Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

There was one person that we know of that did what you are saying about spamming the forum with such threads

This further proves how deceitful you're being. There were over 26 accounts on your list that had posted many useless threads on the subject. It even still says this in the OP. Unlike you, I've actually taken the time to go through every single thread in the OP and made a list of how many posters made multiple threads. But please, continue making provably wrong statements...
{spoiler="From the OP"}

"

Turtledove wrote:

Of the 28 accounts with multiple threads, those 28 thread authors account for 65 of those threads.

{/spoiler}

Here's what you said.

"

Other than the obvious use of threads that serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads. It actually hurts the anti-laby movement because if any of the devs actually care enough to look thru the list, they have to wade thru a ton of shit posts before they reach the feedback gold that is in there.

My interpretation of that was focused on "serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads". You're actually being ridiculous in your claims. There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was because they were frustrated and it made them feel better to lash out in that way. Instead of me being a damn jerk and thinking you were an idiot, I tried to more reasonably interpret your statement to mean people posting more than 2 or 3 threads and then the time a small group of people that were posting new threads of the same name. Now even those two examples, it can be reasonably argued that it could have easily served other purposes than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads. But if you want to think that I was being deceitful then fine. Let's see how low you're willing to go.

"

qwqwqw333_final wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't know about everybody else, but the more people whine about something , the more I don't want to see it changed.

Mmmm

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't want to see anybody bullied into changing something just like I don't want to see a mommy give in and buy her kid a toy when he's making a scene in a toy store.

Who's bullied in your example.

I don't fully understand your position.

In what you quoted, the only person being bullied is the mother. Buy me a toy or I'm going to be annoying until you cave in.

"

turtledove wrote:

There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was....

So shovelcut can't get into their minds and know what they were thinking, but you can? If his argument isn't valid, then yours is equally not valid.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

qwqwqw333_final wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't know about everybody else, but the more people whine about something , the more I don't want to see it changed.

Mmmm

"

mark1030 wrote:

I don't want to see anybody bullied into changing something just like I don't want to see a mommy give in and buy her kid a toy when he's making a scene in a toy store.

Who's bullied in your example.

I don't fully understand your position.

In what you quoted, the only person being bullied is the mother.

Bully: A person who is cruel to others, especially those who are weaker or have less power.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bully#English

Where is the cruelty in your two examples? Also, the child and the person complaining about labyrinth have little power in these examples and are making suggestions and pleas to a person in much greater power.

Mark1030, that is a very unusual use of the word bully. It still doesn't really make sense to me either.

edit:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

turtledove wrote:

There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was....

So shovelcut can't get into their minds and know what they were thinking, but you can? If his argument isn't valid, then yours is equally not valid.

????this makes no sense? How am I getting into people's minds? I said "I suspect" and then gave a reasonable alternative example. I simply addded that I suspect it more likely than Shovelcut's assumed motivation???

Mark, I think you may need a break or something????

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

turtledove wrote:

There is no way for you to get into their minds and know what they were thinking!!! I suspect the real reason they were doing it was....

So shovelcut can't get into their minds and know what they were thinking, but you can? If his argument isn't valid, then yours is equally not valid.

????this makes no sense? How am I getting into people's minds? I said "I suspect" and then gave a reasonable alternative example. I simply addded that I suspect it more likely than Shovelcut's assumed motivation???

Where did shovelcut Claim to know what people were thinking? I must have missed it. All I heard him say was that you can't know what they were thinking and claiming you can (by using the words "known fact") is not valid.

Edit: And since were pulling out dictionaries, why did you conveniently leave out the second definition of bully in your link? The one that says:

"

A noisy, blustering fellow, more insolent than courageous; one who is threatening and quarrelsome; an insolent, tyrannical fellow.

So people in weaker positions can't be noisy, blustering, insolent, threatening, or quarrelsome? And no one in your list of lab haters is showing any signs of any of that?

Is this the thread where I mention that I don't have a problem with the Labyrinth?

There's been some discussion about silent majorities and while I'm not completely silent I probably don't share my opinion as often as it seems I should.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Where did shovelcut Claim to know what people were thinking? I must have missed it. All I heard him say was that you can't know what they were thinking and claiming you can (by using the words "known fact") is not valid.

Edit: And since were pulling out dictionaries, why did you conveniently leave out the second definition of bully in your link? The one that says:

"

A noisy, blustering fellow, more insolent than courageous; one who is threatening and quarrelsome; an insolent, tyrannical fellow.

So people in weaker positions can't be noisy, blustering, insolent, threatening, or quarrelsome? And no one in your list of lab haters is showing any signs of any of that?

