1917 réponses à ce sujet

[Erield]

SackofCat wrote...

Damn that's long...

Erield,
Do you really think so little of the Seival's responses? Wouldn't calling it vandalism be a bit of an exaggeration unless the OPer was a troll? It's just that I don't think I have ever seen you exaggerate like that before. Do you think I am missing something?

Did I over-exaggerate?  Sure.  However, the last several responses by Seival have not advanced his theory in any way, have not answered any of the additional problems with his theory in any way, nor specifically addressed any of the issues raised.  I guess that's basically the same thing phrased three different ways, but oh well.

If he wants to not be continually asked the same questions or face the same complaints, and truly believes in this theory, I do have a constructive suggestion for him.  Adding the most common complaints to the OP, with his answers, and then be able to link to that in the future.  This will help him save his time for actually addressing the issues, and help to prevent repeat issues.  (Only help, because there will be those who don't bother to read past the thread title.)

[M Hedonist]

To say I'm disappointed in how this thread turned out after I went to bed would be an understatement.

SackofCat wrote...

Sauruz,
While I do not speak for Seival [...]

Well ain't that peachy. I wonder how long your post would be if you actually were Seival's official speaker.

You two just have different definitions of the words: logic, in-game evidence, and what makes sense. [...]

Different defintions of logic? What is that even supposed to mean?

Try asking one question at a time and explain why Seival's previous answers did not adequately address your questions/criticism.

I actually did that.

Sauruz wrote...

Seival, if you want to know what my problem is with your past arguments, it's that all of them consist of even more assumptions or in same cases also inappropriate comparisons. That is not what they call deductive reasoning.
You don't start out your argument to prove an assumption by adding another assumption to the mix.

I have read very few posts in this thread, made by Seival, that can be called objectively arrogant. S/he has certainly been more polite than people have been to him/her.

Then you haven't read the posts I have read.
You may also just not have visited Seival's other threads yet.

If people spammed every thread that contained faulty logic or even arrogance, this forum would be a much quieter place.

People have their reasons to want this thread go down, specifically.

I am sorry for singleing you out.

To be frank, I don't care.

[estebanus]

I want to apologize for all the spam I've been posting, and want to tell you that I've subsequently deleted all of them. I'm truly sorry for my behaviour.

Modifié par estebanus, 14 juin 2012 - 08:12 .

[iHorizons]

IndridColdx wrote...

this is garbage

Lol and so true

[iHorizons]

This thread is trash

[SackofCat]

Erield,
I think that is a rather elegant sulotion to some of the problems that have arisen during the course of this thread.

I do not disagree with your assessment but it is hard for me to judge the reason(s) behind, what appears to be, Seival's dismissive tone and content of his/her responses.

Seival,
If you have the will and the patience, I think an intellectually honest implementation of Erield's idea could help you get this discussion back on track.

I realize that going through the more than 30 pages of this thread to find the criticisms that you and others consider valid will be difficult and will take a significant amount of time and work. However, it would also organize the content of this discussion, show that you are fair and objective, and make your theory at least appear more convincing (among other potential benefits).

It may be difficult for people to be open to the possibility that the Normandy crash scene can be made logical, but if people spend a bit more time considering your idea, they may, directly (with suggestions) or indirectly (with legitimate criticism that can direct your attention to which parts of your theory may benefit from revision and/or clarification), stimulate constructive discussion and help you improve upon your initial idea. If you would like some help, feel free to let me know either here or by pm.


[my first draft of this post was organized better and had more and better points. Unfortunately the iPod Touch I was using to type it up crashed as I was considering whether to include a final sentence (I decided against it). I suspect the spam pictures contributed significantly to this crash]

[SackofCat]

Sauruz,
I imagine my post would be much shorter or wouldn't exist at all.

By "different definitions of logic [and good storytelling]" i mean that what you and others consider logical and good storytelling, are, apparently, not what Seival considers logical and good storytelling.

I admit that I have not seen Seival's other posts. I am attempting to judge him/her based only on the content of his/her posts in this thread. I do not dispute that you have legitimate grievances with Seival based on his/her responses to your posts in this thread. I cannot comment on posts made in threads I have not read.

"I actually did that"
You made a reasonable attempt at some of what I suggested (it would not be reasonable for me to expect you to do or have done all of the things I suggested).

Why do you think Seival did not address what you wrote or dispute your claims?

I just do not see the point of shutting down this discussion. There may be a good reason to but I cannot see it. Would you explain why you or others might think this is the best or a logical course of action or what benefit it achieves?

[SackofCat]

Also, Sauruz,
The reason why my posts are so long is probably because I am not used to posting on forums. If it is a pain in the ass for you to read my long posts let me know and I will be sure to make any posts directed at you as short and succinct as possible.

