RE: Limit Theory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Kayoz -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 5:09:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
and STFU


Addendum:

I think this bothered me the most. You think that people who disagree with you can be intimidated or abused into silence. By your argument, those who don't hold your position have no right to speak.

That's fundamentally against the most basic principles of a forum. Matrix has been consistent in allowing people to discuss pretty much anything, so long as they refrain from profanity or outright abuse. You however, disagree with this principle. You think that people who can't meet your arbitrary and absurd standards of reasonableness, should be silenced.

That's not going to happen.



warspite1 -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 6:08:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
and STFU


Addendum:

I think this bothered me the most. You think that people who disagree with you can be intimidated or abused into silence. By your argument, those who don't hold your position have no right to speak.

That's fundamentally against the most basic principles of a forum. Matrix has been consistent in allowing people to discuss pretty much anything, so long as they refrain from profanity or outright abuse. You however, disagree with this principle. You think that people who can't meet your arbitrary and absurd standards of reasonableness, should be silenced.

That's not going to happen.

warspite1

quote:

20 year old kid with no experience, no track record, nothing more than an inflated ego and immense hubris.

Unless this guy was secretly cloned from brain tissue samples of Sid Meyer, Julain Gollop and Ian Bell - I'd say the likelihood of his coming anything close to expectation is pretty minimal.


Whilst I agree that STFU is somewhat industrial, unpleasant even, though sadly hardly uncommon nowadays, do you not think that this thread - which has essentially been a put down and slating of the efforts of one guy to produce a game - has been, in its own way - equally unpleasant?

Take your opening gambit (above). Hubris and inflated ego. Hardly kind was it? Followed by:

quote:

Limit Theory project is a sad and pathetic thing.


and then of course there was

quote:

That's the difference between a university drop-out hack and professionals.


Fair enough, you think that Limit Theory:

- is under resourced
- is being programmed by someone not up to the job
- has deadlines that have been and will continue to be missed
- isn't going to happen - or if it does it will be fall way short of initial expectations.

Yep, been there, heard that and you know what? You may be right on some or all accounts. But why not just give the guy a break and instead of coming on here and slaughtering him and his project ad infinitum, why not go and do something positive?

I was involved in the MWIF project for more years than I care to remember. We had people that loved to tell everyone how the project would never see the light of day and how clever they were for "knowing that" or if it didn't happen it would not be what was promised blah blah. Fair enough they were entitled to their opinion and expressed it. But for some - few I'm pleased to say - they couldn't let it go and coming onto the forum to spout their bile became a religion.

There were a lot of people - 99% of whom were unpaid - who were working in their own small way (and still are) to help that project along, and reading the constant sniping and carping just got wearing - it wasn't positive, it didn't help, it didn't make the economics of the situation any easier, it doesn't get the project finished faster - it was just unhelpful. And when those comments turned into attacks on the programmer and even the unpaid beta testers, then..... well its just not needed. The economics were not going to change, there was no magic wand, so if they were that certain it was going to be a disaster then why not just walk away and find another game to, you know, play?

So I must ask, what is your goal here? So you can tell everyone how right you were if the project fails or at least fails to deliver on all its promises? But if so, you've made your point - why continue to wee on someone else's fireworks? Why have you chosen this guy and this game to get really in a lather about? Maybe you have invested money in the project - in which case I can see why you are not happy, but otherwise?

Just curious, although this comment from you may give a clue as to your motivation:

quote:

My position is now one of glee. Much like the sense of excitement one gets in watching a slow-motion video of a traffic accident.


Nice..



Icemania -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 7:42:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Matrix has been consistent in allowing people to discuss pretty much anything, so long as they refrain from profanity or outright abuse.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Your externalization of your own self-loathing and sexual confusion isn't helping your argument.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'm sure you can find a public toilet frequented by people who will be happy to service your needs.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Really, it's getting rather tedious to go round and round with a crazy person...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Your statements come across as distinctly sociopathic...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
If that isn't a clear sign of insanity, I'm not sure what is.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I think the question of "crazy" has been suitably demonstrated.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
You just made a crazy statement.

You just asked yourself a question from a quote from yourself. That's not crazy?

