this simple.
I was encouraging and participating in your discussion until you starting slinging mud around. It's your own fault if people threw mud back at you after that.
We have been more than accommodating interacting with you in this regard. Leave your personal issues at home. We don't need the negativity here. If you choose to leave, then leave. If you choose to stay, I suggest being more civil and less emotional.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced. People picking apart every fucking thing I say.
My god, and I swear the more people pick apart every detail, the less judicious I am with my words and the way I express things.
Fuck off already
I don't take very kindly to language like this. So I'll keep this simple.
I was encouraging and participating in your discussion until you starting slinging mud around. It's your own fault if people threw mud back at you after that.
We have been more than accommodating interacting with you in this regard. Leave your personal issues at home. We don't need the negativity here. If you choose to leave, then leave. If you choose to stay, I suggest being more civil and less emotional.
Mud was slung at me far before I started striking back, and even then its wrong for me to do it-- It is regrettable that I can't refrain entirely but when I was keeping it civil nobody was any kinder to me for that.
A man can only take so much, I have endured countless volleys for how many pages, enough already!
I get it -- I do everything wrong and everything I say is wrong including my choice of words for describing it in this way.
-
Mud was slung at me far before I started striking back, and even then its wrong for me to do it-- It is regrettable that I can't refrain entirely but when I was keeping it civil nobody was any kinder to me for that.
Examples? The first thing I see that I would consider "mud slung" is this post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14521.msg556544#msg556544) where you call Awaclus somebody who "disagrees for the sake of disagreeing". Shortly after that, you call him petty. Before that, it all looks pretty civil to me. What did I miss?
-
I guess I am lucky, because I grew up in a good neighborhood in a good country and the worst social experience I've had next to this one is in high school when the jocks decided to give me wedgies that suspended me in the air by my boxers until my underwear ripped in half (an isolated incident that I did not have to endure routinely)
OP has a history of getting butthurt. Couldn't have guessed.
-
You didn't like people replying to specific portions of what you posted. That was where you started being defensive and critical of every reply you got. Unless it was deleted, I dare you to go back and find the first post where you got defensive, and the first post where someone started mocking you. I am willing to bet that you getting upset about HOW people were replying happened before anyone started poking fun.
-
You didn't like people replying to specific portions of what you posted. That was where you started being defensive and critical of every reply you got. Unless it was deleted, I dare you to go back and find the first post where you got defensive, and the first post where someone started mocking you. I am willing to bet that you getting upset about HOW people were replying happened before anyone started poking fun.
You are 100% right and I am 100% wrong. Well done.
-
Holy fuck did you seriously just write all that? There's no way I am reading all of that.
I wish I'd said that to David Annandale.
-
You didn't like people replying to specific portions of what you posted. That was where you started being defensive and critical of every reply you got. Unless it was deleted, I dare you to go back and find the first post where you got defensive, and the first post where someone started mocking you. I am willing to bet that you getting upset about HOW people were replying happened before anyone started poking fun.
Right. Awaclus may have been blunt in his responses in a way that can be a bit aggravating, but there were no actual insults as far as I could tell. And he was willing enough to consider the alternative (re: KC on this board) that he actually went and tested it. And then he reported back that he was wrong.
-
I guess I am lucky, because I grew up in a good neighborhood in a good country and the worst social experience I've had next to this one is in high school when the jocks decided to give me wedgies that suspended me in the air by my boxers until my underwear ripped in half (an isolated incident that I did not have to endure routinely)
OP has a history of getting butthurt. Couldn't have guessed.
see, this is actually funny, so I am fine with comment like this.
The parroting that some people were doing was obnoxious and not funny at all
-
So... how do you get a thread locked?
-
But this forum has been extremely nauseating so far.
Didn't you say you were done with this forum like 20 posts ago?
I don`t think some of you realize that even though you have a point, the way you make it is absolutely obnoxious
I have never been berated by so many assholes in my life.
Someone please ban me since I am too stupid to voluntarily stop posting.
Okay, I ban you. You are banned. Do not evade your ban by posting.
-
But this forum has been extremely nauseating so far.
Didn't you say you were done with this forum like 20 posts ago?
I don`t think some of you realize that even though you have a point, the way you make it is absolutely obnoxious
I have never been berated by so many assholes in my life.
Someone please ban me since I am too stupid to voluntarily stop posting.
Okay, I ban you. You are banned. Do not evade your ban by posting.
Ouch.
-
I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.
Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.
And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:
Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!
Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.
But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!
I don't think the discussion I am having is a waste of time, and wouldn't be having it if I did. I can't say I actually expect to change anyone's mind, but I do find the topic interesting.
I don't agree with your boiling down of my post for the reasons eHalcyon has already put forth.
I am sorry that you feel my post is lording anything over you. I did not intend anything in my last few posts to be directed at you. I am only having a conversation about the merits of estimating frequencies based on memory with other forum members who feel like discussing it. I don't think the conversation is significantly related to anything you posted at this point. You are definitely not the first person here to make such an estimation and you will certainly not be the last. I am relatively certain this thread is not the first time I have made the stupid joke about statistics being made up. I apologize for having made the joke at your and Kirian's expense as it was not intended to be seen as a personal attack. The direction of this thread compelled me to explain my motivations for making the comment and have continued to participate in the discussion that has produced.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
-
So... how do you get a thread locked?
Threads only get locked when there's a decline in civility.
-
I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.
Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.
And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:
Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!
Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.
But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!
I don't think the discussion I am having is a waste of time, and wouldn't be having it if I did. I can't say I actually expect to change anyone's mind, but I do find the topic interesting.
I don't agree with your boiling down of my post for the reasons eHalcyon has already put forth.
I am sorry that you feel my post is lording anything over you. I did not intend anything in my last few posts to be directed at you. I am only having a conversation about the merits of estimating frequencies based on memory with other forum members who feel like discussing it. I don't think the conversation is significantly related to anything you posted at this point. You are definitely not the first person here to make such an estimation and you will certainly not be the last. I am relatively certain this thread is not the first time I have made the stupid joke about statistics being made up. I apologize for having made the joke at your and Kirian's expense as it was not intended to be seen as a personal attack. The direction of this thread compelled me to explain my motivations for making the comment and have continued to participate in the discussion that has produced.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Not reading that but enjoy your one-sided conversation.
Everything I think or feel is invalid so I won't waste time typing any further.
-
This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.
F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.
It's a great forum, when compared to worse forums.
-
So... how do you get a thread locked?
Threads only get locked when there's a decline in civility.
Like, seriously now, this thread is toxic. It has to stop. There's people I respect saying things that diminish them, and well that's sad.
-
I don't know where else parroting someone repeatedly is considered funny outside elementary schools and this forum.
The entirety of Internet and IRL in my experience.
-
I don't know where else parroting someone repeatedly is considered funny outside elementary schools and this forum.
The entirety of Internet and IRL in my experience.
On the internet the memes that are repeated are repeated because the original phrase is hilarious, or there is some art to the way it is done which makes it hilarious. It isn't the parroting itself which is funny--Being humorous takes more than just copying what someone is saying in formulaic fashion--tacking a phrase onto a new sentence, which is what was done in this thread. Are you sure you aren't on the autism spectrum?
That's really corny and childish and outside your nerdy circle of friends you would get yourself into trouble acting like that. Maybe you could be fodder for some slapstick humor too.
-
On the internet the memes that are repeated are repeated because the original phrase is hilarious, or there is some art to the way it is done which makes it hilarious. It isn't the parroting itself which is funny--Being humorous takes more than just copying what someone is saying in formulaic fashion--tacking a phrase onto a new sentence, which is what was done in this thread. Are you sure you aren't on the autism spectrum?
