238 réponses à ce sujet

[LucasShark]

SauliusL wrote...

FAButzke wrote...

The main problem with IT is that, if it is true, then the last 20 minutes did not happen and we don't have an ending. What's worse? The ending we've got or to have to pay for another one.
Yes. Pay. Because Bioware said that EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay'. So. If the IT is true, then: Either the ending is going to be 'automated' from the point where Shepard 'wakes up' onward. Or, we still won't have an 'ending' and we're going to pay later for one where you actually get to play.

I don't believe OR support IT. All I know is that because all this whining we have no further singleplayer DLC (that actually expand the game) yet. Deny it all you want. That's the truth.

This is the perfect example of anti ITer, who flames these kind of discussions. I have met here only couple anti ITers who really know things they discuss about IT. But this one is with false information, false understanding, outdated details etc etc. And they keep coming, no matter how much pro ITers try to explain what the theory is about, and not what you read somewhere couple months ago.

If you consider that flaming: then you have very thin skin for activity on the internet, no offense.  I've seen far worse from both sides.

[Vox Draco]

SauliusL wrote...
This is the perfect example of anti ITer, who flames these kind of discussions. I have met here only couple anti ITers who really know things they discuss about IT. But this one is with false information, false understanding, outdated details etc etc. And they keep coming, no matter how much pro ITers try to explain what the theory is about, and not what you read somewhere couple months ago.

I agree. But its normal. Once you have made up your mind about something almsot nothing wil change it. It's the same for me with synthesis or taking the endings literal. Not even all clarification directly from bioware will change my mind about this, I hate it with passion. And I think Anti-Itlers are the same, though I get the impression it is less the theory itself, but merely hatred against Bioware projected on the theory...something like that...

Anyway...I really have lsot interest in convincing what IT could lead to, and that IT is all about what might happen next. If IT is right, more needs to come, and it needs to be awesome. If not, IT is just as good a "headcanon" than taking the endings literally...

[BatmanTurian]

Barsomo92 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

My point is that if someone that work for Bioware likes the indoctrination theory and want us to continue to talk about it. Then people shouldn't call us stupid or delusional.

Why not get the people who share your belief in IT to stop insulting non-ITers before telling the people they're insulting to not insult them back?


I don't condone it from either side, but the opinion of a mod doesn't suddenly mean that ITers can go around acting like their interpretation is the be all and end all, insulting people as they go... And not expect any flack in return.


Double standards and all that.

Can't help that, you are effectively telling me not to insult Ieldra2 for the ascension thread, it is how it works in these forum, well, this forum more specifically, and also depending what u call insult

I'm asking ITers to stop insulting non-ITers if they're going to tell non-ITers to stop insulting them because it's a double standard.

I've barely been on that Synthesis thread because it doesn't interest me, so I can't comment on how Ieldra2 conducts him/herself... But I don't see how indirectly asking you not to insult that user is a big deal regardlessl.

I have not seen a thread that begins with: People are stupid for not believing in the indoctrination theory  or something like that.

That cameltoe guy made a thread just two days ago saying exactly that and it got locked. And he's Anti-IT.

[Barsomo92]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

My point is that if someone that work for Bioware likes the indoctrination theory and want us to continue to talk about it. Then people shouldn't call us stupid or delusional.

Why not get the people who share your belief in IT to stop insulting non-ITers before telling the people they're insulting to not insult them back?


I don't condone it from either side, but the opinion of a mod doesn't suddenly mean that ITers can go around acting like their interpretation is the be all and end all, insulting people as they go... And not expect any flack in return.


Double standards and all that.

Can't help that, you are effectively telling me not to insult Ieldra2 for the ascension thread, it is how it works in these forum, well, this forum more specifically, and also depending what u call insult

I'm asking ITers to stop insulting non-ITers if they're going to tell non-ITers to stop insulting them because it's a double standard.

I've barely been on that Synthesis thread because it doesn't interest me, so I can't comment on how Ieldra2 conducts him/herself... But I don't see how indirectly asking you not to insult that user is a big deal regardlessl.

I have not seen a thread that begins with: People are stupid for not believing in the indoctrination theory  or something like that.

That cameltoe guy made a thread just two days ago saying exactly that and it got locked. And he's Anti-IT.

Yes i know. Some Anti-IT people gets really angry.

[BatmanTurian]

Barsomo92 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

My point is that if someone that work for Bioware likes the indoctrination theory and want us to continue to talk about it. Then people shouldn't call us stupid or delusional.

Why not get the people who share your belief in IT to stop insulting non-ITers before telling the people they're insulting to not insult them back?


I don't condone it from either side, but the opinion of a mod doesn't suddenly mean that ITers can go around acting like their interpretation is the be all and end all, insulting people as they go... And not expect any flack in return.


Double standards and all that.