"Replaying or rehearsing conversations out loud- i.e. talking to yourself (very common sign)" - from schizophrenia.com


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I call crazy where I see crazy. Your conversation with yourself is schizophrenic as far as I can see.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
From what I can gather from your statements, Icey, you come from North Korea or some such place. How's your beloved leader these days?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
or are you trying to start a flame war by going full retard on me?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
That would be yet another lie.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
If you were less of a twat, you'd have taken advantage of his comments to educate yourself.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Hi Kayoz,

Your recent reaction to my request to tone it down has resulted in an official warning. We issue one warning, after that a poster is banned for a period until they acknowledge they can abide by the forum rules. Current politics and religion are also discouraged on this forum, as they tend to create friction whereas the point of these forums is to share our common interest in gaming. There are other places to discuss the more touchy subjects that sometimes divide us.


What on earth is it going to take before Kayoz is permanently banned?



Kayoz -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 9:20:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

What on earth is it going to take before Kayoz is permanently banned?



Interesting how you didn't quote the people I was replying to. Such as the racist screwball who called for the murder of children.

Interesting indeed.



Kayoz -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 9:34:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I was involved in the MWIF project for more years than I care to remember.
...

There were a lot of people - 99% of whom were unpaid - who were working in their own small way (and still are) to help that project along


One question to put this in context:

How much money did those running the project get from Kickstarter or other crowd-funding sources? How many people were put out of pocket? (it's a 2-parter question)

I think it's an absolutely critical question before any comparison can be made between MWIF (no idea what that is) and LT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So I must ask, what is your goal here?


To add a voice of reason to the debate. Too much uncritical promotion by Josh and his fan-boys. To anyone without a background in software development, it colours the debate unfairly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Nice..


Schadenfreude. It's a word that encompasses the sentiment you pointed to quite nicely.



warspite1 -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 10:36:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I was involved in the MWIF project for more years than I care to remember.
...

There were a lot of people - 99% of whom were unpaid - who were working in their own small way (and still are) to help that project along


One question to put this in context:

How much money did those running the project get from Kickstarter or other crowd-funding sources? How many people were put out of pocket? (it's a 2-parter question)

I think it's an absolutely critical question before any comparison can be made between MWIF (no idea what that is) and LT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So I must ask, what is your goal here?


To add a voice of reason to the debate. Too much uncritical promotion by Josh and his fan-boys. To anyone without a background in software development, it colours the debate unfairly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Nice..


Schadenfreude. It's a word that encompasses the sentiment you pointed to quite nicely.
warspite1

quote:

One question to put this in context:

How much money did those running the project get from Kickstarter or other crowd-funding sources? How many people were put out of pocket? (it's a 2-parter question)

I think it's an absolutely critical question before any comparison can be made between MWIF (no idea what that is) and LT.


What MWIF is, is unimportant because the point was simply that I can relate what is happening with Limit Theory with a personal experience with MWIF, the way certain people acted on internet forums, and how it is a pretty unpleasant situation to be in.

The reason why these two are comparable, in my view, is that they are/were a) long on fanfare and anticipation (in the case of MWIF it was because it is based on one of, if not the greatest board games ever devised) b) they are both very challenging projects (I am taking that comment for LT from what has been written as I have no personal knowledge) c) both overdue in being launched, and d) considered, by some, to be under-resourced (for whatever reason – but essentially the programmer resource).

However, re your first question, the matter of finance for the project is not really the point. How the MWIF project was financed between ADG (board game makers), Matrix and the Programmer is something I know nothing about. Its immaterial what the funding position is because Kickstarter and other similar schemes are designed to back new ideas and get them off the drawing board. But like any such investment type they are not guaranteed. People have invested having made their decision on what is best for them and their money. If you have invested in this project then I guess it was just a bad investment wasn’t it (assuming you are right of course) and people should be more careful in what they invest in? If you haven’t invested then you are in no different a position to those who vented their bile on the MWIF forum.