That's really corny and childish and outside your nerdy circle of friends you would get yourself into trouble acting like that. Maybe you could be fodder for some slapstick humor too.
No, it is precisely the repetition itself which makes it hilarious. The vast majority of memes suck outside of their cultural context.
-
On the internet the memes that are repeated are repeated because the original phrase is hilarious, or there is some art to the way it is done which makes it hilarious. It isn't the parroting itself which is funny--Being humorous takes more than just copying what someone is saying in formulaic fashion--tacking a phrase onto a new sentence, which is what was done in this thread. Are you sure you aren't on the autism spectrum?
That's really corny and childish and outside your nerdy circle of friends you would get yourself into trouble acting like that. Maybe you could be fodder for some slapstick humor too.
No, it is precisely the repetition itself which makes it hilarious. The vast majority of memes suck outside of their cultural context.
If you think repetition in and of itself makes things funnier, you are a simpleton.
There were some "repetitions" done ITT each more awkward than the last
Try that with me IRL and you won't manage to get too many repetitions in
-
On the internet the memes that are repeated are repeated because the original phrase is hilarious, or there is some art to the way it is done which makes it hilarious. It isn't the parroting itself which is funny--Being humorous takes more than just copying what someone is saying in formulaic fashion--tacking a phrase onto a new sentence, which is what was done in this thread. Are you sure you aren't on the autism spectrum?
That's really corny and childish and outside your nerdy circle of friends you would get yourself into trouble acting like that. Maybe you could be fodder for some slapstick humor too.
No, it is precisely the repetition itself which makes it hilarious. The vast majority of memes suck outside of their cultural context.
If you think repetition in and of itself makes things funnier, you are a simpleton.
There were some "repetitions" done ITT each more awkward than the last
Try that with me IRL and you won't manage to get too many repetitions in
And what exactly do you think you could do to make me stop?
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
So if I mocked your croaky voice by croaking like a frog would each croak be funnier than the last?
-
On the internet the memes that are repeated are repeated because the original phrase is hilarious, or there is some art to the way it is done which makes it hilarious. It isn't the parroting itself which is funny--Being humorous takes more than just copying what someone is saying in formulaic fashion--tacking a phrase onto a new sentence, which is what was done in this thread. Are you sure you aren't on the autism spectrum?
That's really corny and childish and outside your nerdy circle of friends you would get yourself into trouble acting like that. Maybe you could be fodder for some slapstick humor too.
No, it is precisely the repetition itself which makes it hilarious. The vast majority of memes suck outside of their cultural context.
If you think repetition in and of itself makes things funnier, you are a simpleton.
There were some "repetitions" done ITT each more awkward than the last
Try that with me IRL and you won't manage to get too many repetitions in
And what exactly do you think you could do to make me stop?
I really don't need to divulge that since you would not dare to mock me IRL in the first place, trust me on that one
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
Assuming you're talking about the Hibikase cover, that's Harmor resynthesis layered with a vocoded supersaw.
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
Assuming you're talking about the Hibikase cover, that's Harmor resynthesis layered with a vocoded supersaw.
I am talking about your voice on your dominion channel..
whatever tho, I feel bad for making fun of u now
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
Assuming you're talking about the Hibikase cover, that's Harmor resynthesis layered with a vocoded supersaw.
I am talking about your voice on your dominion channel..
whatever tho, I feel bad for making fun of u now
Right, that was a thing too. Yes, that was my real voice. I don't think it sounds like a frog though. I'm also surprised you found it.
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
Assuming you're talking about the Hibikase cover, that's Harmor resynthesis layered with a vocoded supersaw.
I am talking about your voice on your dominion channel..
whatever tho, I feel bad for making fun of u now
Right, that was a thing too. Yes, that was my real voice. I don't think it sounds like a frog though. I'm also surprised you found it.
Alright.. well.. I am not mad anymore. Its all good.
-
I think the last couple of pages make it clear this guy is trolling us.
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
So if I mocked your croaky voice by croaking like a frog would each croak be funnier than the last?
I was about to write something about how everyone here could try to be a bit more understanding and then everyone would have a better time... then I saw this. Why bother? I will report this post.
-
I was about to write something about how everyone here could try to be a bit more understanding and then everyone would have a better time... then I saw this. Why bother? I will report this post.
Did you see the autism one? Totally unacceptable.
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
So if I mocked your croaky voice by croaking like a frog would each croak be funnier than the last?
I was about to write something about how everyone here could try to be a bit more understanding and then everyone would have a better time... then I saw this. Why bother? I will report this post.
It turns out that 100% of a given user's posts are more ignorable than users think.
-
Yes, of course. The other guy has said/done one thing wrong, therefore everything I have ever said or will say is 100% guaranteed correct and I can do no wrong!
I'm not defending Goon Garden here (I actually never have), but I believe if non-goon-garden-people had acted better, it didn't have to end like this. If this thread gets locked and whatever happens to goon garden happens, I'm quite sure that most people will say that the way we treated him was OK and justifiable because he was a troll or because he was wrong about something at some point or he said something not nice.
Even if these things are true, that does not excuse the way he was treated in this thread.
-
Adam, I think nearly everyone who has said anything that Goon Garden took as an attack has apologised, whether or not they intended an attack.
Meanwhile Goon Garden has flagrantly ignored at least one of these apology posts
(see this:
)
and made some incredibly offensive and inflammatory comments. I don't think a thread-lock or a banning is called for here; things have gotten out of hand only slowly.
But it's fairly clear to me that none of the f.ds regulars came here with the intent to cause offense. The recent posts of GOON GARDEN, however, are completely inexcusable and clearly aimed to hurt and offend.
I don't want to make the assumption that GOON GARDEN is just a troll. If he is then eventually this thread will probably be locked and GOON GARDEN banned. If he is not just a troll, I think several members of the community here have the right to expect a PM'd apology from GOON GARDEN at the very least.
-
Yes, of course. The other guy has said/done one thing wrong, therefore everything I have ever said or will say is 100% guaranteed correct and I can do no wrong!
I'm not sure whom you are accusing of having that attitude.
-
Wow just checked out your youtube channel.. Please tell me that's not your real voice.
Assuming you're talking about the Hibikase cover, that's Harmor resynthesis layered with a vocoded supersaw.
I am talking about your voice on your dominion channel..
whatever tho, I feel bad for making fun of u now
Right, that was a thing too. Yes, that was my real voice. I don't think it sounds like a frog though. I'm also surprised you found it.
Well it certainly doesn't sound like a serial killer. We know that much.
-
I apologize for missing this - this should have been taken care of a long time ago. Please err on over-reporting than under-reporting - it helps me keep track of what is going on.
-
Even if these things are true, that does not excuse the way he was treated in this thread.
He was treated exactly the same as everyone else, the only difference was how he responded to it.
-
Goon Garden is gone, yet the thread continues. Is there no end??!!
-
Yes, of course. The other guy has said/done one thing wrong, therefore everything I have ever said or will say is 100% guaranteed correct and I can do no wrong!
I'm not sure whom you are accusing of having that attitude.
Among many others...
Even if these things are true, that does not excuse the way he was treated in this thread.
He was treated exactly the same as everyone else, the only difference was how he responded to it.
(btw, the entire point I'm making is that the way we treat everyone should be better) Why is everyone trying so hard to refuse to look critically at the community's behavior here?
Adam, I think nearly everyone who has said anything that Goon Garden took as an attack has apologised, whether or not they intended an attack.
