Tsuyoskikentsu wrote:
:D
So, like. Shouldn't we all be banned, then?
So he got banned because he was better at the rules than the Sage?
So, like. Shouldn't we all be banned, then?
LOL this reminds me of the whole "sure you can shapechange into templated forms" ruling or even the one where the polymorph line can grant you a human feat thus giving all spell casters a free floating feat just by alterselfing into a human. good times, good times.
I was gonna put "I'm a Disciple of "K"" as my sig. He convinced me of the flaws of melee in 3.5
(because up till that point everyone in my group kept saying my fighters were "broken")
I always wondered what happened to him, I actualy thought maybe wizards hired him and put him to work on 4.0 (which would have made me purchase 4.0 for sure)
Thanks for the info though.
K was better than the sage? Wow.
Anyone have a link for that?
He has very little patience for fools.
The same could be said for almost anyone who posted here frequently before the site redesign (right around the 3.0->3.5 transition). Autumn can attest to that fact.
Me: "So, if I cheat on MTGO I get suspended for a week, but if I tell a 14yo punk DM he's a jerk because he enjoys killing his newbie players I get banned for life? Yeah, that seems fair."
Wizards rep: "Those are the rules."
I was the original winner of the DM contest and I was banned shortly thereafter. After almost 5 years, I called Wizards customer service to ask if I could have my account reinstated, they said no.
Me: "So, if I cheat on MTGO I get suspended for a week, but if I tell a 14yo punk DM he's a jerk because he enjoys killing his newbie players I get banned for life? Yeah, that seems fair."
Wizards rep: "Those are the rules."
Damn, that's just messed up if it's true
i agree with ninjarabbit if WWAD's story is true!
the one where the polymorph line can grant you a human feat thus giving all spell casters a free floating feat just by alterselfing into a human. good times, good times.
Bwahaha, *wow*. That actually seems to work! Alter Self grants you "racial bonus feats". Humans get a racial bonus feat.
Wow.
More than anything I want to continue to use my pseudonym that everyone knows me by--not just for the history or recognition. I was so disappointed by the ban and treatment by Wizards staff, I never entered or judged another competition. I also dropped all of my Silverymoon threads (advancing the Silver Marches timeline), sold all of my FR books (including novels), and quit my on-going campaign. The threads and my campaign were linked and I could no longer update them without my OP account.
So after a few years, I got back into D&D with a good group and had the urge to look at some of my old threads, possibly even write again. No dice. Wizards flatly refused my protest--AutoSponge remains banned. (And WWAD may not be far behind after this post, I fear).
EDIT* - I in no means want to diminish the shock of Frank's ban. I'm simply supplying additional evidence that some decisions by Wizards moderators can be capricious and have long-lasting effects for the community and the individual.
Bwahaha, *wow*. That actually seems to work! Alter Self grants you "racial bonus feats". Humans get a racial bonus feat.
Wow.
lol, true.
Alter Self your familiar into a human (or strongheart halfling if size is a problem).
I wasn't around at the time he was posting here, but judging by how he has posted over at Dumpshock, I'm not surprised he could have been banned. He has very little patience for fools.
I would phrase it differently:
"He's a smart guy who believes that screaming at stupid people makes him even smarter."
I would phrase it differently:
"He's a smart guy who believes that screaming at stupid people makes him even smarter."
Hrm... I gotta try that at my PhD defense...
but if I tell a 14yo punk DM he's a jerk because he enjoys killing his newbie players I get banned for life?
I think you should have recieved a warning - but I do think what you did was wrong.
I've told posters that say, "Help me kill my other party members" that I am glad I don't play with them - but draw the line at personal insults - I think that's a good place for the line to be.
I think you should have recieved a warning - but I do think what you did was wrong.
I didn't say I was right. But let the "punishment fit the crime." How many years should someone pay for calling another poster a jerk?
Screen name bans shouldn't be permanent IMO.
I would phrase it differently:
"He's a smart guy who believes that screaming at stupid people makes him even smarter."
I don't know if that is Frank's motivation or not, all I can say is that he
has commented vigorously on posts that he's disagreed with. I don't see anything wrong with disagreeing, but all too often people can't let it go. If you see something posted that you think is moronic, its probably worth the effort to point out what you think is wrong, but if it doesn't work its best to walk away. Why waste your time?
Go check the archives of The Gaming Den, it's somewhere in there.
Indeed, Frank tells his side of the story in this thread. The heavy-handed moderating back then (this is like 02-03) was one of the decisive things that kept me from registering here for so long, and why I left for several years after that. In some ways it's better; in others it's not (I blame the inexorable lurch of political correctness that makes so many people feel they have the right to not be offended, and thus one man's bombast is arbitrarily worse than another's thin skin, even though they're both flaws). So it goes.
I joined the Gaming Den briefly in '07, and in Frank's defense he's a lot more civil in his element than posting on a more constraining forum like this one or ENWorld or whatnot. I left due to mostly social differences (TGD is overwhelmingly liberal/atheistic; I'm a far-right Christian) rather than professional ones-- I had a few exchanges with Frank and got along with him fine. It's one of those things where if you treat him with respect... well, OK, he's still a jerk. >_> But the actual hostility is mostly reserved for people who take personal offense at his stylistic offensiveness, and in most other cases he's got some extremely insightful things to say.
On the other hand, a lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by that sort of arrogant, self-assured dogmatism (I'm reminded of the permanent aura of controversy around Rush Limbaugh, personally; which I'm sure Frank would find amusing), regardless of whether they actually agree or not; and carrying that attitude in a place without the authority to back it up... well, we know what happened, for better or worse.
I was the original winner of the DM contest and I was banned shortly thereafter. After almost 5 years, I called Wizards customer service to ask if I could have my account reinstated, they said no.
This, on the other hand, is seriously uncool. :| Thanks for telling us about that.
---
Edit: Had to fix the link, sorry about that. I hadn't gone to the Den in months, and it turns out the old site is defunct so it took awhile to find the new link. The old boards were awful, but at least it had a better Search function than "wait for Google to spider all the [censored] archives."
LOL this reminds me of the whole "sure you can shapechange into templated forms" ruling or even the one where the polymorph line can grant you a human feat thus giving all spell casters a free floating feat just by alterselfing into a human. good times, good times.
Except you'd only be considered 1HD for spells like blasphemy, according to the Sage. =)
Good 'ole Skip Williams - Andy Collins actually will rescind bad rulings (like the above).
My favorite Skipism was that monks would lose the ability to flurry if they had a lit torch on 'em anywhere.
My favorite Skipism was that monks would lose the ability to flurry if they had a lit torch on 'em anywhere.
Wait.
Indeed, Frank tells his side of the story in this thread. ."
It does sound very one sided.
I'm sceptical. I know that Frank Trollman is currently suffering a suspension at the Paizo boards. This was due to calling another poster a variety of names from "terrible human being", to "pathetic".
I believe the flaming was 2 - sided and both sides were suspended.