You say, all-knowing, that those who have invested are “out of pocket”. But you do not KNOW that. Maybe they will be, maybe not – only the future can tell (or is there a time limit, beyond which the investment gets no return regardless how successful the game is?).
Guess what? You may be wrong, just as those who came on the MWIF forum and confidently stated – yes stated as fact - that MWIF would never be launched, were wrong.

quote:

To add a voice of reason to the debate. Too much uncritical promotion by Josh and his fan-boys. To anyone without a background in software development, it colours the debate unfairly.


Fair enough, and you have made your feelings clear, but I ask again, why is it of such concern to you that you feel you have to come on here and slaughter the guy and his project – continually - and in so doing have been not overly pleasant, as pointed out earlier (but get all upset if someone is unpleasant to you)?

Do not get me wrong, I know nothing of Josh Parnell or his project (apart from what I have gleaned from this thread and the website link). I make no comment about who is right or wrong (or likely to be, because no one knows). But you have made your point and now it just feels like some kind of vendetta against the guy, and I was just curious as to your motivation.

quote:

Schadenfreude.


Okay, that probably answers my only real question here – your motivation. Basically it’s just to kick the guy and his project and prove you are right – all for the feeling of Schadenfreude it gives you.



Kayoz -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 10:59:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
re your first question, the matter of finance for the project is not really the point


No, I disagree. I believe it's critically important.

If it's a private company giving the developer money based on their agreed goals and budgeting, then that's a decision made by professionals who understand the factors involved. Most people contributing to Kickstarter don't have that sort of knowledge and expertise to make an informed decision.

I don't think it's my place to question how a publisher chooses to invest it's own money. They're professionals and their decisions will pay off - or not - and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You say, all-knowing, that those who have invested are “out of pocket”. But you do not KNOW that.


Yes, I do know. They're out of pocket now. The money has gone to Josh. Whether or not they see a return on their expenditure is not salient to the phrase.

Ex: If I pay for parking "out of pocket" - and land a large sale reaping a juicy commission as a result, that commission doesn't make the parking any more or less "out of pocket".

"out of pocket" = "paid out or owed in cash; necessitating an expenditure of cash"

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
stated as fact - that MWIF would never be launched, were wrong.


Irrelevant. I had nothing to do with that and have no means of judging the accuracy of your remarks, since I have no idea what it is you're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
why is it of such concern to you that you feel you have to come on here


I've been here longer than Josh. He came here (Matrix forums) and pandered his game - I was already here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
get all upset if someone is unpleasant to you


So, you're asking why I am unpleasant to people who are unpleasant with me? Is that really your question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Basically it’s just to kick the guy and his project and prove you are right – all for the feeling of Schadenfreude it gives you.


I don't think you understand what schadenfreude means. You're conflating multiple statements.



warspite1 -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 11:14:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
re your first question, the matter of finance for the project is not really the point


No, I disagree. I believe it's critically important.

If it's a private company giving the developer money based on their agreed goals and budgeting, then that's a decision made by professionals who understand the factors involved. Most people contributing to Kickstarter don't have that sort of knowledge and expertise to make an informed decision.

I don't think it's my place to question how a publisher chooses to invest it's own money. They're professionals and their decisions will pay off - or not - and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You say, all-knowing, that those who have invested are “out of pocket”. But you do not KNOW that.


Yes, I do know. They're out of pocket now. The money has gone to Josh. Whether or not they see a return on their expenditure is not salient to the phrase.

Ex: If I pay for parking "out of pocket" - and land a large sale reaping a juicy commission as a result, that commission doesn't make the parking any more or less "out of pocket".

"out of pocket" = "paid out or owed in cash; necessitating an expenditure of cash"

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
stated as fact - that MWIF would never be launched, were wrong.


Irrelevant. I had nothing to do with that and have no means of judging the accuracy of your remarks, since I have no idea what it is you're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
why is it of such concern to you that you feel you have to come on here


I've been here longer than Josh. He came here (Matrix forums) and pandered his game - I was already here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
get all upset if someone is unpleasant to you


So, you're asking why I am unpleasant to people who are unpleasant with me? Is that really your question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Basically it’s just to kick the guy and his project and prove you are right – all for the feeling of Schadenfreude it gives you.


I don't think you understand what schadenfreude means. You're conflating multiple statements.
warspite1

I suspected that debating with you was going to be a waste of time, although I didn't realise to what extent.