There are five posts in this thread made by three different people. The content of these posts was short, and the entire content of these posts was just to do something that Goon garden specifically asked not to happen. Under no circumstances do I think these posts were appropriate -- they were before Goon Garden said anything that was more offensive than being imprecise about numbers, but after reply 63 when he first complained about the way he was being treated. Personally I don't like that it even got to that point, but the fact that we can't respect the wishes of someone when the ask for that to stop is another level of unpleasantness. I can see how continuing after that point could even be seen as a personal attack.
I can press the report button on those posts, I guess; but I've already stated several times that I don't want to put myself in the middle of this by doing so -- I don't want it publicly known that I don't like the content of these peoples' posts. None of those three people have apologized, and I can't imagine any motives they had for posting what they did other than getting upvotes, and irritating goon garden. People keep denying that this is the case, but just denying that it exists doesn't make it go away.
Meanwhile Goon Garden has flagrantly ignored at least one of these apology posts
(see this:
)
and made some incredibly offensive and inflammatory comments. I don't think a thread-lock or a banning is called for here; things have gotten out of hand only slowly.
But it's fairly clear to me that none of the f.ds regulars came here with the intent to cause offense. The recent posts of GOON GARDEN, however, are completely inexcusable and clearly aimed to hurt and offend.
I don't want to make the assumption that GOON GARDEN is just a troll. If he is then eventually this thread will probably be locked and GOON GARDEN banned. If he is not just a troll, I think several members of the community here have the right to expect a PM'd apology from GOON GARDEN at the very least.
Great, I don't disagree with any of this. OTOH, none of this justifies anything we've said to him that was over the line, and none of this is a reason why we shouldn't look critically at how we treat people around here. Why do we only want people around here to be able to post if they can handle being made fun of and having so much off-topic stuff in their threads?
-
Great, I don't disagree with any of this. OTOH, none of this justifies anything we've said to him that was over the line, and none of this is a reason why we shouldn't look critically at how we treat people around here. Why do we only want people around here to be able to post if they can handle being made fun of and having so much off-topic stuff in their threads?
I think I agree that we need to look critically at how we treat people. But I think that maybe that is best done by individual people looking at themselves rather than washing our dirty laundry in public. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
In any case, while there are always going to be people going too far and the odd person on this forum who pushes the line, I still think that overall this is one of the better Internet communities of its kind.
We can always work to make it better, I agree. But the way you talk sometimes makes me think that you think this community is completely awful and full of horrible people. I'm fairly certain that what you actually mean is that we can always work to improve and be friendlier. But your posts sometimes (not always just sometimes) come across as trying to paint the community as an awful place. It's hard not to respond to that emotively and defensively.
-
Behavior of everyone else in the community aside for a minute, am I the only person who thought GOON GARDEN came across as an arrogant asshole from the first several posts? It wasn't as blatant as it ended up being by page 5 or whatever, but even the OP was coming across as some dude insisting he knows far better than everyone else. People responded to his sweeping generalizations, perhaps a bit harshly I guess, and it went downhill from there. I had some sympathy for GOON GARDEN initially as perhaps he just spoke more authoritatively than he meant to, but he continued to grow more hostile. The first ten replies to this thread seemed perfectly productive, but even in the face of reasonable arguments presented politely he continued to host about how wrong elite players were about this card and how enlightened he was by his Gold strategy.
My point here isn't to avoid looking at ourselves and to improve, but like, this wasn't exactly a model post by a new user, or even a particulately good poster at all. If we weren't sufficiently unwelcoming to a ~12 year old kid with a pathological obsession with the worst card in Dominion, maybe we're not THAT unwelcoming to most people?
-
Even if these things are true, that does not excuse the way he was treated in this thread.
He was treated exactly the same as everyone else, the only difference was how he responded to it.
As someone who is also mostly lurking and only posting occasionally (i.e. I'm somewhat more of an 'outsider' than most in this forum), I feel I should say something on this whole issue.
First, about this forum in general: I think this is a very open and 'liberal' forum with lots of intelligent posts and a very calm and polite tone. Especially considering the very light moderating, which I really enjoy here. From my experience most other forums are either more rigidly moderated or WAY more offensive and unpleasant in terms of manners. As for the content, I feel things get a bit overanalyzed sometimes, but hey, many poeple love to overanalyze and it's a forum. And of course there are casual to silly threads, and OF COURSE there are casual to silly statements in serious threads, but that's all balanced quite well I think. Sure, the call for more seriousness in serious threads is understandable, but a really clean forum would require a very rigid moderating, which would (at least for me) destroy much of what I like about this forum.
Ok, on to this very thread: First, as a mostly-lurker I don't feel repelled by this thread at all. Why should I? What happened here is that someone didn't react well to the - admittedly slightly boorish (is that a word?) - responses of the other users. Maybe the OP is a bit sentimental, maybe he has some personal issues currently, maybe he just doesn't react well to criticism, maybe he's just young. Who knows. And sure, maybe some of the comments by some users were a bit off, but that's the internet. People WILL respond to what you write, and sometimes you won't like it. This forum here is a rather nonchalant environment (in a positive way) - not overly so, but still. If you enter such an environment, you have to live with some nonchalant comments. I don't enter a biker bar and expect to be treated as if it were a posh restaurant. This might be exaggerated, but in essence I think it's true.
On the other hand, if after some dozen postings it is quite clear that the OP is offended or hurt by any of the comments (justified or not), I would just advice to let it go and not repeat the same loop of comment-response-react over and over again.
But as I said, I generally feel that this forum has a very good balance of 'being cool' about stuff while not being offensive. So yeah, in the end I myself probably wrote a posting about an issue I don't really think is worth discussing in great length. But now that it is written anyway, I can just post it as well.
EDIT: Btw, I don't think at all the OP is trolling or whatever. I just think he doesn't react well to criticism, for whatever reason.
-
Why do we only want people around here to be able to post if they can handle being made fun of and having so much off-topic stuff in their threads?
Well, Dominion is a game, and the point is to have fun, and f.ds is a lot of fun, so I guess in the end it's about having fun! Also ironic that the company carrying online Dominion is called "Making Fun"...
But there is a huge difference between belittling mockery and good-natured banter. To some degree this is in the eye of the beholder. That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
Now that actually DID go on in this thread!! And I think most of us can tell that GOON GARDEN pretty much asked for it with his tone. But is that trolling? I take trolling to mean that the whole goal of posting is just to stir the pot and get your jollies getting a bunch of replies when your feelings were never hurt in the first place.
More likely, I think GOON GARDEN actually thought he played a board particularly well, and has a pattern of using BM-style strategies to overcome King's Court, and so concluded that maybe the community overvalues KC. However, instead of presenting it in an inquisitory, hypothesis-generating fashion, came across like he was hot stuff and everyone should lavish him with praise. Not unlike how the infamous ErrinF came across with Dominion: Gunpowder!
I argue that people who are full of themselves, want praise from a community of experts, have an arrogant attitude BUT clearly have no insight as to how their behavior comes across, are in a very dangerous situation. They need to be carefully redirected until they themselves see the error of their ways. Many would argue that sarcasm and even outright put-down is the quickest and best way to that endpoint, and if the person doesn't "get it" and just digs their heels in, well eff them, the rest of us will get a good laugh out of it. I argue (I think in agreement with AdamH?) that a kind approach is better until the person defines themself as truly ill-willed.
In retrospect, GOON GARDEN probably really is ill-willed at heart, but having been in his shoes in other arenas IRL, when blind to how stupidly arrogant you are vis-a-vis the community at whole, all sarcastic responses do is cause you to put up an emotional wall and escalate the situation. Much better is to put the unwritten rules right out there and then maybe a warning if violated beyond that.