[Muhkida]

I think a couple of you guys might be giving OP the benefit of the doubt here when it comes to making threads that are intended for "clean" debate/discussion.

When someone starts several support topics on subjects that are highly considered taboo here in BSN.....making one topic at a legitimate stance I can see happening, but 2-4 topics? That seems forced to me.

EDIT : As others have mentioned before, OP only wants to instigate the mob.

Modifié par Muhkida, 14 juin 2012 - 10:22 .

[M Hedonist]

SackofCat wrote...

I just do not see the point of shutting down this discussion. There may be a good reason to but I cannot see it. Would you explain why you or others might think this is the best or a logical course of action or what benefit it achieves?

Aside from the obvious frustration many users have experienced with Seival?
Some also think he's a troll. I've said in the past that I find it unlikely for him to be troll, but now I don't know what to believe anymore. Some of the stuff he has written since then has been ridiculously over the top, he appears to always take on the stance that less people on this forum sympathize with, he has overly simplistic opinions, his arguments lack any kind of deductive reasoning and any attempt to reason with him falls on deaf ears. Any other user who shows these signs I would have instantly accused of being a troll. It's only Seival's past history on this forum that makes me doubt that.
Notably, I've made this very same judgement in the past when dealing with a user called Oransel. Similarly, he took on a role that very few people sympathize with and I was convinced he was being serious because he has made several non-controversial threads in the past. In the end, he outright admitted being a troll.
That's why I'm determined to make him answer my post. Until he responds with a reasonable argument, I am convinced he's a troll.

Sauruz wrote...

Let's try something different.
I challenge you to disprove any of the following arguments using either a) ingame evidence or a logical deduction:
1. Why do Mass Relays change color?
2. Why do Javik and James join the test flight? "They're part of the team" is not a solid argument. Unless they can actually provide any help during the flight, they're completely pointless.
3. Why does nobody of the ME2 crew join the test flight? Using your own argument, you're treating them like "kings".

Note that I'm saying he may choose any one of these three.

I'm willing to cooperate with you white knights and once more try it with reason since you've clearly won this round. Until my patience runs out again.

Modifié par Sauruz, 14 juin 2012 - 11:39 .

[estebanus]

Sauruz wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

I just do not see the point of shutting down this discussion. There may be a good reason to but I cannot see it. Would you explain why you or others might think this is the best or a logical course of action or what benefit it achieves?

Aside from the obvious frustration many users have experienced with Seival?
Some also think he's a troll. I've said in the past that I find it unlikely for him to be troll, but now I don't know what to believe anymore. Some of the stuff he has written since then has been ridiculously over the top, he appears to always take on the stance that less people on this forum sympathize with, he has overly simplistic opinions, his arguments lack any kind of deductive reasoning and any attempt to reason with him falls on deaf ears. Any other user who shows these signs I would have instantly accused of being a troll. It's only Seival's past history on this forum that makes me doubt that.
Notably, I've made this very same judgement in the past when dealing with a user called Oransel. Similarly, he took on a role that very few people sympathize with and I was convinced he was being serious because he has made several non-controversial threads in the past. In the end, he outright admitted being a troll.
That's why I'm determined to make him answer my post. Until he responds with a reasonable argument, I am convinced he's a troll.

Sauruz wrote...

Let's try something different.
I challenge you to disprove any of the following arguments using either a) ingame evidence or a logical deduction:
1. Why do Mass Relays change color?
2. Why do Javik and James join the test flight? "They're part of the team" is not a solid argument. Unless they can actually provide any help during the flight, they're completely pointless.
3. Why does nobody of the ME2 crew join the test flight? Using your own argument, you're treating them like "kings".

Note that I'm saying he may choose any one of these three.

I will cooperate with you white knights and once more try it with reason. Until my patience runs out again.

I also find it funny how he calls every other possible ending to hollywoodish.

Seriously, how is a DEM not standard-hollywoodish?

[M Hedonist]

estebanus wrote...

I also find it funny how he calls every other possible ending to hollywoodish.

Seriously, how is a DEM not standard-hollywoodish?

The ME3 ending is exactly the kind of stuff I expect from modern hollywood films. Forcibly "artistic" and obviously supposed to pander to the people who think everything that goes against the norm is highbrow entertainment. Hipsters, in other words.

Modifié par Sauruz, 14 juin 2012 - 11:46 .

[Memnon]

Muhkida wrote...

I think a couple of you guys might be giving OP the benefit of the doubt here when it comes to making threads that are intended for "clean" debate/discussion.

When someone starts several support topics on subjects that are highly considered taboo here in BSN.....making one topic at a legitimate stance I can see happening, but 2-4 topics? That seems forced to me.