I now do. The answers you have given are quite ridiculous - ranging from absurd:

quote:

They're out of pocket now. The money has gone to Josh. Whether or not they see a return on their expenditure is not salient to the phrase.


You have no idea what an investment is do you? Absolutely ridiculous.

to the mind-bogglingly obnoxious (and disingenuous):

quote:

Irrelevant. I had nothing to do with that and have no means of judging the accuracy of your remarks, since I have no idea what it is you're talking about.


Well, as I say, I know nothing about Mr Parnell or his space game, but after 10 minutes of conversing with you, all I can say is I hope beyond hope that it proves to be a stunning success.

Good day.



Kayoz -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 11:36:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

They're out of pocket now. The money has gone to Josh. Whether or not they see a return on their expenditure is not salient to the phrase.


You have no idea what an investment is do you? Absolutely ridiculous.


The phrase was "out of pocket", not "investment". If there's an error, it's yours in lacking an understanding of the difference between the two.

Please consult a dictionary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
to the mind-bogglingly obnoxious (and disingenuous)


Nothing disingenuous about it. I honestly have no idea what this MWIF is, that you constantly refer to. I've stated so several times and you've never bothered to inform me. If someone is being disingenuous, it's you for continuing to refer to something I've repeatedly stated I have no information on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
all I can say is I hope beyond hope that it proves to be a stunning success.


I hope so as well. It would be a pleasant surprise to be proven wrong. I'd also like to find out that Elvis is still alive and the Easter Bunny is real.



warspite1 -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 11:54:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

They're out of pocket now. The money has gone to Josh. Whether or not they see a return on their expenditure is not salient to the phrase.


You have no idea what an investment is do you? Absolutely ridiculous.


The phrase was "out of pocket", not "investment". If there's an error, it's yours in lacking an understanding of the difference between the two.

Please consult a dictionary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
to the mind-bogglingly obnoxious (and disingenuous)


Nothing disingenuous about it. I honestly have no idea what this MWIF is, that you constantly refer to. I've stated so several times and you've never bothered to inform me. If someone is being disingenuous, it's you for continuing to refer to something I've repeatedly stated I have no information on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
all I can say is I hope beyond hope that it proves to be a stunning success.


I hope so as well. It would be a pleasant surprise to be proven wrong. I'd also like to find out that Elvis is still alive and the Easter Bunny is real.
warspite1

I really shouldn't waste time like this but you are one special case aren't you?

No, why don't you spend less time looking up big words and more time understanding simple facts. People who invest in the likes of Kickstarter, are Investors. They invest in projects like this knowing that a return, if there is one, will be at some point in the future. They are not out of pocket in the sense that you are trying to marry it to.

The pathetic car park example was totally irrelevant.

What MWIF is, is irrelevant as it was brought up only because of the similarities with LT - and I have told you what they are. It's not difficult to understand. When MWIF was underdevelopment, people like you, were happy to come onto the forum telling everyone how rubbish the project was and that it was not going to ever see the light of day. This is the sort of behaviour that you choose to adopt re LT. There now. Do.You. Understand?

quote:

I've been here longer than Josh. He came here (Matrix forums) and pandered his game - I was already here.


Yep, that comment shows a mental age of about 10. Next.

quote:

So, you're asking why I am unpleasant to people who are unpleasant with me? Is that really your question?


Please see post 4. Who was that in response to then? [8|]

quote:

Schadenfreude


I know exactly what it means thank-you. You could always take your multiple conflating statements and shove them somewhere?







Lucian -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 12:38:08 PM)

I actually joined the Matrix forums because I heard on another forum that there was this Matrix guy who was giving the Limit Theory dev an unnecessarily hard time and I was curious as to just how much of an ogre he could be. After joining I became interested in "Distant Worlds", which I ended up buying. Since then I have bought "Advanced Tactics" and "Command: Modern Air Naval Operations" so I guess you could say that Kayoz's infamy is indirectly responsible for at least 3 Matrix sales since without him I would never even have seen or known about this site.