And my apologies, this probably should be in General Discussion because it is also off topic related to King's Court. So as an on-topic finisher, I had a game yesterday with a potential engine and looked at and said to myself "self, then engine is too finicky and involves too many Rats, so maybe a modified BM is just better"...and won!! So thanks GOON GARDEN and f.ds for improving my play one game at a time ;D
-
Behavior of everyone else in the community aside for a minute, am I the only person who thought GOON GARDEN came across as an arrogant asshole from the first several posts? It wasn't as blatant as it ended up being by page 5 or whatever, but even the OP was coming across as some dude insisting he knows far better than everyone else. People responded to his sweeping generalizations, perhaps a bit harshly I guess, and it went downhill from there. I had some sympathy for GOON GARDEN initially as perhaps he just spoke more authoritatively than he meant to, but he continued to grow more hostile. The first ten replies to this thread seemed perfectly productive, but even in the face of reasonable arguments presented politely he continued to host about how wrong elite players were about this card and how enlightened he was by his Gold strategy.
My point here isn't to avoid looking at ourselves and to improve, but like, this wasn't exactly a model post by a new user, or even a particulately good poster at all. If we weren't sufficiently unwelcoming to a ~12 year old kid with a pathological obsession with the worst card in Dominion, maybe we're not THAT unwelcoming to most people?
I thought his first post was fine.
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
-
Behavior of everyone else in the community aside for a minute, am I the only person who thought GOON GARDEN came across as an arrogant asshole from like his very first post?
You were not.
In the early 00s, I was a member of another forum. After a few years, a new user appeared whose MO was to say something slightly ill-thought-through, then when people disagreed he would scream that he was being attacked, all the while launching personal attacks at the people who had disagreed with him. He would accuse them of making him ill with their "attacks" and report them to the moderator - who unfortunately was completely taken in. It got worse and worse until the people who still dared to contradict his nonsense started to be blocked, one at a time. I left before he came for me, but I recently had a look back at the forum. Not long afterwards, when the only allowable topic of conversation was how great this guy and his dumb opinions were, the forum was basically a ghost town.
GG and his attitude were very, very familiar.
-
For the record, I'm pretty sure he didn't actually find my Dominion YouTube channel. If you want to find it, you pretty much have to know that it exists, it's not linked anywhere on this forum, and he didn't show up in the real-time Analytics thing on my channel right after he posted that post.
It's also a funny coincidence how he suddenly became sorry for insulting me right after I told him how the vocal sound design was done. ::)
-
Now that actually DID go on in this thread!! And I think most of us can tell that GOON GARDEN pretty much asked for it with his tone. But is that trolling? I take trolling to mean that the whole goal of posting is just to stir the pot and get your jollies getting a bunch of replies when your feelings were never hurt in the first place.
I think trolling is being intentionally inflammatory, where you know people will be upset and start an argument or escalate the existing one.
Just look at how many times he tried to bait people (me, Awaclus, Donald, etc.).
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Sounds fair enough to me, as the perceived victim knows that asking to stop will be effective, and should in most cases evoke a direct apology.
-
Trolling is pretending to be stupid or inflammatory. It's successful trolling when people believe you actually are that stupid or inflammatory.
-
Great, I don't disagree with any of this. OTOH, none of this justifies anything we've said to him that was over the line, and none of this is a reason why we shouldn't look critically at how we treat people around here. Why do we only want people around here to be able to post if they can handle being made fun of and having so much off-topic stuff in their threads?
I think I agree that we need to look critically at how we treat people. But I think that maybe that is best done by individual people looking at themselves rather than washing our dirty laundry in public. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
In any case, while there are always going to be people going too far and the odd person on this forum who pushes the line, I still think that overall this is one of the better Internet communities of its kind.
We can always work to make it better, I agree. But the way you talk sometimes makes me think that you think this community is completely awful and full of horrible people. I'm fairly certain that what you actually mean is that we can always work to improve and be friendlier. But your posts sometimes (not always just sometimes) come across as trying to paint the community as an awful place. It's hard not to respond to that emotively and defensively.
Umm, there are threads in the Feedback board where you can see my frustrations with that. It was shown that my opinion was in the minority and people don't want any form of moderation on any discussion that occurs at F.DS, and while I don't agree with the conclusion or like any of the reasons, that doesn't seem to matter.
I think this is probably the context you're looking for? The point I wanted to make at one point was that moderated discussion would have fixed/prevented this but that's not really relevant to or supported by what this thread turned into. Saying that this whole thing wouldn't have happened if we didn't have the issues we have with off-topic discussion that we have, while I think is a true thing to say, will just fall on deaf ears because it is the consensus that we like our off-topic discussion too much or something. I dunno. Nobody cares about fixing that, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
Or is this about the fact that I'm saying "community" when I'm really just referring to three people who made five posts because I don't want to refer to them by name?
the community as a whole (I guess you could say "everyone else" but that's a slight oversimplification. I will make this slight oversimplification). After reading through the thread again, I saw the same 5+ posts that I was thinking of before that I will continue to not point out.
Is it my lazy terminology on this that is causing confusion?
-
Possibly it's that, Adam, but I didn't really dissect your posts.
I dunno man, it was just how your post felt more than anything. Like it felt like you were accusing everyone. Maybe that sentence did it.
I don't want this to turn in to a massive argument between you and me now. For the most part I agree with you.
-
I get the sense that you're talking about me, and I'm just going to say that I disagree. I don't think I was in any way inappropriate or out of line here. I don't think you agree, and I don't think I'll make you agree, and I don't think you'll make me agree with you.
Not trying to fight you or belittle your opinion; I just don't agree with it.
(Or I could be operating under incorrect assumptions.)
-
Possibly it's that, Adam, but I didn't really dissect your posts.
I dunno man, it was just how your post felt more than anything. Like it felt like you were accusing everyone. Maybe that sentence did it.
I don't want this to turn in to a massive argument between you and me now. For the most part I agree with you.
OK, no problems, I wasn't trying to be argumentative with you. It seemed you just didn't understand what I was trying to say and I was trying to clarify, especially if it was because I was saying something unclearly and being misinterpreted.
<3
-
Possibly it's that, Adam, but I didn't really dissect your posts.
I dunno man, it was just how your post felt more than anything. Like it felt like you were accusing everyone. Maybe that sentence did it.
I don't want this to turn in to a massive argument between you and me now. For the most part I agree with you.
OK, no problems, I wasn't trying to be argumentative with you. It seemed you just didn't understand what I was trying to say and I was trying to clarify, especially if it was because I was saying something unclearly and being misinterpreted.
<3
(Y)
-
I think this is probably the context you're looking for? The point I wanted to make at one point was that moderated discussion would have fixed/prevented this but that's not really relevant to or supported by what this thread turned into. Saying that this whole thing wouldn't have happened if we didn't have the issues we have with off-topic discussion that we have, while I think is a true thing to say, will just fall on deaf ears because it is the consensus that we like our off-topic discussion too much or something. I dunno. Nobody cares about fixing that, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
Moderated discussion would not have fixed/prevented whatever issues GG has in his personal life or changed the fact that he's the type of person who allows himself to have a shitty character by virtue of all the suffering other people have inflicted upon him because nothing is ever his fault so there's no need for him to improve himself or become a stronger person. The witty remarks were what brought that to light now, but from the moment he joined the forums, it was inevitable it would happen sooner or later.
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
I think Infthitbox's surprise was that there is a space between "You look pretty" and physical assault or "Sleep with me or you're fired", and that space is full of things that shouldn't require a "no."