EDIT : As others have mentioned before, OP only wants to instigate the mob.

At one point I thought the OP was roleplaying someone who was indoctrinated ... I thought it was brilliant actually

[HellishFiend]

Sauruz wrote...

I'm willing to cooperate with you white knights and once more try it with reason since you've clearly won this round. Until my patience runs out again.

I hope you are not lumping me into that "white knight" category. I simply dont want to see people that I personally converse with on a regular basis contribute to BSN looking more like a trashy anonymous imageboard rather than a place to have enjoyable discussion.

Aside from that, I happen to agree with you that Seival needs to do a much better job rationalizing his viewpoints if he wants people to take them seriously. But ironically it makes people look even worse than you claim him to be when they stoop to invading his thread with image memes.

[M Hedonist]

HellishFiend wrote...

I hope you are not lumping me into that "white knight" category.

Don't be humble now. You're the big hero who went out of his way to stop the imagespamming hordes from pillaging the lands.

I simply dont want to see people that I personally converse with on a regular basis contribute to BSN looking more like a trashy anonymous imageboard rather than a place to have enjoyable discussion.

That's pretty invasive.

[HellishFiend]

Sauruz wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I hope you are not lumping me into that "white knight" category.

Don't be humble now. You're the big hero who went out of his way to stop the imagespamming hordes from pillaging the lands.

I simply dont want to see people that I personally converse with on a regular basis contribute to BSN looking more like a trashy anonymous imageboard rather than a place to have enjoyable discussion.

That's pretty invasive.

Sorry, I know I'm being harsh. I do apologize. I was just really disappointed. Thank you for the compliment, though, I think....

Anyway, the point is, there has to be a better way to handle this situation. 

[Seival]

SackofCat wrote...

Erield,
I think that is a rather elegant sulotion to some of the problems that have arisen during the course of this thread.

I do not disagree with your assessment but it is hard for me to judge the reason(s) behind, what appears to be, Seival's dismissive tone and content of his/her responses.

Seival,
If you have the will and the patience, I think an intellectually honest implementation of Erield's idea could help you get this discussion back on track.

I realize that going through the more than 30 pages of this thread to find the criticisms that you and others consider valid will be difficult and will take a significant amount of time and work. However, it would also organize the content of this discussion, show that you are fair and objective, and make your theory at least appear more convincing (among other potential benefits).

It may be difficult for people to be open to the possibility that the Normandy crash scene can be made logical, but if people spend a bit more time considering your idea, they may, directly (with suggestions) or indirectly (with legitimate criticism that can direct your attention to which parts of your theory may benefit from revision and/or clarification), stimulate constructive discussion and help you improve upon your initial idea. If you would like some help, feel free to let me know either here or by pm.


[my first draft of this post was organized better and had more and better points. Unfortunately the iPod Touch I was using to type it up crashed as I was considering whether to include a final sentence (I decided against it). I suspect the spam pictures contributed significantly to this crash]

Again, thanks for constructive replies, SackofCat. They are much appreciated 

I'm not tired at all, and can withstand any amount of pressure in such thread. But right now I have to read what I missed. Discussion was faster then I thought last day. And time difference kept me out of loop.

[LiarasShield]

No I think that the normandy escape scene was wrong and against each characters personalities and motivations I don't see how it could work for any of them just how I feel that we lost to the reapers in all endings

Modifié par LiarasShield, 14 juin 2012 - 05:18 .

[Seival]

SackofCat wrote...

Sauruz,
While I do not speak for Seival, he has mentioned the points you made (with the possible exception of the ME2 squadmates question). You two just have different definitions of the words: logic, in-game evidence, and what makes sense. You also disagree about what good storytelling is.

There are better ways to get your point across than spamming a thread until it is locked. If you think Seival's answers aren't relevant to your question, try asking the question in a different way that demonstrates what s/he missed or ignored the first time. Try asking one question at a time and explain why Seival's previous answers did not adequately address your questions/criticism. I think you are smart enough to realize that spam will not be constructive.

The "Sheogorath"(sp) quotes went over my head and I admit I may not see some valid or sophisticated point that your spiderman and mass ass effect pictures are supposed to be making, I may not even have found all of the pictures particularly unpleasant to look at, but I don't think it is relevant to this discussion.

If Seival is wrong, you can either demonstrate it logically until s/he accepts it or s/he will not accept it regardless of how logical your argument is. At that point, you can either try again, stop trying/responding, or stop trying to convince Seival and start trying to convince everyone else. However, you should not be surprised if Seival is a little defensive or wary considering that s/he is the only one arguing his case and everyone else(with myself as the only possible exception) that have posted here have argued against him/her or simply mocked him/her (or both).