During all that time I have very rarely seen him become unpleasant towards anyone who was not unpleasant to him first. The only exception - apparently - is Josh Parnell who ended up getting the full Kayoz treatment for no reason that I can easily see. Also, although he can be quite caustic and often gives far better than he gets, I have never seen Kayoz descend into outright abuse, even when seriously provoked by people who are very abusive towards him.

I originally came to this forum to fight a troll but I have since been convinced that Kayoz is no troll. He believes wholeheartedly in what he says and while the case could certainly be made that his arguments could be put across more tactfully and pleasantly, he is certainly not an abusive poster and to my knowledge there is no forum rule about being blunt, direct or calling a spade a spade. And worst of all, he might actually be right.




warspite1 -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 1:06:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucian

I actually joined the Matrix forums because I heard on another forum that there was this Matrix guy who was giving the Limit Theory dev an unnecessarily hard time and I was curious as to just how much of an ogre he could be. After joining I became interested in "Distant Worlds", which I ended up buying. Since then I have bought "Advanced Tactics" and "Command: Modern Air Naval Operations" so I guess you could say that Kayoz's infamy is indirectly responsible for at least 3 Matrix sales since without him I would never even have seen or known about this site.

During all that time I have very rarely seen him become unpleasant towards anyone who was not unpleasant to him first. The only exception - apparently - is Josh Parnell who ended up getting the full Kayoz treatment for no reason that I can easily see. Also, although he can be quite caustic and often gives far better than he gets, I have never seen Kayoz descend into outright abuse, even when seriously provoked by people who are very abusive towards him.

I'm originally came to this forum to fight a troll but I have since been convinced that Kayoz is no troll. He believes wholeheartedly in what he says and while the case could certainly be made that his arguments could be put across more tactfully and pleasantly, he is certainly not an abusive poster and to my knowledge there is no forum rule about being blunt, direct or calling a spade a spade. And worst of all, he might actually be right.


warspite1

Let's be clear here.

a) I certainly have not called him a troll. He is not trolling, but he is being unnecessarily unpleasant - and has been warned of such by Matrix staff.

b)
quote:

Also, although he can be quite caustic and often gives far better than he gets, I have never seen Kayoz descend into outright abuse, even when seriously provoked by people who are very abusive towards him.


Please see post 153. I do not know what you believe Twat to mean, but believe me, its about as abusive as you can get without using another 4-letter word that means the same thing.

c)
quote:

During all that time I have very rarely seen him become unpleasant towards anyone who was not unpleasant to him first


Please see your post 69 (and his comments about you when you first arrived).....in addition to his treatment of Mr Parnell.

d)
quote:

there is no forum rule about being blunt, direct or calling a spade a spade.


I believe you are right - however do you think it is acceptable to come onto a forum and consistantly trash someone and their work? And I do not just mean say your stuff and leave, I mean consistent trashing. You think that's okay?

e)
quote:

And worst of all, he might actually be right.


You said it. Might. Always best to shoot first and ask question later eh?



budd -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 3:20:16 PM)

I think the Illuminati sent him.



Zap -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 3:44:33 PM)

You know this thread was forgotten. It was a year and a half since the last post. Then Miklos, you had to resurrect this? You are to blame[:D]

@ Budd, Yes, the illuminati.[:D]I will take Slaakman any day over the depressing character that continues to post here.[>:]



Lucian -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 3:56:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Please see post 153. I do not know what you believe Twat to mean, but believe me, its about as abusive as you can get without using another 4-letter word that means the same thing.


Lol, point taken, he does have a tendency to over-retaliate. I'm not sure of the context of the conversation that inspired the quote but I'd be willing to bet that whoever he was responding to did some abusing of their own beforehand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Please see your post 69 (and his comments about you when you first arrived).....in addition to his treatment of Mr Parnell.


Well if you examine the conversation you'll see that I wasn't exactly being the soul of pleasantness myself at the time. You'll notice though that neither of us resorted to outright abuse. With respect to his treatment of Josh, I admit that I'm at a loss to explain the source of the hostility there, possibly there's some history that neither of us know about. To my knowledge Josh has been nothing if not polite at all times, in fact I don't think I have ever seen a game dev actively defend themselves against such blatant public criticism. Kudos to Josh for handling it so well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I believe you are right - however do you think it is acceptable to come onto a forum and consistantly trash someone and their work? And I do not just mean say your stuff and leave, I mean consistent trashing. You think that's okay?