Interestingly, posters jumped to his defence:
However, he had very good ideas, and I would say that this outweighed any offenses generated because he understands the mechanics and has demonstrated sufficient creativity/ingenuity/effort to significantly aid in the development process
I thought Jason Bulmahn's (lead designer for Pathfinder) response was dead on:
On this, you would be incorrect. Good ideas do not make up for bad behavior. Driving other posters from a thread and these boards with your posts is not acceptable, even if your ideas are fantastic. This does not just apply to Frank either.
I ask that people post up their ideas. If you can't do that without discrediting someone else or insulting other posters, then perhaps you should hold off on posting until you can.
Often there is an odd attitude of entitlement that seems to show it's ugly head by some who know the rules, and feels this entitles them to belittle those that don't.
Making someone who is still getting a handle on optimization and the complexity of the rules feel unwelcome I believe is counter-productive to the boards. I believe it has more to do with low self esteem than anything else.
I don't know why Frank Trollman was banned - but based on what I've seen of his posting style - he likely got banned for breaking CoC, not becuase
"they can effectively reduce balance complaints by banning people who frequently voice balance complaints!"
I've got a Bull alarm - and it's ringing.
So he got banned because he was better at the rules than the Sage?
So, like. Shouldn't we all be banned, then?
Yes, yes we should.
I seem to be getting the impression that I am not seeing the full picture here...
No offense to anyone who is affiliated with him, but some of the earlier posts make him out to be some sort of arrogant jerk, knowledgeable as he may be. Could this be the real reason?
I should clearly have kicked more puppies.The unfortunate part is that Frank's complaints about Shadowrun were right on, and his proposed rules were much better than what the main people working on the game were coming up with. He was even writing for the game at the time. But the way he made his points doomed any chances of having his point of view taken seriously. If you were the game's line developer, would you want to work with someone that tells everyone that you're smoking too much crack?
When someone much smarter than me calls me an idiot, chances are, from where he's standing, he's right.
the ring and drink the cool-aid that have a problem with him
Is he usually right? Yup. But who the hell cares? Id rather not have him in a game as a fellow player, and recent history has shown me he cant be civil as a GM.
Sad, to be smart,but not smart enough to avoid being an ass-hat.
Sad, to be smart,but not smart enough to avoid being an ass-hat.
It's nothing to do with intelligence; it's to do with patience.
I know exactly where FT's coming from on this because I'm in the same position a lot of the time. I'm pretty highly gifted -- this has been more or less proved by now -- and there is no better way to **** me off really, really quickly than to insist on trying to work through something when I've already given you the answer. To a certain degree, it's insulting; it's also really boring. Now, the difference between me and FT is that I've spent so long just not caring what other people think that it takes 1) a long, extended period of this or 2) someone who does it all the time to really set me off, but I definitely get where he's coming from here.
There's a point at which every human being will always lose it, no matter how "smart" they are. And being continually faced with the frustration of less intelligent people questioning your process or even flat-out insisting you're wrong -- ESPECIALLY when you have proof and they don't -- builds up the Temper-Meter very, very quickly.
In Oh-So-Slight defense of wotc and the moderating team, I understand that they want to protect their product, and choose to do so in whatever way they feel is necessary. I got busted twice for a CoC violation relating to a Hannah Montana and Lisa Lampanelli set of topics/jokes.
Wiz_O's said :raincloud , I said say la vie.
Point Blank:
Monopoly is played by Moms and Dads.
Monopoly is also played competitively.
Hence this board.
I remember reading the Guiness book of world records, which included the best squares to land on in that game;
this waayyy before 1st Edition came out.
Hasbro sold that game in '98.
Here's a link to probabilities for that game ---> www.tkcs-collins.com/truman/monopoly/monopoly.shtml
Against what TML20 said... the COC , I'd rather it be a lot more flexible.
**it's unbalanced the posting guide lines should be more important imo.
Entitlement? To what? To tell people what how the game is written when they're asking pretty much that?
I hate for people to ask a question then refute the answer you give them, when they're asking it under the premise of "can someone tell me how this works" or "help me build...Xuber!"
The thing is I dont' think the guy needs a ****ing charisma score if he's right. Thats too much work. Not only am is he supposed to give you the answers I'm supposed to do it with a smile? **** that....
Since when did people start living like they have a right to not be offended? Its ridiculous. Sadly, these are an official site and wizards needs stupid people buying products too I guess, so punish the wolves not the sheep...
I really like the no-nonsense take no prisoners posting style. K was the same, I'm saddened by my inability to "Frank Logic" people
I hope that they come back and reanalyze 4.0. . .
Maybe using "Just Frank" as the tag...
It's nothing to do with intelligence; it's to do with patience.
I know exactly where FT's coming from on this because I'm in the same position a lot of the time. I'm pretty highly gifted -- this has been more or less proved by now -- and there is no better way to **** me off really, really quickly than to insist on trying to work through something when I've already given you the answer. To a certain degree, it's insulting; it's also really boring. Now, the difference between me and FT is that I've spent so long just not caring what other people think that it takes 1) a long, extended period of this or 2) someone who does it all the time to really set me off, but I definitely get where he's coming from here.
There's a point at which every human being will always lose it, no matter how "smart" they are. And being continually faced with the frustration of less intelligent people questioning your process or even flat-out insisting you're wrong -- ESPECIALLY when you have proof and they don't -- builds up the Temper-Meter very, very quickly.
+1
I also am gifted in the ways of gaming. D&D is a recent hobby of mine (about 2 years), but I feel I'm pretty good. I have many accomplishments in TCGs, Magic, VS. WoW, spoils...ect. I mention this because I will have to relate in TCGs to what Tsuyoshi stated.
When I tell people that something is bad, and give them a briefing on why it's bad, I feel they should accept the point OR test it for themselves. When people argue with me and tell me I'm wrong - especially people who suck - I get frustrated.
I used to be the guy at the card shop that would help people with their decks, characters, - insert generic game statement - ect, however the constant arrogance and unwillingness to accept that they MIGHT be wrong when they ASKED for my help (even when given proof such as me smashing them repeatedly.) Has caused me to become the guy that says "figure it out yourself, I don't do that anymore" when someone asks for my help.
The difference here is the ability to not care about the other peoples problems, or whether or not they are playing correctly. Nearly all of the consistant posters here know the rules extremely well, but respond to questions in different ways. Correct me if I'm wrong but these are the trends I have noticed.
Tsuyoshi- Tends to avoid the arguments, if he comments often just leaves what he said alone - because if you are right you shouldn't need to fight.
Logic_Ninja- Fights tooth and nail, with much hilarity and the occasional red herring - but is almost always right - by raw.
Treantmonklvl20- Tends to take the practical reaction (as opposed to the abstract-raw-) and applies his sense of RAI, with the caveat of DM approval, since ultimately no matter what the rules say, you will be playing with how your DM sees it.
Again, correct me if you disagree on my interpretation of your responses.