Examples would include even some variations on the first ("Lookin' hot today, baby" is objectively harrassment), but also lewd jokes, variations on "$gender is [crazy|jerks|bitches] because $stereotype", and a host of other things.
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
I think Infthitbox's surprise was that there is a space between "You look pretty" and physical assault or "Sleep with me or you're fired", and that space is full of things that shouldn't require a "no."
Examples would include even some variations on the first ("Lookin' hot today, baby" is objectively harrassment), but also lewd jokes, variations on "$gender is [crazy|jerks|bitches] because $stereotype", and a host of other things.
Chemist is crazy because mercury.
Am I doing it right?
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
I think Infthitbox's surprise was that there is a space between "You look pretty" and physical assault or "Sleep with me or you're fired", and that space is full of things that shouldn't require a "no."
Examples would include even some variations on the first ("Lookin' hot today, baby" is objectively harrassment), but also lewd jokes, variations on "$gender is [crazy|jerks|bitches] because $stereotype", and a host of other things.
Precisely. Maybe its the fact that I work at a college, which has very real, inherent power differences between faculty, students, and administrative staff (the category I'm in), but the tone of our harassment training was very, very different.
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
I think Infthitbox's surprise was that there is a space between "You look pretty" and physical assault or "Sleep with me or you're fired", and that space is full of things that shouldn't require a "no."
Examples would include even some variations on the first ("Lookin' hot today, baby" is objectively harrassment), but also lewd jokes, variations on "$gender is [crazy|jerks|bitches] because $stereotype", and a host of other things.
Chemist is crazy because mercury.
Am I doing it right?
If "chemist" is a valid value for $gender, then we have very different definitions of gender, even counting the realms of extreme gender fluidity.
-
An argument for why this thread should now be locked: the discussion has firmly taken a direction that really should be confined to RSP.
Man, we're so good at staying on topic. This is amazing.
-
Oh man. Are we purposely trying to get this thread locked? Because we can do that. But let's not.
-
Okay - I feel like pointing out what AdamH may be talking about.
Somewhere in the thread GOON GARDEN said "I really don't like it when people pick apart my words. Stop it!"
The next few posts were along the lines of "I don't think it's really your 'words' which we picked apart."
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
-
Maybe too late....
When the only way to get an engine going is to line up KC/KC/Margrave in a single hand in the midst of Mountebank junking you're going to run into trouble. Think of it as needing 3 Treasure Maps in hand to cash in and the only way for you to win is to line them up almost every turn.
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Who is the more jerkish, the jerk or the jerk that follows him?
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Who is the jerkier jerk, the jerk or the jerk that jerks him?
Fixed that for you.
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Who is the more jerkish, the jerk or the jerk that follows him?
If a tree jerks in the forest, and no one hears it, am I still offended?
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Umm, because then we're jerks too?
-
Awaclus may have meant "What's wrong with treating jerks in a manner befitting a jerk?" rather than "What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks ourselves?"
Which is equivalent if you think that the "we" here were being jerks, but Awaclus may not think that.
-
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. The problem with treating a jerk like a jerk is that the person doing the treating is a jerk for treating someone like a jerk. How can someone be treated like a jerk without someone treating them like a jerk?
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Umm, because then we're jerks too?
I completely agree with this.
-
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. The problem with treating a jerk like a jerk is that the person doing the treating is a jerk for treating someone like a jerk. How can someone be treated like a jerk without someone treating them like a jerk?
No, I mean, the difference between the implied "like *they are*" vs. "like *we are*" in "like a jerk". As in, you think a jerk should be treated in a certain manner. (Say, take their toy away and put them in time-out.)
Edit: In other words, he may have been saying "Treat them like they deserve to be treated", which may not necessarily mean to be a jerk yourself.
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
If revenge is what you're interested in, I know a great website....
-
Awaclus may have meant "What's wrong with treating jerks in a manner befitting a jerk?" rather than "What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks ourselves?"
Which is equivalent if you think that the "we" here were being jerks, but Awaclus may not think that.
That's what I meant, yes.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. The problem with treating a jerk like a jerk is that the person doing the treating is a jerk for treating someone like a jerk. How can someone be treated like a jerk without someone treating them like a jerk?
I don't think you're a jerk for treating someone the way they deserve to be treated. Even if that does count as being a jerk, who cares?
-
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Umm, because then we're jerks too?
To add to this, I think the more significant problem is that it escalates things. I think this thread is a great example of that. GG may have started with what some read as an arrogant position, but the course of the thread led to him saying hateful offensive things. That's a lot worse.
Also, how is treating jerks as jerks productive? I guess it maybe "reveals" the true jerkiness of the OP, but I don't find that particularly valuable for him or for us. I definitely don't think this means we need to be accepting of jerky behavior, but I believe we can address that behavior without taunting or antagonizing them.
For what it's worth (if anything). I want to point out that I completely disagree with Adam in regard to off-topic chatter (I like it, and actually think it can be productive and even facilitate more dominion strategy discussion), but I think he's right here in regard to the way that people sort of kept pushing GG.
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
If revenge is what you're interested in, I know a great website....
To go with this thread, presumably it's revengemountebank.com or revengemargrave.com
This sort of purposeful taunting is not the way we should treat people even when we know they are jerks.
Why not? What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks?
Umm, because then we're jerks too?
I completely agree with this.
Me too. The best way to treat a jerk is to ignore his antics.
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
If revenge is what you're interested in, I know a great website....
The moment I learned of its existence I signed up for a lifetime subscription.
-
Awaclus may have meant "What's wrong with treating jerks in a manner befitting a jerk?" rather than "What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks ourselves?"
Which is equivalent if you think that the "we" here were being jerks, but Awaclus may not think that.
That's what I meant, yes.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. The problem with treating a jerk like a jerk is that the person doing the treating is a jerk for treating someone like a jerk. How can someone be treated like a jerk without someone treating them like a jerk?
I don't think you're a jerk for treating someone the way they deserve to be treated. Even if that does count as being a jerk, who cares?
OK then, everybody treats everyone like jerks and everyone in the world is a jerk. That's not a good thing. It tends to escalate tiny situations that can happen between normal, reasonable people and can be defused into huge arguments where bad words are said and feelings a hurt. It's also hard to talk about Dominion when that happens.
A better option would be to either be nice to him and hope he responds by being nice back, or press the "report to moderator" button and let the "system work."
PPE: ninja'd
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
Assuming of course that the "someone" is aware that they are being given a taste of their own medicine instead of just being cruelly denied the words of affirmation that they are fishing for. I'm convinced that people like GG often completely lack insight into the nature of the responses they are being given.
-
Awaclus may have meant "What's wrong with treating jerks in a manner befitting a jerk?" rather than "What's wrong with treating jerks like jerks ourselves?"
Which is equivalent if you think that the "we" here were being jerks, but Awaclus may not think that.
That's what I meant, yes.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. The problem with treating a jerk like a jerk is that the person doing the treating is a jerk for treating someone like a jerk. How can someone be treated like a jerk without someone treating them like a jerk?
I don't think you're a jerk for treating someone the way they deserve to be treated. Even if that does count as being a jerk, who cares?
OK then, everybody treats everyone like jerks and everyone in the world is a jerk. That's not a good thing. It tends to escalate tiny situations that can happen between normal, reasonable people and can be defused into huge arguments where bad words are said and feelings a hurt. It's also hard to talk about Dominion when that happens.
A better option would be to either be nice to him and hope he responds by being nice back, or press the "report to moderator" button and let the "system work."