I don't think "acceptable" is the correct term. I certainly wouldn't behave that way myself but then I'm not him and I'm in no position to either accept or reject anything he does. A forum is composed of many people, all of whom see things differently and I think we should all be free to express our various viewpoints - however blunt and direct they might be - as long as no forum rules are broken. Of course that also means that you and I are completely free to criticize his comments and arguments to our hearts content.

I just completely disagree with Icemania's request to ban him for what amounts to the way he chooses to express his opinion. I may not agree with what he says, but I do feel compelled to defend his right to say it.



warspite1 -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 4:06:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucian


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Please see post 153. I do not know what you believe Twat to mean, but believe me, its about as abusive as you can get without using another 4-letter word that means the same thing.


Lol, point taken, he does have a tendency to over-retaliate. I'm not sure of the context of the conversation that inspired the quote but I'd be willing to bet that whoever he was responding to did some abusing of their own beforehand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Please see your post 69 (and his comments about you when you first arrived).....in addition to his treatment of Mr Parnell.


Well if you examine the conversation you'll see that I wasn't exactly being the soul of pleasantness myself at the time. You'll notice though that neither of us resorted to outright abuse. With respect to his treatment of Josh, I admit that I'm at a loss to explain the source of the hostility there, possibly there's some history that neither of us know about. To my knowledge Josh has been nothing if not polite at all times, in fact I don't think I have ever seen a game dev actively defend themselves against such blatant public criticism. Kudos to Josh for handling it so well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I believe you are right - however do you think it is acceptable to come onto a forum and consistantly trash someone and their work? And I do not just mean say your stuff and leave, I mean consistent trashing. You think that's okay?


I don't think "acceptable" is the correct term. I certainly wouldn't behave that way myself but then I'm not him and I'm in no position to either accept or reject anything he does. A forum is composed of many people, all of whom see things differently and I think we should all be free to express our various viewpoints - however blunt and direct they might be - as long as no forum rules are broken. Of course that also means that you and I are completely free to criticize his comments and arguments to our hearts content.

I just completely disagree with Icemania's request to ban him for what amounts to the way he chooses to express his opinion. I may not agree with what he says, but I do feel compelled to defend his right to say it.

warspite1

quote:

I just completely disagree with Icemania's request to ban him for what amounts to the way he chooses to express his opinion. I may not agree with what he says, but I do feel compelled to defend his right to say it.


I would agree I don't think I have seen anything in this thread to warrant that.

But as I said, my beef with him stems from the fact that I have been on the side of the fence that Mr Parnell sits on - albeit as an unpaid Beta tester with a passion for a project and not as a developer himself - and to have someone constantly bitching and moaning adds nothing to a project that people are working hard on, and just brings everyone down.

But I've had my say and frankly I'll leave him to this thread where he can continue to bitch and moan and state that he knows everything about everything to his little heart's content bless him.



rhondabrwn -> RE: Limit Theory (9/13/2014 8:03:38 PM)

I thought that Matrix had a policy against use of their forums to attack non-Matrix games, publishers, or services. I know I've seen warnings when discussions got heated about Paradox and Steam as an example. I noticed a statement by Lucien that "I actually joined the Matrix forums because I heard on another forum that there was this Matrix guy who was giving the Limit Theory dev an unnecessarily hard time".

I don't think this is the kind of notoriety that Matrix/Slitherine wish to see.

Like politics, maybe this thread would be more appropriate to see over at Mad Cow's Steakhouse forums instead.

Just my opinion, but I suspect I'm not alone.



Lucian -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 12:16:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I thought that Matrix had a policy against use of their forums to attack non-Matrix games, publishers, or services. I know I've seen warnings when discussions got heated about Paradox and Steam as an example. I noticed a statement by Lucien that "I actually joined the Matrix forums because I heard on another forum that there was this Matrix guy who was giving the Limit Theory dev an unnecessarily hard time".

I don't think this is the kind of notoriety that Matrix/Slitherine wish to see.

Like politics, maybe this thread would be more appropriate to see over at Mad Cow's Steakhouse forums instead.