Back on actual topic-
I think Frank was banned simply because he would stop being constructive, his comments would degrade from simple logical truths, to personal offenses, relating that he was correct because the other person just wasn't as smart.
If he left the argument alone of saying "I'm right, this is how it is, I'm done here" or kept his comments purely logical and in references to the rules, and similar rulings (very lawyeresque). He wouldn't get banned, he didn't get banned for knowing more than sage, he got banned for telling/implying sage he was an idiot and as such should just accept franks words as gospel.
All that being said, I have read many of franks threads, and they are excellent resources, he has an outstanding knowledge of the game. He just didn't seem to have patience for those who said he was wrong (especially without infallible proof), and would go into personal attacks, thus violating the CoC.
All this is partially an inherent problem with D&D design concepts up till now. Having rule 0 shouldn't mean that design teams shouldn't balance things, or clarify/errata/fix problems. Rule 0 should be used only for very specific things, not basic game balance. The design model up through 3.5 SEEMED like "lets make things thing, maybe test it a little, if it's messed up DMs can fix it or not allow it".
I look forward to 4e in hopes that this isn't the case (as much) and the rule 0 is used for times when player creativity goes beyond the reasonable expectation of the design team, but the DM should be deciding WHAT rules to use, not making up game design on the spot....
I have said too much, it's probable that people won't read this due to length, however if you have made it here, I applaud you and am eager to read your thoughts/responses.
I don't know... I dislike the forced politeness...
Against what TML20 said... the COC , I'd rather it be a lot more flexible.
**it's unbalanced the posting guide lines should be more important imo.
Entitlement? To what? To tell people what how the game is written when they're asking pretty much that?
I hate for people to ask a question then refute the answer you give them, when they're asking it under the premise of "can someone tell me how this works" or "help me build...Xuber!"
The thing is I dont' think the guy needs a ****ing charisma score if he's right. Thats too much work. Not only am is he supposed to give you the answers I'm supposed to do it with a smile? **** that....
Since when did people start living like they have a right to not be offended? Its ridiculous. Sadly, these are an official site and wizards needs stupid people buying products too I guess, so punish the wolves not the sheep...
Why would I listen to someone who's rude and shoves the answer into my face by telling me how stupid I am? You don't have to be nice, but without civility what's the point? If someone doesn't show me a modicum of respect there's no reason for me to give them any of mine, or even to pay attention to what they say.
Why would I listen to someone who's rude and shoves the answer into my face by telling me how stupid I am? You don't have to be nice, but without civility what's the point? If someone doesn't show me a modicum of respect there's no reason for me to give them any of mine, or even to pay attention to what they say.
I'm pretty sure its a skill check to do that, and its a skill that many people dont' have.
*shrug* Look at the Army or Marines. Maybe thats the difference. The Marines can take what you say and learn from it or use it even if you're screaming it at one, like you know how "boot camp" is actually a learning enviornment.
Some people com across like that. Personally, I find that just as valid. I say "valid" some people will learn better if you're giving them a handjob under the table while you teach or share info. Which is nice, I'd imagine, but you as the guy giving the handjob have to wonder at a certain point. "Are these people lining up for my unbridled intellect or... uhm... somthing else" so you know just as different people learn from different paths, some people share knowledge better from different paths.
If I need info, and you're not nice about it, but you're the best qualified person with the info, then well I'm going to listen to you (even though you won't get invited out for drinks after work.)It makes life sense to me.
I've never spoke with you before Nanshork, I'm surprised all this time on the boards and we've not met.
Brislove
I read all that post, it indeed was long.
You are right in a way, frank was not banned better than the sage but implying the sage was an idiot. You're right... but... really...
How true was it at the time? Was the sage making idiot rules, because one just can't have an official resource be wrong all the time and care about the customer base.
I mean there were all kinds of Custserve vs. the sage arguments too...
It took them a long time to get thier **** together really.
He shouldn't have got banned, it was one of those moments that someone at wizards should have taken a look at the sage, and asked
"Do you KNOW what you're doing? Really?" Instead they banned this guy who created the most wonderful works but they should have hired him really.
Brislove
I read all that post, it indeed was long.
You are right in a way, frank was not banned better than the sage but implying the sage was an idiot. You're right... but... really...
How true was it at the time? Was the sage making idiot rules, because one just can't have an official resource be wrong all the time and care about the customer base.
I mean there were all kinds of Custserve vs. the sage arguments too...
It took them a long time to get thier **** together really.
He shouldn't have got banned, it was one of those moments that someone at wizards should have taken a look at the sage, and asked
"Do you KNOW what you're doing? Really?" Instead they banned this guy who created the most wonderful works but they should have hired him really.
I don't think they banned him for saying that the rulings themselves were senseless or idiotic. FT got banned for repeatedly calling people including skip crackheads. I'm sure he would have gotten hired in some capacity had he avoided personal attacks. I Don't agree with a lifetime banning, however I feel that there should have been (and was) some repercussion for being so violently insulting and in such complete violation of the CoC.
It would be akin to me insulting your intelligence or state of mind (in FTs case saying that you were under the influence of some mind altering substance) for feeling that what he did wasn't bad enough to deserve some punitive measures. I will go on record saying that I think lifetime bans are extreme, heck magic only bans for 5 years when people cheat at a pro-tour.
It would be akin to me insulting your intelligence or state of mind (in FTs case saying that you were under the influence of some mind altering substance) for feeling that what he did wasn't bad enough to deserve some punitive measures. I will go on record saying that I think lifetime bans are extreme, heck magic only bans for 5 years when people cheat at a pro-tour.
Yeah, that magic thing... you absolutely right. It's pretty ridiculous
About personal attacks.
I guess the thing is, I'm fine with that really, attacking someones argument is a good solid tactic, discrediting them works too.
Moreso though I want to live in a world where you're entittled or allowed to speak you mind, there are limits to even that.
He didn't call someone the N-word or the C-word or the truly offensive things that get people punched in the mouth mostly.
Asking "Are you smoking crack?" or saying "Dude's smoking crack!" or what ever is just phraseology.
We all know this right? I mean it's just him saying "You don't know what you're talking about". Colloquialism, you know? People actually do say things like that in casual conversation and no one gets offended. So you know the COC
it is what it is though so I accept it and move. Seriously though, I think Frank clearly offended the Old sage who was more powerful here on these boards and so they snipped, but I dont' belive (re reading some of this stuff that it was because of rudeness) but because Frank called the Old sage on his B.S... and no one who feels powerful wants to be called on their B.S...even if they need to be ocasionally.
My 2c's and the end for me.
Goodday to you.
M.
Entitlement? To what? To tell people what how the game is written when they're asking pretty much that?
By entitlement I mean that because you can answer their question (or perhaps because they needed to ask it), there is often an arrogance attached. It shows it's ugly head if the original poster's initial question was asked before commonly, or if they ask for evidence to back up your opinion.