PPE: ninja'd
First, I'm going to mention the semantics involved here. "Treat [subtype] the way [subtype] should be treated" does not necessarily equate to "Treat [subtype] as though you are [subtype] yourself."
I know, on a personal level, that I will be kind to a person and try to redirect their actions until a point where they simply are not "getting it" and then I change my tactic to approach it from a direction that would seem more aggressive. Now, this may not be in good taste from an objective point of view. On the other hand, do we continue to reward someone's behavior by pretending they are not acting poorly?
I actually appreciate the majority of self-moderation that goes on within F.DS as opposed to the legalistic moderation approach on so many other message boards. Sometimes this comes with things going out of hand, in which case a moderator will need to step in. Other times the problem corrects itself with either a new useful member to to community or it prevents a bad member from gaining a stronger foothold.
Some people feel they are entitled to special treatment, unfortunately. These people often need the "rude awakening" to see why this is often not the case.
-
To add to this, I think the more significant problem is that it escalates things. I think this thread is a great example of that. GG may have started with what some read as an arrogant position, but the course of the thread led to him saying hateful offensive things. That's a lot worse.
Also, how is treating jerks as jerks productive? I guess it maybe "reveals" the true jerkiness of the OP, but I don't find that particularly valuable for him or for us. I definitely don't think this means we need to be accepting of jerky behavior, but I believe we can address that behavior without taunting or antagonizing them.
For what it's worth (if anything). I want to point out that I completely disagree with Adam in regard to off-topic chatter (I like it, and actually think it can be productive and even facilitate more dominion strategy discussion), but I think he's right here in regard to the way that people sort of kept pushing GG.
OK then, everybody treats everyone like jerks and everyone in the world is a jerk. That's not a good thing. It tends to escalate tiny situations that can happen between normal, reasonable people and can be defused into huge arguments where bad words are said and feelings a hurt. It's also hard to talk about Dominion when that happens.
A better option would be to either be nice to him and hope he responds by being nice back, or press the "report to moderator" button and let the "system work."
PPE: ninja'd
I feel like it was mostly me who led to him saying hateful offensive things. If there's a problem with how I treated him, I'm curious to hear what it was.
-
For the record, I'm pretty sure he didn't actually find my Dominion YouTube channel. If you want to find it, you pretty much have to know that it exists, it's not linked anywhere on this forum, and he didn't show up in the real-time Analytics thing on my channel right after he posted that post.
It's also a funny coincidence how he suddenly became sorry for insulting me right after I told him how the vocal sound design was done. ::)
I disagree... if you Google your username, it comes right up. I remember checking out one of your videos once. Don't remember which one. But you do have a distinct voice which from what GOONS said I would guess he actually heard.
-
If "chemist" is a valid value for $gender, then we have very different definitions of gender, even counting the realms of extreme gender fluidity.
Whenever I have to fill out "Male/Female" on a form, I put "Math". This explains a lot of the confused looks I get.
-
I disagree... if you Google your username, it comes right up. I remember checking out one of your videos once. Don't remember which one. But you do have a distinct voice which from what GOONS said I would guess he actually heard.
Really? If I Google myself on incognito mode, it's not on the first 15 pages, and if I search awaclus on YT, it is on the bottom of the first page, way below my main YouTube channel which is the first result in both cases. It's not above my main YT channel, is it?
-
I disagree... if you Google your username, it comes right up. I remember checking out one of your videos once. Don't remember which one. But you do have a distinct voice which from what GOONS said I would guess he actually heard.
Really? If I Google myself on incognito mode, it's not on the first 15 pages, and if I search awaclus on YT, it is on the bottom of the first page, way below my main YouTube channel which is the first result in both cases. It's not above my main YT channel, is it?
Just checked incognito mode to be sure. First result is "Awaclus - YouTube". Second result is "Awaclus/Dominion - YouTube".
-
Just checked incognito mode to be sure. First result is "Awaclus - YouTube". Second result is "Awaclus/Dominion - YouTube".
Oh shit. Thanks for pointing that out. In that case, I guess he could have possibly seen one of my videos earlier (enough to not show up on the real time analytics).
-
I feel like it was mostly me who led to him saying hateful offensive things. If there's a problem with how I treated him, I'm curious to hear what it was.
Actually, I don't think you really did much of anything that seemed overly antagonistic. Although some of his most offensive points were in response to your comments, I think by that point he was in full on troll mode and actively trying to get himself banned and would have responded to anyone like that no matter their tone or content. In a quick skim through your posts on this thread I generally think you were a good example of how to engage him without egging him on.
To be fair, I also don't think it was one particular person who further antagonized GG. But I can see how someone like him saw this as a bunch of people ganging up on him. In the scheme of things, I thought this thread was fairly civil on the f.ds side of things. It's just that I think the level of civility might be lower than most people think. Like by 12% ;)
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
There's a group I know you could join if this is your fulfilment in life. I think the name is something with lots of Is and Ses...
-
First, I'm going to mention the semantics involved here. "Treat [subtype] the way [subtype] should be treated" does not necessarily equate to "Treat [subtype] as though you are [subtype] yourself."
I agree with you so hard, that's exactly why I think we should treat people who are being jerks like we are nice people! It's so good!
I feel like it was mostly me who led to him saying hateful offensive things. If there's a problem with how I treated him, I'm curious to hear what it was.
You are not one of the three people who made the 5 posts I don't like, actually. On the other hand (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I could totally be putting words in your mouth) it seems like you don't have any problem with anyone's posts in this thread other than goon garden, right? Would you also say that even if we treated him in a way that would normally be objectionable, that it would be justified because of something that he did?
If you think either of those things, then I'd disagree with you. I'd also be surprised if there weren't many other people reading this and posting in this thread that thought either of those things. I'd disagree with them too.
In any case, maybe this disagreement is what you're feeling?
-
Few things in life are more delightful than giving someone a taste of his own medicine. There is a reason revenge is deemed sweet.
There's a group I know you could join if this is your fulfilment in life. I think the name is something with lots of Is and Ses...
The Mississippi Sissies?
-
You are not one of the three people who made the 5 posts I don't like, actually. On the other hand (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I could totally be putting words in your mouth) it seems like you don't have any problem with anyone's posts in this thread other than goon garden, right?
Right.
Would you also say that even if we treated him in a way that would normally be objectionable, that it would be justified because of something that he did?
I would rather say that it wouldn't have to be justified, considering what he did.
-
If Awaclus isn't one of them, I think that makes me one of them. Which is true, I could've been far more respectful. But I did apologize at least once, maybe I did twice. But I'm not going to reread and look for it.
-
If Awaclus isn't one of them, I think that makes me one of them. Which is true, I could've been far more respectful. But J did apologize at least once, maybe I did twice. But I'm not going to reread and look for it.
Nope, not you either!
I should probably stop commenting on these though. Eventually you'll POE into something.
You are not one of the three people who made the 5 posts I don't like, actually. On the other hand (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I could totally be putting words in your mouth) it seems like you don't have any problem with anyone's posts in this thread other than goon garden, right?
Right.
Would you also say that even if we treated him in a way that would normally be objectionable, that it would be justified because of something that he did?
I would rather say that it wouldn't have to be justified, considering what he did.
OK then. I super-disagree with you. I really think you should reconsider these views you have. I know you won't, but I think a lot more people would like you and it would reflect better on the community (and you too) if you did.