Just my opinion, but I suspect I'm not alone.


Whether you are alone or not, I for one would strongly disagree with you. This is NOT politics or religion, it is a game thread in a game forum and I honestly cant think of a more appropriate place for it. The only difference is that one of the posters here has been openly critical of the particular game dev who has been good enough to respond personally and defend himself (quite well in my opinion) against what many prospective customers would consider valid questions about his experience and ability to meet his commitments.

I think that most LT customers and backers who may have doubts and read this thread would come away reassured that Josh knows exactly what he's doing and will be able to deliver what he promised. That's something they wouldn't have if the thread didn't exist and is 100% game related.



rhondabrwn -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 1:06:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucian


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I thought that Matrix had a policy against use of their forums to attack non-Matrix games, publishers, or services. I know I've seen warnings when discussions got heated about Paradox and Steam as an example. I noticed a statement by Lucien that "I actually joined the Matrix forums because I heard on another forum that there was this Matrix guy who was giving the Limit Theory dev an unnecessarily hard time".

I don't think this is the kind of notoriety that Matrix/Slitherine wish to see.

Like politics, maybe this thread would be more appropriate to see over at Mad Cow's Steakhouse forums instead.

Just my opinion, but I suspect I'm not alone.


Whether you are alone or not, I for one would strongly disagree with you. This is NOT politics or religion, it is a game thread in a game forum and I honestly cant think of a more appropriate place for it. The only difference is that one of the posters here has been openly critical of the particular game dev who has been good enough to respond personally and defend himself (quite well in my opinion) against what many prospective customers would consider valid questions about his experience and ability to meet his commitments.

I think that most LT customers and backers who may have doubts and read this thread would come away reassured that Josh knows exactly what he's doing and will be able to deliver what he promised. That's something they wouldn't have if the thread didn't exist and is 100% game related.


It is a MATRIX game forum and we didn't used to be about beating up on Indie developers or Matrix competitors. If that is no longer the policy, then have at it everybody.

I have nothing more to say.



Lucian -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 1:24:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

It is a MATRIX game forum and we didn't used to be about beating up on Indie developers or Matrix competitors. If that is no longer the policy, then have at it everybody.

I have nothing more to say.


I'm not sure if you actually bothered to read the thread but it contains a good deal of useful information from the developer of Limit Theory himself in response to the criticism he received.

The information he gives is quite well-argued and reassuring to anyone in doubt who might be considering purchasing his game. Just because many people don't voice criticisms on public forums doesn't mean that they don't have worries or concerns that they would like to see addressed.

If Matrix were to muzzle any form of criticism, then all we would end up with is a lot of doubt and silence. Josh has been good enough to step in and address many of those doubts and I can only see that as a good thing, both for him and his potential customers.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 2:14:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucian


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I thought that Matrix had a policy against use of their forums to attack non-Matrix games, publishers, or services. I know I've seen warnings when discussions got heated about Paradox and Steam as an example. I noticed a statement by Lucien that "I actually joined the Matrix forums because I heard on another forum that there was this Matrix guy who was giving the Limit Theory dev an unnecessarily hard time".

I don't think this is the kind of notoriety that Matrix/Slitherine wish to see.

Like politics, maybe this thread would be more appropriate to see over at Mad Cow's Steakhouse forums instead.

Just my opinion, but I suspect I'm not alone.


Whether you are alone or not, I for one would strongly disagree with you. This is NOT politics or religion, it is a game thread in a game forum and I honestly cant think of a more appropriate place for it. The only difference is that one of the posters here has been openly critical of the particular game dev who has been good enough to respond personally and defend himself (quite well in my opinion) against what many prospective customers would consider valid questions about his experience and ability to meet his commitments.

I think that most LT customers and backers who may have doubts and read this thread would come away reassured that Josh knows exactly what he's doing and will be able to deliver what he promised. That's something they wouldn't have if the thread didn't exist and is 100% game related.


It is a MATRIX game forum and we didn't used to be about beating up on Indie developers or Matrix competitors. If that is no longer the policy, then have at it everybody.

I have nothing more to say.