It has nothing to do with intellegence, and in the end it has nothing to do with knowing the rules or being a good optimizer. However, some optimizers believe that they are so awsome that anyone who doesn't immediately take them at their word deserves a putdown that has nothing to do with the rules or intellegence - IMO it is more about being bullied in the schoolyard and now this is your schoolyard and you get to be the bully.
This behavior is far more subdued or eliminated since Khan the Destroyer started a thread (maybe 6 months ago) calling out this behavior. It really made a difference.
I don't know... I dislike the forced politeness...
Having contact with other human beings requires their approval - whether it be on these boards, your own gaming group, your job, your girlfriend/wife, or life in general.
You don't have to be polite - but if you want that contact you do because otherwise they will choose to end it.
That's how CoC works. Be decent to the other posters, because if you don't, we will remove you for the good of the community. Makes perfect sense.
I've had similar occurances at my job where I've been forced to fire employees who can't get along with their colleagues. When they say that they do their work and how can I fire them, I tell them that, "When nobody will work with you, you have no job."
Forced politeness is there in every source of human contact we have.
*shrug* Look at the Army or Marines. Maybe thats the difference. The Marines can take what you say and learn from it or use it even if you're screaming it at one, like you know how "boot camp" is actually a learning enviornment.
The army has very low entrance standards for a reason.
I happen to believe that D&D players are usually geeks, and geeks are usually smart.
Treantmonklvl20- Tends to take the practical reaction (as opposed to the abstract-raw-) and applies his sense of RAI, with the caveat of DM approval, since ultimately no matter what the rules say, you will be playing with how your DM sees it.
Yes, I would say that is accurate. This of course is quite relevant. Often rules require interpretation - in a game where there are infinite possibilities - no rules system can cover all of them thouroughly - and often a rule requires interpretation.
This can cause different interpretations, which causes different responses to come up to different posts. We must accept that our interpretation is relative - not absolute.
Otherwise it's endless pointless debate - which without CoC ends up becoming emotional arguments.
Why would we want that?
Now I've lurked here for a while, and Frank was rude and acerbic, but he was also often if not always right. There have been other brilliant and frankly rude posters that have been praised for for it, even developing a following of 'tough' posters.
I'd have to say that while Frank was a jerk, he got banned because he was a jerk to the mighty of WOTC.
Tsuyoshi- Tends to avoid the arguments, if he comments often just leaves what he said alone - because if you are right you shouldn't need to fight.
Quick correction: makes arguments, gets attacked by idiots, writes posts that would very quickly get him banned but closes the window before posting them and instead abandons the thread for the above reasons.
This can cause different interpretations, which causes different responses to come up to different posts. We must accept that our interpretation is relative - not absolute.
Doubly so since D&D is not a video game (insert 4E joke here)-- even if a given interpretation is correct, that doesn't mean it's going to be observed. All of us here have heard [many have used] the line "No DM would ever allow that," and most of the time that's true. D&D's rules are flawed enough that the human element by necessity brings its preconceptions and personal experiences into play (the game a given poster is used to playing, not the hypothetical [and arguably mythical] "RAW" we rules-lawyers presume)... why else do so many debates boil down to anecdotal evidence? It's not because the rules lawyers can't make sound, logical arguments-- it's because those arguments don't carry any weight with the other party.
In short, there's no "right" way to go about arguing game theory. Issues of pure game mechanics, sure; but once you go from "what" the rules say to "why" they work like they do, and what to do about it... belligerent criticism is not the best way to make your point.
I'd have to say that while Frank was a jerk, he got banned because he was a jerk to the mighty of WOTC.
Frank was a jerk to everyone. :] But yeah, he was one of the very first to shoot back at and mention poor decisions of some game designers by name (even if it was in a funny way-- I still call "Tome & Blood" "Skip Hates Sorcerers" to this day), and he started a trend that understandably they didn't like.
What I've learned as an amateur game designer is that the "technical" details-- formulas and statistics-- are actually pretty easy. You can balance a game with no expertise beyond basic algebra and a passing knowledge of statistical theory. (Calculus helps-- I'm lousy at it and thus one of the most impressive things in 3E was the math underlying the CR/level charts-- but it's hardly necessary.) The bulk of the work you put into a game system is setting the playing field and determining what possibilities should be allowed and how they work, before assigning a single digit to anything.
So criticizing a professional game designer isn't so much questioning his premises (the faults we find with our carmakers, for example) or his conclusions (sports teams), but his vision. It hits them just as personally as if they were, say, authors or artists-- because in a way game design is the same sort of thing. The folks at WOTC just happen to be older and more mature than that high-strung friend of yours who asks for your "honest" opinion of their art piece, song, or fanfic....
And in case there was any doubt... well, I don't remember too clearly since I was gone for awhile, but wasn't there an announcement going around some time ago that "harassing" a WOTC member was a warnable offense or something like that?
Forced politeness is there in every source of human contact we have.
Your opinion = Fail.
Or at least I don't agree with you. Thats not how close relationships work not real legitimate friendship. In my opinion. Most of the people who say things in absolutes about humans every, all, etc, well wrong, but why try to give life lessons here? How often has that worked on the boards. Such things typically result in ****-you sessions and we've defined previously
and as you say, why would we want that? I feel you're entittled to your opinion and its presentation even if I think you're epically wrong.
Tsyoshikentsu: you're right not worth getting banned...
but...
"harassing" a WOTC member was a warnable offense or something like that?
I've heard that as well...
The army has very low entrance standards for a reason.
Wow. TML20 that was moronic in a way. In another, ironic. One the one hand you imply that military are stupid, to which I say what do you know what the admitance standards are, then fine, except you're from Calgary, Canada...
So maybe Canada's military standards are just "very low"
On the other hand you're guilty of the arrogance that you say you dislike sooooo much on the boards. Hypocritical much?
But I digress... For give me for the thread jack, guys.
Your opinion = Fail.
Or at least I don't agree with you.
Wow. TML20 that was moronic...
And that's what I'm talking about. If you would wish to apologize for calling me moronic, please do so in PM as I'll likely no longer read your responses.
Otherwise, I really don't see any point responding to any of your posts again. I'm not masochistic enough I guess.
Midnight_v
And that's what I'm talking about. If you would wish to apologize for calling me moronic, please do so in PM as I'll likely no longer read your responses.
Otherwise, I really don't see any point responding to any of your posts again. I'm not masochistic enough I guess.
I suppose there's not much need since I don't, but I suppose its easy to see the wrong in what others have said, not in what we say. I.e. your veiw on military standards
Maybe thats one point against the Pro-Frank camp.
You did what you claim do despise. *shrug* just saying is all.
Midnight_V, you're a sociopath
I should sig that.
Do you know what that means?
from dictionary.com
Sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Thats taking a bit much for granted based on my posts here. Which neither outline my moral responsibility or social conscience.
Perhaps that's because I've never had him direct that ire towards me, but hey.
EDIT: I gotta agree on one of midnight's points: save terms like 'sociopath' for the ones who deserve it. Calling someone 'moronic in a way' doesn't really qualify.
Sociopath - one who is antisocial or hostile towards society.