-
I have just recently (I think it was this year, but could have been late December) reconsidered my views and slightly changed them, too. But the view that each individual should be responsible solely for getting the best possible outcome for themselves is just so good it's going to take a lot of really compelling arguments to change that. Even this whole thread is a very good example of why that is the case — when you have the following views:
- when you disagree with someone, it's the other person's fault for being a person who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing
- when you derail your own thread, it was the "trolls" who derailed it
- when you're posting stupid and offensive stuff on the Internet it's the fault of a lot of negative crap in your life coming up to the surface on its own without you having any influence on it at all
- when people have actual data showing that you've been more rude and insulting than the other posters after you've accused the others of being rude and insulting, your being rude and insulting is also a direct consequence of the (non-existent) rudeness and insults by the other people and you were completely devoid of any agency on that matter and the person collecting the data is also at fault for going through all that trouble just to have one more thing to scold you for
- when you don't have data about the subject you're making a thread on and you make estimates as a substitute, and a bit later someone (presumably the first person who still remembered where that data was) comes and has the relevant data, all of your false estimates were false because other people didn't tell you you could have looked up the data yourself
, you tend to cause shitstorms and get banned. And the next time you join a forum, it's going to happen again because somehow after the last incident, the other people haven't managed to improve themselves so that they could cater to you. Feeling entitled to certain kind of special treatment from other people causes trouble for the people around you, not receiving that special treatment causes you to hold stupid grudges against people, perceivably not being able to influence things in your own life is very unsatisfying and things suck for yourself and everyone involved.
If I'm participating in a discussion online with someone who disagrees with me even though I don't like it, it's my own fault for participating in it. If I derail a thread that I'd rather not have derailed, it's my own fault. If people call me out on posting stupid stuff on the Internet, it's my own fault, and if a lot of negative crap is going on in my life, that's also my own fault. Even if people were being rude and insulting towards me, that would be my own fault for not deserving better treatment, and taking offense from lighthearted jokes would most certainly be my own fault. Then I can learn from the experience, become a better person, and hopefully next time things will work out better.
As it turns out, with these views, I managed to have this discussion without appearing overly antagonistic while thoroughly enjoying the entire thread. I've also been under the impression that most people who are important to me actually do like me, and I don't really see how it would make them like me more if I stopped intentionally trying to be a person that they would like and started demanding that they have to do their best to be the kind of people that I like instead.
-
I think you're getting this backwards. What Adam and other are saying is not that we should have granted Goon Garden some kind of special treatment, but instead that we should have given him the same treatment we would have given anyone else. Now you might say that we did, and there might be an argument for that, but that is not the argument you are making now.
-
If I'm participating in a discussion online with someone who disagrees with me even though I don't like it, it's my own fault for participating in it. If I derail a thread that I'd rather not have derailed, it's my own fault. If people call me out on posting stupid stuff on the Internet, it's my own fault, and if a lot of negative crap is going on in my life, that's also my own fault. Even if people were being rude and insulting towards me, that would be my own fault for not deserving better treatment, and taking offense from lighthearted jokes would most certainly be my own fault. Then I can learn from the experience, become a better person, and hopefully next time things will work out better.
And, by the way, while there is certainly merit in asking what you yourself could have done to prevent bad stuff happening to you, this line of thought is what drives people into depression and suicide, particularly the bolded part.
-
I really like f.ds and the community as it is.
The only room for improvement I see is if everyone stopped telling other people how to behave.
-
I really like f.ds and the community as it is.
The only room for improvement I see is if everyone stopped telling other people how to behave.
YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!!!
-
I really like f.ds and the community as it is.
The only room for improvement I see is if everyone stopped telling other people how to behave.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
-
and the quips really tie the threads together.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
-
This thread is amazing!
Come on guys, let's keep this thing rolling 8)
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
I guess that means that the mafia games over at funeralstrategy.com must be really boring.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
That didn't look like a joke. That's the first thing anyone besides Goon Garden has said that I would've been offended by.
-
I really like f.ds and the community as it is.
The only room for improvement I see is if everyone stopped telling other people how to behave.
YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!!!
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
But you can tell the same joke twice. Except the first time WW used the meme, the second time he just made the qoute.
Either way, +1 for the archer reference.
-
This thread is amazing!
Come on guys, let's keep this thing rolling 8)
It's far less amazing than people think. I'd say it's only 90-93% amazing.
-
This thread is amazing!
Come on guys, let's keep this thing rolling 8)
It's far less amazing than people think. I'd say it's only 90-93% amazing.
I give it a 5/7.
-
This thread is amazing!
Come on guys, let's keep this thing rolling 8)
It's far less amazing than people think. I'd say it's only 90-93% amazing.
I give it a 5/7.
Is that a Margrave/KC joke?
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes: Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.
-
And, by the way, while there is certainly merit in asking what you yourself could have done to prevent bad stuff happening to you, this line of thought is what drives people into depression and suicide, particularly the bolded part.
Then that's also their own fault. It's certainly not driving me into depression or suicide.
-
And, by the way, while there is certainly merit in asking what you yourself could have done to prevent bad stuff happening to you, this line of thought is what drives people into depression and suicide, particularly the bolded part.
Then that's also their own fault. It's certainly not driving me into depression or suicide.
Uh....
Okay, I wasn't going to post in this thread, but now it's on a different topic. I'm going to spell out my position in great detail and then go back to lurking this thread.
1. You can be healthy mentally even when you're hard on yourself. (aka, what faust said)
2. That being said, people who suffer from depression or have suicidal thoughts are almost always very self-critical, to the point of blaming themselves for things out of their control. The drive for suicide isn't "Fuck you world! You don't deserve me!", it's "I don't matter, I've always messed up, my friends and family would be happier if I was dead"
3. Clinical depression is not something you can just break out of. This is why antidepressants are a thing. When I think depression, I mean clinical depression. If you're just sad for a day or a week, it means something shitty happened and you got over it with time. That doesn't always happen.
4. Telling a depressed person that it's their fault they're making themselves sad by self-critiquing themselves so much is probably the worst thing you can say to that person. Like, by far, because you're reinforcing their viewpoint and making the depression worse.
5. This is not saying you're doing that now because presumably faust is not depressed. I'm saying this is a very bad mindset to have if you're dealing with someone who suffers from depression, and that you really really shouldn't think this way if you do meet one of those people.
6. This is also not saying you should stop thinking in this way about yourself. If you can take it, I don't see anything wrong with your position, as long as you recognize that it could lead to making yourself depressed if you go too far.
Unsolicited life advisor, checking out. (Hopefully this is better advice than the Dominion advisor.)
Edit:
The corollary is that if someone says they're not feeling great, you should let up on the criticism and tell them to take a break, like many people in this thread did. They may or may not have suicidal thoughts, but it's better to be safe. If they keep posting afterwards, then they're either trolling or actually can't stop for some pathological reason. The proper response in both cases is to stop replying. Of course this doesn't actually happen because the bait is too tempting, but maybe we'll get there someday. Or not.
-
2. That being said, people who suffer from depression or have suicidal thoughts are almost always very self-critical, to the point of blaming themselves for things out of their control.
You don't have to blame yourself for things completely out of your control, but you should still be the only person responsible for getting the best possible outcome for yourself under the circumstances that you have. Suicide is probably not the best possible outcome for you.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
That didn't look like a joke. That's the first thing anyone besides Goon Garden has said that I would've been offended by.
I'm not that offended, but I am pretty confused. The last time someone told me I'm going to hell was by some kind of religious nut.
Hell seems like a suboptimal place to be. It's a pretty severe punishment, whether it's for not believing in Jesus or for pointing out on a forum that there will always be drama as long as the forum lives.
The joke might be that by telling me I'm going to hell, I am now included in this forum's drama. But that would be a pretty lame joke.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
That didn't look like a joke. That's the first thing anyone besides Goon Garden has said that I would've been offended by.