I have read very few posts in this thread, made by Seival, that can be called objectively arrogant. S/he has certainly been more polite than people have been to him/her.

Ultimately, this is a support thread for an interpretation of a scene in ME3, that few people have been able to adequately rationalize, no matter how flawed. If people spammed every thread that contained faulty logic or even arrogance, this forum would be a much quieter place.

I am sorry for singleing you out. You are clearly not the only one posting irrelevant pictures (though you may have a more legitimate grievance than anyone else in this thread). You have been quite patient with Seival (for the most part) and have put thought, time, and effort into constructing fairly well-written (not being sarcastic here), and valid (for the most part-Talibum don't count) arguments against the validity of this interpretation. I have seen that Seival has not responded to several of those arguments. It is possible that Seival has no malicious or condescending intent. It is possible he/she really thinks your arguments have been adequately addressed by him/her (even though you and I may disagree). Even if you think Seival is not contributing anything of value or substance to this topic, it doesn't mean that it will necessarily be devoid of anything worthwhile posted by anyone else.

Seival,
I will try to point out where there might have been a misunderstanding between you and Sauruz but for now, please tell me your gender (so that I can stop referring to you as 'he/she', 'him/her')

HellishFiend,
Apparently, the urge to mock an interpretation one finds ridiculous is not unique to one particular group or another. Some of these posters haven't said a thing in this thread until the spam started. Then they simply started ganging up on the OPer. Thanks for trying to make this forum a bit more hospitable and inclusive.

+1


...Answer to your question: male.

[Grimwick]

Sauruz wrote...
I'm willing to cooperate with you white knights and once more try it with reason since you've clearly won this round. Until my patience runs out again.

I'm going to give those that support this theory a chance to adequately explain their position with regard to the multitude of questions we have asked.

If they insist that they have 'answered' the questions already then there really is no hope for a reasonable discussion on this thread - it's pointless showing support/arguing against an idea which isn't supported by logic and facts or where one side of the argument is completely ignored.

If they answer, explaining what they feel answers those questions then I'll reply as necessary and beg further questions, deconstruct arguments or present new counter-arguments.

In any case... my spidey-senses are tingling.

[Seival]

Erield wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

Damn that's long...

Erield,
Do you really think so little of the Seival's responses? Wouldn't calling it vandalism be a bit of an exaggeration unless the OPer was a troll? It's just that I don't think I have ever seen you exaggerate like that before. Do you think I am missing something?

Did I over-exaggerate?  Sure.  However, the last several responses by Seival have not advanced his theory in any way, have not answered any of the additional problems with his theory in any way, nor specifically addressed any of the issues raised.  I guess that's basically the same thing phrased three different ways, but oh well.

If he wants to not be continually asked the same questions or face the same complaints, and truly believes in this theory, I do have a constructive suggestion for him.  Adding the most common complaints to the OP, with his answers, and then be able to link to that in the future.  This will help him save his time for actually addressing the issues, and help to prevent repeat issues.  (Only help, because there will be those who don't bother to read past the thread title.)

I thought about it. But I was afraid that there will be no place in OP for regular text. And if I'll try to resize images, their text will become unreadable... Well, I think I'll better follow this suggestion anyway. But it will require some time to modify OP.

Thanks.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

This is poop.

[M Hedonist]

Grimwick wrote...

In any case... my spidey-senses are tingling.

Give it a little more time. Not today. The forces of evil must rebuild first.

In the meantime,

Sauruz wrote...

Let's try something different.
I challenge you to disprove any of the following arguments using either a) ingame evidence or a logical deduction:
1. Why do Mass Relays change color?
2. Why do Javik and James join the test flight? "They're part of the team" is not a solid argument. Unless they can actually provide any help during the flight, they're completely pointless.
3. Why does nobody of the ME2 crew join the test flight? Using your own argument, you're treating them like "kings".

Contrary to what you say, you've never answered any of those using deductive reasoning, Seival. For example (this is the point where you take notes Seival - proper arguments often use examples to illustrate their points), when people brought up that the Mass Relays change color, you've said that there are differently colored Mass Relays, but you have never explained why the Mass Relays change color depending on the ending you chose. Making baseless comparisons is not a substitute for deductive reasoning.

Edit: Ah, I see you're starting to make a Q&A. So far, I can tell it will be fun to tear your "counter-arguments" apart.

Modifié par Sauruz, 14 juin 2012 - 10:21 .

[Pottumuusi]

Guys what the hell are you doing? Are you having a discussion?

Well, stop it. This thread deserves nothing but 60's Spiderman.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Edit: Ah, I see you're starting to make a Q&A. So far, I can tell it will be fun to tear your "counter-arguments" apart.

Yes, that is what you should do instead of adding spiderman pictures... No offence