Hereis a good website on the traits of a sociopath. While you haven't exhibited the lying or manipulation as far as I know, some of the other traits are traits that you have exhibited, being the kind of thing that you could tell from such indirect contact.
Mainly the complete lack of empathy that defines sociopathy at its core.
Dictionary.com
Midnight_V, you're a sociopath, and this amuses me. If nothing else, it means that you don't have a realistic grasp on human contact, so I can ignore you now.
Please don't throw that word around so casually. IRL, I show all the signs of being a sociopath and antisocial personality disorder and have yet to show it online. Being a sociopath is incredibly easy to mask. Don't just throw the word around.
Please don't throw that word around so casually. IRL, I show all the signs of being a sociopath and antisocial personality disorder and have yet to show it online. Being a sociopath is incredibly easy to mask. Don't just throw the word around.
I don't throw the word around, and I know a sociopath IRL. I call it like I see it. Period.
I don't throw the word around, and I know a sociopath IRL. I call it like I see it. Period.
Did you not read what I posted? Here's an analogy:
You: Midnight, you're a ******* jew.
Me: I'm Jewish and he hasn't said anything related to religion. Please don't throw that word around.
You: I know a jew, so I'm entittled to use it. I know a black guy, so I can use the N-word too!
Kinda out of left field, y'think?
Did you not read what I posted? Here's an analogy:
You: Midnight, you're a ******* jew.
Me: I'm Jewish and he hasn't said anything related to religion. Please don't throw that word around.
You: I know a jew, so I'm entittled to use it. I know a black guy, so I can use the N-word too!
Kinda out of left field, y'think?
*shrugs* Interpret it however you want to. You think that only sociopaths can call eachother sociopaths? It isn't a religion or a race, it's a whole mindset. If you don't like it you don't have to talk to me about it, I'll call someone who acts like a complete sociopath a sociopath just like I'll call someone who acts like a completley ***hole an ***hole. You think it's out of left field, and I don't. That's that.
I don't throw the word around, and I know a sociopath IRL. I call it like I see it. Period.
Okay okay... I think you're just over reacting is all.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you on something doesn't mean there's a mental problem there.
I'm just a guy on the board with an opinion. If you're opinion is that I'm a sociopath well fine, I guess. I just feel its a bit of a reach is all.
I mean I read that website just then and those are traits most humans display from time to time. Even you just displayed
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
and maybe even
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Futher, I've not said anything negative towards you? So why's all the hate?
*shrugs* Interpret it however you want to. You think that only sociopaths can call eachother sociopaths? It isn't a religion or a race, it's a whole mindset. If you don't like it you don't have to talk to me about it, I'll call someone who acts like a complete sociopath a sociopath just like I'll call someone who acts like a completley ***hole an ***hole. You think it's out of left field, and I don't. That's that.
Okay. Fine.
Then what is it I said specifically that makes you feel that way about me? It's ironic dude, because essentially if you mean what you're saying in this post and this isn't some reverse psychology stunt then to a degree...
you're agreeing with my original premises.
*shrugs* Interpret it however you want to. You think that only sociopaths can call eachother sociopaths? It's a whole mindset. If you don't like it you don't have to talk to me about it, I'll call someone who acts like a complete sociopath a sociopath just like I'll call someone who acts like a completley ***hole an ***hole.
Because only a tiny percentage of ***holes are sociopaths. It's actually a mental problem just as gigantism is a health problem.
Midnight_V, you're a sociopath, and this amuses me. If nothing else, it means that you don't have a realistic grasp on human contact, so I can ignore you now.
Cry more? Did he hurt your little feeler somehow?
Oh yeah, in before the lock. I can't believe this thread is still open.
I understand that I'm not a moderator; precisely why I'm posting here. It's generally if not always better that we keep ourselves under control rather than have Judgement (ie, someone with WotC or WizO in their name) forcibly set us in line.
Because only a tiny percentage of ***holes are sociopaths. It's actually a mental problem just as gigantism is a health problem.
So? I never said that ***holes = sociopaths. I konw it's a mental health problem, I know a lot about sociopathy in fact. Doesn't mean that just because I call someone it doesn't mean I'm racist. I think that you comparing me calling him a sociopath to me being an Anti-Semite is just plain ignorant.
As to what you said Midnight_V, it doesn't matter to me whether I'm insulted or other people are. I don't respond well to prejudice against anyone who doesn't believe the same thing that you do. You insulted so people on here that I respect the opinions of, and so I don't see a reason to put up with that. And if you think I'm agreeing with your basic premise that's your prerogative.
I do agree on some level that that the "enforced politeness" is excessive, but a certain civility is necessary. Its pretty hard to draw the line between free expression and dysfunction and I'd like to think that WotC used to do a decent job of it. Gleemax, however...
Settle down, folks. Remember how the original topic was about a poster being banned for being rude (to say the least)? I suspect no one here really cares for the same to happen to them.
I understand that I'm not a moderator; precisely why I'm posting here. It's generally if not always better that we keep ourselves under control rather than have Judgement
Says the guy throwing around the word Sociopath...
So? I never said that ***holes = sociopaths. I konw it's a mental health problem, I know a lot about sociopathy in fact. Doesn't mean that just because I call someone it doesn't mean I'm racist. I think that you comparing me calling him a sociopath to me being an Anti-Semite is just plain ignorant
I highly doubt that.
I highly doubt that.
1) NolderForce != Nanshork, read people's names better.
2) Doubt what you want to, your belief has no affect on reality.
Because only a tiny percentage of ***holes are sociopaths. It's actually a mental problem just as gigantism is a health problem.
Since when does having reach count as a 'health problem?'
1) NolderForce != Nanshork, read people's names better.
2) Doubt what you want to, your belief has no affect on reality.
*Facepalm*
I did misread. Sorry about that.
*Facepalm*
I did misread. Sorry about that.
Yeah, I figured you did. No harm done.
Since when does having reach count as a 'health problem?'
When it impairs goliath's eyesight to the point that some punk kid (who arguably was a better fighter than the bible lets on) owns goliath. Do you know of the side effects of gigantism? Max life expectancy is mid 30s iirc.
When it impairs goliath's eyesight to the point that some punk kid (who arguably was a better fighter than the bible lets on) owns goliath. Do you know of the side effects of gigantism? Max life expectancy is mid 30s iirc.
Swift hunter vs. unoptimized melee brute? I'm not surprised. Didn't he even have travel devotion?
From my experience both on the boards and in my offline life, I've seen that both knowledge and the ability to analyze the situation are the beginning of intelligent discussion, not the end. After reasoning, comes the next part of intelligent discussion: judgement. It's not just what you know or can reason out, but how you use it and often how it's conveyed to others. How you present the argument is just as important as the argument itself and often moreso.
Having good judgement but poor analytical skills make you very good at presenting content for a (logical) argument, but poor at manufacturing content.
Having good analytical skills but poor judgement make you very good at manufacturing content for a (logical) argument, but very poor at presenting it.