I'm not that offended, but I am pretty confused. The last time someone told me I'm going to hell was by some kind of religious nut.
Hell seems like a suboptimal place to be. It's a pretty severe punishment, whether it's for not believing in Jesus or for pointing out on a forum that there will always be drama as long as the forum lives.
The joke might be that by telling me I'm going to hell, I am now included in this forum's drama. But that would be a pretty lame joke.
Maybe he wasn't referring to the Christian hell and the hell he mentioned is a nice place?
-
Oh, I didn't see you edit. That must be the joke!
-
I think invoking Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes applies in this case.
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
That didn't look like a joke. That's the first thing anyone besides Goon Garden has said that I would've been offended by.
I'm not that offended, but I am pretty confused. The last time someone told me I'm going to hell was by some kind of religious nut.
Hell seems like a suboptimal place to be. It's a pretty severe punishment, whether it's for not believing in Jesus or for pointing out on a forum that there will always be drama as long as the forum lives.
The joke might be that by telling me I'm going to hell, I am now included in this forum's drama. But that would be a pretty lame joke.
Okay so I was responding to your statement that all forums have drama with nothing but an inflammatory and offensive remark, thereby causing drama. They can't all be the best one-liner ever. After all, check my signature.
Maybe just a "No it isn't", leading into an argument, would have been better.
-
would be a pretty lame joke.
<3
-
would be a pretty lame joke.
<3
<3
I decided to return the favor.
-
This thread is amazing!
Come on guys, let's keep this thing rolling 8)
It's far less amazing than people think. I'd say it's only 90-93% amazing.
I give it a 5/7.
Is that a Margrave/KC joke?
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes: Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/5-7
http://imgur.com/gallery/6xkzh
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
That didn't look like a joke. That's the first thing anyone besides Goon Garden has said that I would've been offended by.
I'm not that offended, but I am pretty confused. The last time someone told me I'm going to hell was by some kind of religious nut.
Hell seems like a suboptimal place to be. It's a pretty severe punishment, whether it's for not believing in Jesus or for pointing out on a forum that there will always be drama as long as the forum lives.
The joke might be that by telling me I'm going to hell, I am now included in this forum's drama. But that would be a pretty lame joke.
Okay so I was responding to your statement that all forums have drama with nothing but an inflammatory and offensive remark, thereby causing drama. They can't all be the best one-liner ever. After all, check my signature.
Maybe just a "No it isn't", leading into an argument, would have been better.
I made pretty much the exact same joke last month, and it failed in pretty much the same way:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14325.msg548259#msg548259
-
2. That being said, people who suffer from depression or have suicidal thoughts are almost always very self-critical, to the point of blaming themselves for things out of their control.
You don't have to blame yourself for things completely out of your control, but you should still be the only person responsible for getting the best possible outcome for yourself under the circumstances that you have. Suicide is probably not the best possible outcome for you.
You're coming at this with a rational perspective. The point is that depression isn't rational or something you just decide. It's an illness. Would you go up to someone with cancer and say, "man, just stop having cancer"?
-
So I don't know any of you guys well enough to participate in this discussion, but I do want to add the following.
There is no forum without drama, except for a dead forum. It's a fact of life.
You go to hell, sir.
Where did that come from?
You can't explain your own joke. It's against the bylaws.
That didn't look like a joke. That's the first thing anyone besides Goon Garden has said that I would've been offended by.
I'm not that offended, but I am pretty confused. The last time someone told me I'm going to hell was by some kind of religious nut.
Hell seems like a suboptimal place to be. It's a pretty severe punishment, whether it's for not believing in Jesus or for pointing out on a forum that there will always be drama as long as the forum lives.
The joke might be that by telling me I'm going to hell, I am now included in this forum's drama. But that would be a pretty lame joke.
Okay so I was responding to your statement that all forums have drama with nothing but an inflammatory and offensive remark, thereby causing drama. They can't all be the best one-liner ever. After all, check my signature.
Maybe just a "No it isn't", leading into an argument, would have been better.
I made pretty much the exact same joke last month, and it failed in pretty much the same way:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14325.msg548259#msg548259
We're clearly just on another level from the rest of the forum.
-
2. That being said, people who suffer from depression or have suicidal thoughts are almost always very self-critical, to the point of blaming themselves for things out of their control.
You don't have to blame yourself for things completely out of your control, but you should still be the only person responsible for getting the best possible outcome for yourself under the circumstances that you have. Suicide is probably not the best possible outcome for you.
You're coming at this with a rational perspective. The point is that depression isn't rational or something you just decide. It's an illness. Would you go up to someone with cancer and say, "man, just stop having cancer"?
(http://www.robot-hugs.com/comics/2013-11-21-Helpful%20Advice.png)
-
You're coming at this with a rational perspective. The point is that depression isn't rational or something you just decide. It's an illness. Would you go up to someone with cancer and say, "man, just stop having cancer"?
No. I might go to someone with lung cancer and say "man, maybe you shouldn't have smoked three packs of cigarettes every day for the past 40 years", though. Just because you can't make your situation better now doesn't mean you never had a chance to influence it.
-
You're coming at this with a rational perspective. The point is that depression isn't rational or something you just decide. It's an illness. Would you go up to someone with cancer and say, "man, just stop having cancer"?
No. I might go to someone with lung cancer and say "man, maybe you shouldn't have smoked three packs of cigarettes every day for the past 40 years", though. Just because you can't make your situation better now doesn't mean you never had a chance to influence it.
I do not recommend this course of action.
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
I think Infthitbox's surprise was that there is a space between "You look pretty" and physical assault or "Sleep with me or you're fired", and that space is full of things that shouldn't require a "no."
Examples would include even some variations on the first ("Lookin' hot today, baby" is objectively harrassment), but also lewd jokes, variations on "$gender is [crazy|jerks|bitches] because $stereotype", and a host of other things.
Also: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/articles/2016-01-04/6-casually-sexist-things-to-stop-saying-at-work
-
That's why during sexual harassment education (mandatory for my workplace), it's only harassment if it continues after the person has requested the behavior to stop.
At the risk of making possibly the most off-topic post in this thread, really?!
Well, if you tell a woman that she's pretty and/or ask her out on a date and she says no and you drop it, is that harassment? No. Might she still feel intimidated or put off, especially if there exists a power gradient in the workplace between you and she? Yes. But it still wouldn't fly in court as sexual harassment because she said no and you stopped. It's the repetitive annoyance or attempt to intimidate that leads to problems. This is known as the "hostile environment" definition. True "quid pro quo" (i.e. sleep with me or you're fired) is actually quite rare.
I think Infthitbox's surprise was that there is a space between "You look pretty" and physical assault or "Sleep with me or you're fired", and that space is full of things that shouldn't require a "no."
Examples would include even some variations on the first ("Lookin' hot today, baby" is objectively harrassment), but also lewd jokes, variations on "$gender is [crazy|jerks|bitches] because $stereotype", and a host of other things.
Also: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/articles/2016-01-04/6-casually-sexist-things-to-stop-saying-at-work
I just model my behavior after Douglas Reynholm from The IT Crowd.
-
Staying on topic is strictly better than going off topic...
Edit: Wait, wrong thread :P
-
Staying on topic is strictly better than going off topic...
Staying on topic is far more skippable than people think.
-
i'm excited to watch this thread slowly wither away and die
-
I'd be much more interested to see it experience a sudden and violent death.
-
I'd be much more interested to see it experience a sudden and violent death.
For that, we'd need some gunpowder...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MhAmmge-Xk