I do believe there is a difference between "bashing" and "constructive critisism". But, most don't know the difference and if you say anything bad about one of their game companies or games they take offense and start flaming. Take of course Paradox games. Now I don't really see them as wargames as much as strategy games in the times of wargames and such. Some take offense to that when they aren't called wargames. Bashing? or just merely a constructive critisism of the types of games they make?

I think we can all see the "good" and "bad" in most all games and they all have it. Some are just more specific about one or the other. I play CKII religiously, does that make me a Paradox lover? fan? what? I just like CKII. I on the other hand detest HOI. Does that make me a hater? desenter? troll? lol But, in all honesty I do not see CKII as a wargame. So, in that light I feel Paradox makes strategy games and Matrixgames makes wargames. Of course not all of their library are wargames as we know but the "majority" are.

Now I'm not arguing with you or disputing any of your words. I have great respect for you and several others here, including "Wodin" hehe But, of course we are all like family here, a group of siblings with various opinions and ideas. I try not to get involved in flaming wars anymore either. But, I still like to read the threads and posts and make up a few of my own. I've just pretty much learned to ignore the trolls and still get involved in the threads and posts. [:)]

I'd hate to see you leave the thread or forum because someone got under your skin though. [:(]



Kayoz -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 2:46:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

No, why don't you spend less time looking up big words and more time understanding simple facts.


No, I'm not using "big words". This is how I normally write and how I normally speak. Please be so kind as not to try to use your limited vocabulary as an excuse to try to force me to lower my manner of writing to your level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
They are not out of pocket in the sense that you are trying to marry it to.


I quoted the dictionary definition, which is consistent with the way I've used "out of pocket". If you have issue with the declared definition of the word, take up your concerns with the publishers of the dictionary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
What MWIF is, is irrelevant as it was brought up only because of the similarities with LT


We can't continue this aspect of the discussion till you answer the question I asked quite explicitly.

That you refuse to answer it is a very good indication of just how disingenuous you are and how weak your whole reference is. 'nuff said. Answer the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
When MWIF was underdevelopment, people like you, were


Must I say this again? It wasn't me. I don't know what MIWF is. I had nothing to do with any dispute on its forums. And since you refuse to identify what the heck it is, I have no means of assessing the accuracy of your claims.

Once again, you're dodging the question and asserting statements as fact that can't be verified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

I've been here longer than Josh. He came here (Matrix forums) and pandered his game - I was already here.


Yep, that comment shows a mental age of about 10. Next.


No, it's merely a question of the order of events. I didn't "come here to slaughter" his game. I was already here. I didn't "come here to" do anything, any more than your presence in your own home is an indication of having "come there" to cause trouble.

Check your grammar. The implication that my presence here is to denigrate his game is not supported by the record.

Or better yet, following your own suggestion - get a 10-year old to check your grammar. I think you could benefit from the critique.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:

Schadenfreude

I know exactly what it means thank-you. You could always take your multiple conflating statements and shove them somewhere?


No confusion here at all.

You referred to my statement on a slow-motion traffic accident. That's schadenfreude. Once again, I strongly advise you to actually look up the definition of schadenfreude before spouting any more nonsense. You clearly don't know what it means.



Icemania -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 3:00:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucian

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Please see post 153. I do not know what you believe Twat to mean, but believe me, its about as abusive as you can get without using another 4-letter word that means the same thing.


Lol, point taken, he does have a tendency to over-retaliate. I'm not sure of the context of the conversation that inspired the quote but I'd be willing to bet that whoever he was responding to did some abusing of their own

I just completely disagree with Icemania's request to ban him for what amounts to the way he chooses to express his opinion. I may not agree with what he says, but I do feel compelled to defend his right to say it.


I was the recipient of much of the abuse in Post 153. The fact is that at no stage was I abusive either initially or in response, despite a tirade of repeated abuse. There is a pattern here beyond my conflict with Kayoz, and he's been warned more than once as well.

I share some of Kayoz's concern on LT and fully agree he can express that. That is not an issue. I posted because once again he was abusive and I'm appalled to see that it is being tolerated.



VPaulus -> RE: Limit Theory (9/14/2014 3:23:12 AM)

OK, I will lock this thread for now.
Some people here don't know how to be civil.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375