Having moderate ability in both generally provides higher quality debate that having strong ability in one or the other.
It seems that as incredible as Frank was in analysis, he displayed poor judgement frequently. Apparently he learned (somewhat) from his mistakes, but like many things in life it was a lesson learned the hard way.
Swift hunter vs. unoptimized melee brute? I'm not surprised. Didn't he even have travel devotion?
[The analysis I've heard]
Goliath had gigantism, which made him very close to blind. David was an experienced combatant that took advantage of this by staying out of reach. Likely used spears. Later christian writers took some creative liberties.
[/what I've heard]
Thank you history channel.
When it impairs goliath's eyesight to the point that some punk kid (who arguably was a better fighter than the bible lets on) owns goliath. Do you know of the side effects of gigantism? Max life expectancy is mid 30s iirc.
Dunno what the history channel is teaching these days, but when I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, we learned there was a mistransciption in the Bible -- Goliath was only 6'6".
Which is incidentally my height. My entire family one by one came up to reveal this to me. Whee.
And yes, I take advantage of my Powerful Build to drive cars one size larger than normal.
Dunno what the history channel is teaching these days, but when I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, we learned there was a mistransciption in the Bible -- Goliath was only 6'6".
Which is incidentally my height. My entire family one by one came up to reveal this to me. Whee.
And yes, I take advantage of my Powerful Build to drive cars one size larger than normal.
Trick being that you are a modern human, not the much shorter ones due to health/nutrition issues as there have been in the past. 4'-5' would have been average at the time.
Why would I listen to someone who's rude and shoves the answer into my face by telling me how stupid I am? You don't have to be nice, but without civility what's the point? If someone doesn't show me a modicum of respect there's no reason for me to give them any of mine, or even to pay attention to what they say.
Because you want to learn? The whole attitude of "I don't want to listen to you, even if you are right just because I don't like you" smacks of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
He was right. You were wrong. Deal with it. Learn from it. Move on and don't make the same mistake again.
I find it ridiculous that someone who is supposedly so aware of and knowledgable about the human psychosis would fall into so basic an ego trap.
I would also like to endorse Tsuyo's post regarding the Temper Meter. Sometimes, I am of the opinion that some work colleagues and fellow posters purposefully act the idiot just to set you off and get you in trouble. Being smart just means that you are a target for the stupid to pull you down. This is definitely the case where I live. They make a national sport out of it (unless it is one of their own that is the smart guy, of course
)...Trick being that you are a modern human, not the much shorter ones due to health/nutrition issues as there have been in the past. 4'-5' would have been average at the time.
I've heard that as late as the middle ages, the average height was 4-5 feet. I don't know enough about gigantism, but would a person whose race tops out at five feet with gigantism hit 6'6" but with all the problems inherent to the illness (poor eyesight, short life expectancy etcetera)?
Sorry for the thread derailment, but... not like it's the first time.
Quick correction: makes arguments, gets attacked by idiots, writes posts that would very quickly get him banned but closes the window before posting them and instead abandons the thread for the above reasons.
I do this often, mostly on enworld though.
1) Politeness is good
2) Humility is generally good
3) Walking the lines is fine. Crossing them all the time ? Not so much.
---
I found a longer account of Frank's tale (it says pretty much the same but I thought I'd post it anyway).
FT
OK, I was kicked out from the WotC board because Skip Williams was let go during the shift to 3.5 (which at that time was a two man show of Ed Stark and Andy Collins). That's probably not very helpful, so I'll go into some more history on that.
Back in the days of 3rd edition, there were three main authors of D&D (Ed Stark, Skip Williams, and Monte Cook), and a playtesting staff. It was wild times, and noone appreciated the level of discussion and feed back we got, least of all me.
I used to post in an extremely no-nonsense, no embelishment style under the name "Frank". I would clearly separate opinion from direct text interpretation with line breaks, and I would quote the exact page numbers and rules statements that I was basing interpretations on. Like all the time. It must have been pretty annoying.
But it also lent my statements a good deal of weight on the WotC boards. When I made a rules argument, I'd bust out the actual rules and laboriously transcribe the statements point for point into quote boxes so that people could see the text I was basing interpretations on. That meant that when I said that a rule said XXX, it actually said that. And I'd even quote it.
This contrasted severely with the way Skip Williams did things in his capacity as "The Sage". He'd answer rules questions about the rules without necessarily having a copy of the rules on him. Sometimes the answers he'd give were... bad for the game. Classic examples include Monks holding torches and diagonal weapon reach.
But Skip Williams, in his capacity as "The Sage" had decided that the worst thing he could do was admit that he was worng. So he didn't do it. Ever. If he made a flippant answer on a chat room when he didn't have the books on him and someone would bring it up later, he'd never say "Sorry dude, I was way drunk, I have no idea what you're talking about." - he'd come up with some elaborate construction about why the answer was right all along. Sometimes he'd be forced to argue that two opposing answers from himself were both correct at the same time. This caused Skip and I to post answers to similar questions that were very different.
And when people brought up the differences (usually with an angry "But the Sgae says...") I would retain my implaccable demeanor. My standard answer would be something along the lines of "Skip Williams is on crack, the rules clearly say on page XX, page XY, and page XZ that it works like this...." And people noticed. And some people grew over time to hate me for it. But what ultimately got me banned was that some people decided that they agreed with me.
Josh Kablack, the same Josh who occasssionally posts here today and now works on Exalted in some capacity, put up a fateful post on the boards. The title was "Skip vs. Frank: Sorcerers and Quicken Spell". You see, Skip Williams stated in his advice column, and in Tome and Blood, and in personal email, and in the FAQ, and probably embroidered on his underpants even that Sorcerers couldn't benefit from Quicken Spell because of the extra time it takes for a Sorcerer to use Metamagic. Well, under the third edition rules, that's not actually what the rules said. The rules actually said that if a spell took a standard action then it would take a full round to cast as a metamagic spell for a sorcerer. But the rules also said that if a quickened spell took a Fullround or less to cast, it went off as a Free Action (we didn't have Swift Actions back then, but the effect was the same). The rules didn't say that a Sorcerer took any extra time to cast a Free Action spell.
So regardless of whether you applied the feat transform before or after the metamagic transform, the end result was "Free Action". In short, as written, Sorcerers could totally use Quicken Spell with no problem at all.
And this produced a huge flame war. A flame war I didn't even particularly participate in because it was being waged by other people I had never met quoting Skip Williams and me back and forth at each other. Occassionally I'd bump in to correct someone on a page citation and that was about it. The whole thing went on for dozens of pages of replies.
And that might have been the end of it, but someone else started "Frank vs. Skip Part II" a thread about another disagreement between my own quotes and Skip's. And someone else started a "Frank vs. Skip III". And a part four. I think there was a part five. Part six I think was the one that got closed by moderators. Each featured a new issue and the only core structure was that it featured someone quoting me explaining what the rulebook said against Skip Williams explaining what he thought the rulebook meant.