Shovelcut said,

"

Shovelcut wrote:

Other than the obvious use of threads that serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads. It actually hurts the anti-laby movement because if any of the devs actually care enough to look thru the list, they have to wade thru a ton of shit posts before they reach the feedback gold that is in there.

In defining an apparently large block of labyrinth threads he said they "serve no purpose other than to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads". There are many possible reasons for people posting threads that Shovelcut doesn't like, agree with, and thinks have no purpose other than artificially inflating the total number of laby hate threads. The reason people do things is their purpose for doing it. Other examples of a purpose to post such a thread might be

1. Just to piss off Shovelcut or Mark1030 or someone else
2. Just to express one's general frustration or distaste with the labyrinth game play
3. Just to remind GGG that they don't like labyrinth
4. Just because it was Sunday and they hadn't had a shower shower yet (as a silly example meaning I'm sure there are plenty of other purposes possible that I haven't thought of)

I suspect that 1, 2, and 3 are all more likely the intended purpose of the thread and cathartic than them wanting to artificially inflate the total number of laby hate threads. I assert that people usually do things like that for a cathartic purpose and so would guess those three potential purposes are much more likely.

Regarding the second definition of bully, I apologize for missing that definition.

You guys need to put this bullshit argument to bed already. My earlier statement remains as true now as it did then.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

It is not credible to argue that someone had many dozens of alt accounts stowed away prior to the release of labyrinth, March 2016, so that they could compromise a list that was first created by Zaludoz on September 14, 2016, https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1702621/page/49.

That was never the argument, the point is that you going thru the list and checking creation dates and making an absolute statement such as "there are only 3 or 4 alt accounts" is absolutely meaningless and baseless. Yeah, many players had multiple accounts created before March 2016 most likely as mule accounts.

Say what you will, I know someone who has 30+ accounts made before that date and he's likely not the only one. I have 3 myself, 5 if you include both of my sons accounts.

Am I saying that they are using them for nefarious purposes? Nope, just stating a fact.

What is not credible is going thru the creation dates and saying that because they were created prior to March they cannot be alt accounts. This is the only point I'm trying to refute. It's just pointing out that your method is flawed.

If you think that more than a handful of people are acting in bad faith and dishonestly pretending to be more than one person, then yeah, that's probably a little paranoid.

But that's fine. The vocal minority actively defending the labyrinth in these threads could very well be doing the exact same thing, so it's a wash. But I doubt there are many in that camp doing it either.

The accusation is equally silly no matter which side you apply it to.

"

Turtledove wrote:

The reason people do things is their purpose for doing it. Other examples of a purpose to post such a thread might be

1. Just to piss off Shovelcut or Mark1030 or someone else
2. Just to express one's general frustration or distaste with the labyrinth game play
3. Just to remind GGG that they don't like labyrinth
4. Just because it was Sunday and they hadn't had a shower shower yet (as a silly example meaning I'm sure there are plenty of other purposes possible that I haven't thought of)

Or 5. Because someone made a thread to keep track of how many anti-laby threads there are who spammed it in multiple threads to gain more traction. Thus initiating even more spam (useless) anti-laby threads. But just like #'s 1-4 it's just a guess.

The fact that those threads were even included in the list just goes to show that they're being used to artificially inflate the number of threads, along with knowingly adding alt accounts to the list of names.

If calling out questionable practices is "going low" then so be it.

@gibbousmoon The only person acting in bad faith atm is Turtledove with his blatantly incorrect "facts". This is the only thing mark and I are arguing against. Nobody has suggested anything about any group of people, it boils down to one person making provably wrong statements and trying to pass them off as undeniable fact. So it's not a bullshit argument, it's quite valid.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware that there is a small handful of people posting on alt accounts, nobody in this current discussion has even implied that it is more than a few. So I'll just chalk it up to you missing our point. :)

Edit: To be perfectly clear, I never claimed to know what those posters had in mind when they hit the submit button. What I am claiming is that the person maintaining this thread is doing some underhanded shit in a desperate attempt to push his agenda.

funny thing: Turtle, youve managed to insult GGG several times, participate in shit-eating debates, antagonized people that were sympathetic to your cause and now you are creating some sort of a passive petition

you know that you - no matter what youll do in the future - already made your mark. by insulting and berating work of GGG. nothing you do now will change that. would you care if people that smeared sh.. on your front door afterwards created a petition asking you to cut down trees on your possession? would you care? or maybe laugh at their wasted effort

you wanted to change something. we all do from time to time. but you started to insult and antagonize EVERYONE except few same-minded + alts. the moment you started doing that - youve lost. this petition and obsessive act of collecting new 'members' is at this time close to being a health hazard because how anyone can believe this petition/spam will change ANYTHING when the people in charge were repeatedly offended and insulted?