Can't help that, you are effectively telling me not to insult Ieldra2 for the ascension thread, it is how it works in these forum, well, this forum more specifically, and also depending what u call insult

I'm asking ITers to stop insulting non-ITers if they're going to tell non-ITers to stop insulting them because it's a double standard.

I've barely been on that Synthesis thread because it doesn't interest me, so I can't comment on how Ieldra2 conducts him/herself... But I don't see how indirectly asking you not to insult that user is a big deal regardlessl.

I have not seen a thread that begins with: People are stupid for not believing in the indoctrination theory  or something like that.

That cameltoe guy made a thread just two days ago saying exactly that and it got locked. And he's Anti-IT.

Yes i know. Some Anti-IT people gets really angry.

yeah, it's a situation that we as a community need to handle because the mods are obviously not interested in keeping debates civil beyond locking threads long past their due date to be locked.
I'd like to think we're all adults (or at least teenagers who should know better).

[LucasShark]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

My point is that if someone that work for Bioware likes the indoctrination theory and want us to continue to talk about it. Then people shouldn't call us stupid or delusional.

Why not get the people who share your belief in IT to stop insulting non-ITers before telling the people they're insulting to not insult them back?


I don't condone it from either side, but the opinion of a mod doesn't suddenly mean that ITers can go around acting like their interpretation is the be all and end all, insulting people as they go... And not expect any flack in return.


Double standards and all that.

Can't help that, you are effectively telling me not to insult Ieldra2 for the ascension thread, it is how it works in these forum, well, this forum more specifically, and also depending what u call insult

I'm asking ITers to stop insulting non-ITers if they're going to tell non-ITers to stop insulting them because it's a double standard.

I've barely been on that Synthesis thread because it doesn't interest me, so I can't comment on how Ieldra2 conducts him/herself... But I don't see how indirectly asking you not to insult that user is a big deal regardlessl.

I have not seen a thread that begins with: People are stupid for not believing in the indoctrination theory  or something like that.

That cameltoe guy made a thread just two days ago saying exactly that and it got locked. And he's Anti-IT.

Yes i know. Some Anti-IT people gets really angry.

yeah, it's a situation that we as a community need to handle because the mods are obviously not interested in keeping debates civil beyond locking threads long past their due date to be locked.
I'd like to think we're all adults (or at least teenagers who should know better).

Having a nice hate on all anti-ITers while complaining about being persecuted by anti-ITers?  Hypocrisy feels nice doesn't it?

[Leafs43]

The only time IT'ers call anti-IT'ers stupid is when they make glaringly obvious mistakes when representing the IT in their rebuttals.

I can't count how many times an anti-IT'er has something like, "Hurf durf, the you can't break out of indoctrination."

[Barsomo92]

Some Anti-IT people really go far to say how stupid we are like the cameltoe guy

[LucasShark]

Leafs43 wrote...

The only time IT'ers call anti-IT'ers stupid is when they make glaringly obvious mistakes when representing the IT in their rebuttals.

I can't count how many times an anti-IT'er has something like, "Hurf durf, the you can't break out of indoctrination."

So... you just claimed to never insult anti IT-ers unless they make mistakes... followed by misrepresenting them with your own strawman...

[BatmanTurian]

LucasShark wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

My point is that if someone that work for Bioware likes the indoctrination theory and want us to continue to talk about it. Then people shouldn't call us stupid or delusional.

Why not get the people who share your belief in IT to stop insulting non-ITers before telling the people they're insulting to not insult them back?


I don't condone it from either side, but the opinion of a mod doesn't suddenly mean that ITers can go around acting like their interpretation is the be all and end all, insulting people as they go... And not expect any flack in return.


Double standards and all that.

Can't help that, you are effectively telling me not to insult Ieldra2 for the ascension thread, it is how it works in these forum, well, this forum more specifically, and also depending what u call insult

I'm asking ITers to stop insulting non-ITers if they're going to tell non-ITers to stop insulting them because it's a double standard.

I've barely been on that Synthesis thread because it doesn't interest me, so I can't comment on how Ieldra2 conducts him/herself... But I don't see how indirectly asking you not to insult that user is a big deal regardlessl.

I have not seen a thread that begins with: People are stupid for not believing in the indoctrination theory  or something like that.

That cameltoe guy made a thread just two days ago saying exactly that and it got locked. And he's Anti-IT.

Yes i know. Some Anti-IT people gets really angry.

yeah, it's a situation that we as a community need to handle because the mods are obviously not interested in keeping debates civil beyond locking threads long past their due date to be locked.
I'd like to think we're all adults (or at least teenagers who should know better).

Having a nice hate on all anti-ITers while complaining about being persecuted by anti-ITers?  Hypocrisy feels nice doesn't it?