I got emails from WotC game designers warning me that if I didn't stop it that bad things would happen to me. And I told them the honest truth - which was that I could not stop it because I wasn't even involved in their production. I didn't even know most of the people starting the threads or arguing on my behalf.
And when Skip Williams stepped down, so did I. The same day that he signed his mandatory resignation letter, I got banned from the WotC board. Did you know that when a lead designer steps down from a WotC post they get to ban anyone that pisses them off before they go? Well, you do now.
Oh sure, there was a final flame war going on that they claimed was my final warning. They said that I was being too rude to Rich Burlow - but that was just publicity. I hadn't actually said anything insulting or mean in that particular flame fest, nor had I participated in the actual flaming.
Back in the days of 3rd edition, there were three main authors of D&D (Ed Stark, Skip Williams, and Monte Cook), and a playtesting staff. It was wild times, and noone appreciated the level of discussion and feed back we got, least of all me.
I used to post in an extremely no-nonsense, no embelishment style under the name "Frank". I would clearly separate opinion from direct text interpretation with line breaks, and I would quote the exact page numbers and rules statements that I was basing interpretations on. Like all the time. It must have been pretty annoying.
But it also lent my statements a good deal of weight on the WotC boards. When I made a rules argument, I'd bust out the actual rules and laboriously transcribe the statements point for point into quote boxes so that people could see the text I was basing interpretations on. That meant that when I said that a rule said XXX, it actually said that. And I'd even quote it.
This contrasted severely with the way Skip Williams did things in his capacity as "The Sage". He'd answer rules questions about the rules without necessarily having a copy of the rules on him. Sometimes the answers he'd give were... bad for the game. Classic examples include Monks holding torches and diagonal weapon reach.
But Skip Williams, in his capacity as "The Sage" had decided that the worst thing he could do was admit that he was worng. So he didn't do it. Ever. If he made a flippant answer on a chat room when he didn't have the books on him and someone would bring it up later, he'd never say "Sorry dude, I was way drunk, I have no idea what you're talking about." - he'd come up with some elaborate construction about why the answer was right all along. Sometimes he'd be forced to argue that two opposing answers from himself were both correct at the same time. This caused Skip and I to post answers to similar questions that were very different.
And when people brought up the differences (usually with an angry "But the Sgae says...") I would retain my implaccable demeanor. My standard answer would be something along the lines of "Skip Williams is on crack, the rules clearly say on page XX, page XY, and page XZ that it works like this...." And people noticed. And some people grew over time to hate me for it. But what ultimately got me banned was that some people decided that they agreed with me.
Josh Kablack, the same Josh who occasssionally posts here today and now works on Exalted in some capacity, put up a fateful post on the boards. The title was "Skip vs. Frank: Sorcerers and Quicken Spell". You see, Skip Williams stated in his advice column, and in Tome and Blood, and in personal email, and in the FAQ, and probably embroidered on his underpants even that Sorcerers couldn't benefit from Quicken Spell because of the extra time it takes for a Sorcerer to use Metamagic. Well, under the third edition rules, that's not actually what the rules said. The rules actually said that if a spell took a standard action then it would take a full round to cast as a metamagic spell for a sorcerer. But the rules also said that if a quickened spell took a Fullround or less to cast, it went off as a Free Action (we didn't have Swift Actions back then, but the effect was the same). The rules didn't say that a Sorcerer took any extra time to cast a Free Action spell.
So regardless of whether you applied the feat transform before or after the metamagic transform, the end result was "Free Action". In short, as written, Sorcerers could totally use Quicken Spell with no problem at all.
And this produced a huge flame war. A flame war I didn't even particularly participate in because it was being waged by other people I had never met quoting Skip Williams and me back and forth at each other. Occassionally I'd bump in to correct someone on a page citation and that was about it. The whole thing went on for dozens of pages of replies.
And that might have been the end of it, but someone else started "Frank vs. Skip Part II" a thread about another disagreement between my own quotes and Skip's. And someone else started a "Frank vs. Skip III". And a part four. I think there was a part five. Part six I think was the one that got closed by moderators. Each featured a new issue and the only core structure was that it featured someone quoting me explaining what the rulebook said against Skip Williams explaining what he thought the rulebook meant.
I got emails from WotC game designers warning me that if I didn't stop it that bad things would happen to me. And I told them the honest truth - which was that I could not stop it because I wasn't even involved in their production. I didn't even know most of the people starting the threads or arguing on my behalf.
And when Skip Williams stepped down, so did I. The same day that he signed his mandatory resignation letter, I got banned from the WotC board. Did you know that when a lead designer steps down from a WotC post they get to ban anyone that pisses them off before they go? Well, you do now.
Oh sure, there was a final flame war going on that they claimed was my final warning. They said that I was being too rude to Rich Burlow - but that was just publicity. I hadn't actually said anything insulting or mean in that particular flame fest, nor had I participated in the actual flaming.
I don't come to the dungeons and dragon's boards to be berated by elitist titans, no one should have to. I'll reveal it here, I hate Phoenix_Inferno. I hate him as much an individual can hate a bully. He carried himself around like some god around these parts and you all let him. I don't know how he got the delusion that he had power to throw around. He wasn't a mod or an admin or anything. He yelled at new posters to these boards and I believe was the single worse thing CharOp had going for its image.
Now I'm awaiting to be called out as a heretic and a blasphemer, but I don't care. Who's going to really punish me here? I'll tell you who most certainly won't, P_I.
I'm afraid I'm gonna go with the opinion that FT was an offensive person.
An offensive GENIUS, but still an offensive person. While being right is important, what's the point of being right if you make everyone around you unhappy. I've learned this early in my relationships, especially with my girlfriends. Being right doesn't mean that it's going to make you or the people you present it too happy.
Sometimes, there are two or more viewpoints of the same problem. That is the case of a VAST majority of problems out there.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Yes, yes if you are right and someone is opposing you on that, it can be frustrating. But WHY are you ABSOLUTELY right, if the other person (wich was described in many of your posts in a condescendent way) presents an argument in a different viewpoint from yours.
I tend to post things, expecting to be wrong about them, and accepting critiscism and corrections as they come, as well as advice. However, if someone came at me and say: ''you are such a doodoo head, this is not how you should have done it, this is how you do it'' I would look at what the person is proposing, but would very clearly be biased towards not liking what she is telling me.
Why have cold logic when it's so easy having warm logic.
Sorry if this sounds jumbled and hippy-like, it was a friends birthday, and I live in Quebec... we consumed medicinal herbs.... I'm still under the effect...
P.S:Oh also, both the U.S and Canada have quite high physical standards for army forces, and academic standards for officers or technicians. The reason I believe Treantmonk made that statement is because it is common belief for us canadians to feel a bit of contempt towards american forces due to their willingness to ''fight for their country on the war agaisnt terror'' since a vast majority of us feel like most american military actions in the recent years sound like worldwide despotism more than humanitarian missions. Treantmonk can correct me If I'm wrong about his advice.