No hate here. I respect other people's point of view. I even complimented Ieldra on the imagination he put into his interpretation using synthesis. I only correct people when they make false claims or provide misinformation. I'm actually a moderate.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 18 juin 2012 - 04:58 .

[SauliusL]

Leafs43 wrote...

The only time IT'ers call anti-IT'ers stupid is when they make glaringly obvious mistakes when representing the IT in their rebuttals.

I can't count how many times an anti-IT'er has something like, "Hurf durf, the you can't break out of indoctrination."

Mostly I agree. It's the majority of times when this happens.
But ofcourse both sides have some percentage of trolls also.

[BigGuy28]

I don't call them that, I just call them a cult because that is what it has become. Either you are with them and believe or you are wrong and will be bludgeoned until you believe with them.

Also:

[darkchief10]

so much confirmation bias up in here
imma be far away from here yo.

[BatmanTurian]

darkchief10 wrote...

so much confirmation bias up in here
imma be far away from here yo.

yeah, that totally doesn't work both ways.

[FAButzke]

SauliusL wrote...

FAButzke wrote...

The main problem with IT is that, if it is true, then the last 20 minutes did not happen and we don't have an ending. What's worse? The ending we've got or to have to pay for another one.
Yes. Pay. Because Bioware said that EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay'. So. If the IT is true, then: Either the ending is going to be 'automated' from the point where Shepard 'wakes up' onward. Or, we still won't have an 'ending' and we're going to pay later for one where you actually get to play.

I don't believe OR support IT. All I know is that because all this whining we have no further singleplayer DLC (that actually expand the game) yet. Deny it all you want. That's the truth.

This is the perfect example of anti ITer, who flames these kind of discussions. I have met here only couple anti ITers who really know things they discuss about IT. But this one is with false information, false understanding, outdated details etc etc. And they keep coming, no matter how much pro ITers try to explain what the theory is about, and not what you read somewhere couple months ago.

Sure. Let's judge the guy without knowing what he actually knows.
I've seen the one hour and half documentary. I've seen Bioware at E3. I've seen dozens of topic, videos and you guys are actually looking like religious fanactics : If someone disagrees with you, all you do is: "You do not understand!".
Nope. I do understand. I simply disagree.

Can you indulge me and try to contest the logic in my previous post? Did I say something that is not true? Where? Why?

[BatmanTurian]

FAButzke wrote...

SauliusL wrote...

FAButzke wrote...

The main problem with IT is that, if it is true, then the last 20 minutes did not happen and we don't have an ending. What's worse? The ending we've got or to have to pay for another one.
Yes. Pay. Because Bioware said that EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay'. So. If the IT is true, then: Either the ending is going to be 'automated' from the point where Shepard 'wakes up' onward. Or, we still won't have an 'ending' and we're going to pay later for one where you actually get to play.

I don't believe OR support IT. All I know is that because all this whining we have no further singleplayer DLC (that actually expand the game) yet. Deny it all you want. That's the truth.

This is the perfect example of anti ITer, who flames these kind of discussions. I have met here only couple anti ITers who really know things they discuss about IT. But this one is with false information, false understanding, outdated details etc etc. And they keep coming, no matter how much pro ITers try to explain what the theory is about, and not what you read somewhere couple months ago.

Sure. Let's judge the guy without knowing what he actually knows.
I've seen the one hour and half documentary. I've seen Bioware at E3. I've seen dozens of topic, videos and you guys are actually looking like religious fanactics : If someone disagrees with you, all you do is: "You do not understand!".
Nope. I do understand. I simply disagree.

Can you indulge me and try to contest the logic in my previous post? Did I say something that is not true? Where? Why?

EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay

The bolded has already been proven false. Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay. They have not outright stated there is no gameplay. It is misinformation to state this as fact.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 18 juin 2012 - 06:32 .

[mango smoothie]

Humans don't like to be proven wrong no matter what. When all other attempts have been exhausted when defending an opinion/theory, some will resort to insulting to avoid being proven wrong. Both Indoctrination Theorists and Anti Indoctrination Theory have people who resort to this measure.

[sistersafetypin]

Barsomo92 wrote...

But we don't make threads that say you are a moron for not believing in the Indoctrination Theory.

Yes. There are those that do

[darkchief10]

BatmanTurian wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

so much confirmation bias up in here
imma be far away from here yo.

yeah, that totally doesn't work both ways.

lol that was my pont Ha Ha

[BatmanTurian]

darkchief10 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

so much confirmation bias up in here
imma be far away from here yo.

yeah, that totally doesn't work both ways.

lol that was my pont Ha Ha

yeah i was agreeing with you.

[CaliGuy033]

Because people who believe in IT are delusional.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[draken-heart]

to be honest, unless IT-ers can call the whole game an indoctrination attempt and logically back it up i cannot say truly that IT was even their plan after they pulled it for being to difficult to implement.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it