Peace
Because you want to learn? The whole attitude of "I don't want to listen to you, even if you are right just because I don't like you" smacks of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
He was right. You were wrong. Deal with it. Learn from it. Move on and don't make the same mistake again.
I find it ridiculous that someone who is supposedly so aware of and knowledgable about the human psychosis would fall into so basic an ego trap.
Because there are people who aren't going to treat me like I'm retarded in order to teach me something. I have an ego, deal with it.
Remember people, the Internet (and therefore this thread) is serious business. When people insult each other, it actually means something!
Because there are people who aren't going to treat me like I'm retarded in order to teach me something. I have an ego, deal with it.
It's not me whose growth your ego is stunting, my dear fellow. Deal with that in your own time.
See people, this is what happens when Frank gets mentioned.
LoL!
Anyway, back to the semi-topic of the thread, I personally do play with at least half of the FAQ, Ask Wizards, CustServ, etc., firmly turned off. Some rulings just does not make sense (e.g., shield spikes and bashing enchantment not stacking), some are just WTF ludicrous (Rainbow Servant being 10/10 casting, but you should ignore the rules and make it 6/10... WTF???? Why don't I just ignore the rest of the rules as well, idiot?), and some just plain make me laugh (various Polymorph "nerfs" that actually made Polymorph even more broken than it already is).
So I can sort of understand where Frank is coming from when he made those statements. I sometimes feel like writing to WotC to tell them to lay off the pipes myself. Of course, I am not that active a DnD player to actually warrant that, and so I just spend my time elsewhere :D
It's not me whose growth your ego is stunting, my dear fellow. Deal with that in your own time.
Most people you talk to will ignore advice that is given in a way that belittles them. Any person giving advice on this forum is either doing it because they enjoy helping people or because they get an ego boost out of being right. If you are the former, you should not give advice in a way that implies the recipient is retarded because it will stop them from getting your point and no helping is accomplished. If you are the latter, the same applies because you do not get to prove how right you are if the recipient is not listening.
This kind of common courtesy should be really easy to figure out. The majority of the populous figures it out on their own. Do you really expect them to listen to the advice of somebody who obviously cannot figure out something so basic on their own?
I haven't bothered to read this entire thread. It looks like people are bickering, and that bores me and I don't want to get involved. However, I feel I should contribute this: http://xkcd.com/386/
Completely off topic: when did the redirect warning become an annoying separate page instead of an annoying banner? I suppose they figured out that if I linked you to something they should protect you from, like, say, the terrible secret of space, that they should actually stop you from seeing it instead of putting it next to the warning... but still, it's even more annoying.
Most people you talk to will ignore advice that is given in a way that belittles them. Any person giving advice on this forum is either doing it because they enjoy helping people or because they get an ego boost out of being right. If you are the former, you should not give advice in a way that implies the recipient is retarded because it will stop them from getting your point and no helping is accomplished. If you are the latter, the same applies because you do not get to prove how right you are if the recipient is not listening.
This kind of common courtesy should be really easy to figure out. The majority of the populous figures it out on their own. Do you really expect them to listen to the advice of somebody who obviously cannot figure out something so basic on their own?
If you do not wish to listen to advice simply because of the demeanour of the person who gave the answer, then you have no one to blame for your subsequent failure but yourself. The only one to benefit, should you heed the rude guy, is yourself.
Now, if I were the person in question, which I am not, I have given my advice. Whether you take it on board or not is no longer my concern. If you do take it on board, I would think better of you. If you throw a tanty and ignore it out of spite, not only would you fail, you just lost any respect that I may have for you.
Seriously, is it so hard to see that the person giving the advice has nothing to gain or lose in that scenario? The only one to gain or lose is the person receiving the advice, and he succeeds or fails based on whether he takes the correct advice onboard (in the scenario mentioned, the advice given was correct). This is such a clear cut case of glands over brains it is not even funny.
Get it through your head, please! You are asking for help. For you to spurn that help and end up failing in your endeavour just because of your ego IS moronic. It only validates the helper's opinion of you. You are the ONLY one to gain out of this scenario. No one else has anything to gain. Why are you so determined to fail based on a bruised ego?
P.S:Oh also, both the U.S and Canada have quite high physical standards for army forces, and academic standards for officers or technicians. The reason I believe Treantmonk made that statement is because it is common belief for us canadians to feel a bit of contempt towards american forces due to their willingness to ''fight for their country on the war agaisnt terror'' since a vast majority of us feel like most american military actions in the recent years sound like worldwide despotism more than humanitarian missions. Treantmonk can correct me If I'm wrong about his advice.
Sure - I'll correct you.
First off - I wasn't specifying U.S. or Canadian. Midnight_v suggested that I was specifying U.S. Military, but if you check my post you will see I did no such thing.
I wasn't speaking of officer training, nor of techinical training - I was speaking of boot-camp style training. Military, as most organizations, likely has a large disperity of intellegence throughout the organization - but if you want to sign up at the bottom, the requirements are not high. No more than they are for likely any professional or public organization.
I didn't bring up the comparison to military, I was responding to the suggesting that Boot-Camp is good way to train. I think boot camp is not taylored to encourage individuality, creativity, or independant ideas. Like most organizations in this world - if you are willing to start at the bottom - the entrance requirments for the military aren't high. Boot camp needs to be effective for all new recruits, and is certainly not taylored to only the intellegent.
Midnight_v was quick to suggest that I was suggesting that Military are stupid.
This is based on misconception as much as the statement that comes up in this thread a couple times, "I'm smart, so I hate it when people on these boards disagree with me" is.
I've played D&D with a lot of different people (and even more if we include different roleplaying games) - and if there was one trait that I found overwhelmingly common amongst roleplayers - it is intellegence.
Tabletop roleplaying rewards creativity, imagination, and requires understanding a complex rules system - that's before you even get into optimization.
These boards are jam packed with people who are smart. Tell me you are smart? I believe you. However, this is not a trait that makes you unique here.
For the record, I also expect D&D players are smarter than most non-university professions on average. In my job, new employees follow a training program that is taylored for a grade 2 comprehension level. Although some new employees are certainly smart, I would not suggest it is a common defining factor.
Midnight_v turned what was essentially credit for those on these boards into an insult for those who experience the learning environment that I was comparing them to so he could have a little hate-on flame post at my expense. He suggested that suggesting that "boot-camp" was taylored to lower intellegence requirement than the average poster on these boards "shows arrogance" praciticed "hypocricy" and was "moronic".
Although I am confident I could debunk all those personal insults based on the way he reached the conclusions, I don't see the point, when it would lend weight to his suggestion that it is appropriate to treat other people in this way.
If he had a point other than "I hate you Treantmonk" he completely obscured it. Which is what I was suggesting, treating others on these boards with general disdain doesn't get your point across - it just makes people uncomfortable.
AndyJames - if I can ask a personal question, why do you provide advice on these boards?
To help people that need it, and also to learn, if I happen to be wrong when providing that advice.