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

"

Turtledove wrote:

What have I said that is blatantly false?

Read these:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I'm not inflating any numbers. Like I stated there are only 3 or 4 alt accounts in the list.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Dance around facts all you want but NOTHING you've said casts any doubt on the fact that it is not a handful of people that make up the list of 691 accounts.

You are saying it's a FACT that there are only 3-4 alt accounts in your list. You cannot possibly know that. Only somebody with access to IP addresses can reasonably make that claim. Regardless of whether or not you are right, you can't say it's a fact. You don't know that! You can't know that! You can suspect that. You can assume that. You can even conclude that. But none of those makes it a verifiable fact. And I know you're not stupid so I know you can tell the difference between an assumption and a statement of fact. So either you're being deliberately sneaky by pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, or you do understand and are just trolling me.

Like you said, there are legit reasons for making alt accounts. I agree. I even showed you I had one. That you would rate with an "o" and a "$". Having an alt account doesn't mean somebody is using that account to be deceptive. But claiming you know which accounts are alts and what their motives are looks like you are the one being deceptive and it undermines your credibility. If you want GGG to take you seriously, you have to look like you're legitimately arguing. By claiming you know facts that only GGG can know is the opposite of that.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

I see. So this entire vendetta is about making sure one poster recants his words, and nothing else?

Forgive me for assuming it was something more, um, substantive and relevant to the thread. I will try not to make that same mistake again.

I genuinely do my best to assume the best intentions of others, especially when it comes to communications on the internet, which are often ambiguous. So I assumed that you and Shovelcut weren't REALLY spending the good part of eight thread pages on such a ridiculous mission.

It's not a vendetta. It's about calling somebody out on BS claims that are blatently false. If you don't think honesty, integrity, and truthfulness are important in this thread, then so be it. I do. Don't state something as provable and factual when it's not provable at all. It's a guess. An assumption. The only reason it became a big deal is you guys kept ignoring that and pretending we were arguing another point that you had your response all ready to go.

An ongoing argument

1. against a single individual
2. which is off-topic and irrelevant to the thread's topic (to the extent you are telling the truth when you say it is not about the accuracy of the number of unique thread creators) and
3. which has gone on for the better part of eight pages (soon to be nine).

I don't know, mark1030. It looks suspiciously like a vendetta to me.

If any post that calls into question the validity of claims made by the OP is considered off topic, then this thread is 94 pages too long and should just be deleted.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Emphasy wrote:

He essentially just mixes valid concerns about certain issues with his agenda to remove the lab or move the ascendancy out of there which isn't what a lot of those threads are about.

I have just documented the threads as specified in the OP. Those specifications were designed in large part to minimize the required judgment on my part for whether or not a thread should be included. I didn't want to be a judge. I want to be more of a historian in this role. I am not the person that created the threads. If you want a list that communicates different things then make you own list.

The thing is how is a thread complaining about having to do the trials on every character in a league in any form valid if you don't have to do the trials on every character in a league anymore. How is a thread complaining that CI has a hard time in the lab valid if it gets such huge advantages now that they basically can idle on traps (although it was questionable if CI had issues with the lab before). How is a thread about unfinishable layouts valid anymore if they don't exist anymore.

These threads raised valid concerns or mentioned actual bugs that were all fixed. I can't say how some of those people feel about the lab now. Also calling some of these threads "discussing labyrinth problems" is very far fetched.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1752674
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1752386
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1727600

This is not what I would call a discussion. Well maybe elsewhere standards are a bit lower on such things.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1747571

And this, while partially touching the labyrinth is not a thread that should be in the list. He wants to start farming the lab as it seems and can't get the trials, so if your issue isn't making trials more accessible you shouldn't include such threads.


So still the question is about the goal. If the goal of this thread collection is to demand an alternative way to get ascendancy points than it should only keep the threads that include that topic. Because I assume tons of the threads that consist of an opening thread including the words "lab" and "sucks" and hardly anything else just hate the lab because they can't suicide through it, which is a viable concern, however they should have the balls and call it that. If you feel the lab is too hard because of that you should say it and not hide behind useless phrases like "lab sucks" etc.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

It's not a vendetta. It's about calling somebody out on BS claims that are blatently false. If you don't think honesty, integrity, and truthfulness are important in this thread, then so be it. I do. Don't state something as provable and factual when it's not provable at all. It's a guess. An assumption. The only reason it became a big deal is you guys kept ignoring that and pretending we were arguing another point that you had your response all ready to go.

An ongoing argument

1. against a single individual
2. which is off-topic and irrelevant to the thread's topic (to the extent you are telling the truth when you say it is not about the accuracy of the number of unique thread creators) and
3. which has gone on for the better part of eight pages (soon to be nine).

I don't know, mark1030. It looks suspiciously like a vendetta to me.

If any post that calls into question the validity of claims made by the OP is considered off topic, then this thread is 94 pages too long and should just be deleted.

Check what I bolded. In a nutshell, if it isn't a vendetta then it is about the accuracy of the list. You seem to be saying it is the latter, but you got really pissed off earlier when Turtledove (and later I) implied that that was your primary concern, so now it appears that you are contradicting yourself.

Can't have it both ways. Are you

1. pissed off at a single individual, such that you are willing to spend eight pages trying to prove that that single individual is wrong wrong wrong, or

2. are you questioning the validity of the thread itself due to the presence of more than a handful of alts?

You vehemently denied #2, but now you appear to be claiming #2 as evidence that you are not stating #1.

Admitting to either is not flattering, yes, but everything I have read so far slots quite neatly into either one or the other.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

What have I said that is blatantly false?

Read these:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I'm not inflating any numbers. Like I stated there are only 3 or 4 alt accounts in the list.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Dance around facts all you want but NOTHING you've said casts any doubt on the fact that it is not a handful of people that make up the list of 691 accounts.

You are saying it's a FACT that there are only 3-4 alt accounts in your list. You cannot possibly know that. Only somebody with access to IP addresses can reasonably make that claim. Regardless of whether or not you are right, you can't say it's a fact. You don't know that! You can't know that! You can suspect that. You can assume that. You can even conclude that. But none of those makes it a verifiable fact. And I know you're not stupid so I know you can tell the difference between an assumption and a statement of fact. So either you're being deliberately sneaky by pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, or you do understand and are just trolling me.

Like you said, there are legit reasons for making alt accounts. I agree. I even showed you I had one. That you would rate with an "o" and a "$". Having an alt account doesn't mean somebody is using that account to be deceptive. But claiming you know which accounts are alts and what their motives are looks like you are the one being deceptive and it undermines your credibility. If you want GGG to take you seriously, you have to look like you're legitimately arguing. By claiming you know facts that only GGG can know is the opposite of that.

Cue SNL, "WELL EXCUSE ME!" 3 or 4 is not a fixed guaranteed promise. Nonsense that I ever claimed it as a fact. I stated exactly how I came up with that number. I said I spent a couple extra seconds looking at the accounts marked with a * and didn't keep an exact track but thought it was about 3 or 4. This was based on someone saying something about the game that indicated they had been playing for a while but an account creation date indicating they couldn't have played so much on that account or someone with zero characters.

Regarding GGG, I don't think GGG gives a flying shit what I say. They care what their player base says and feels. My voice is simply a small squeak in the chorus of people posting here on the Feedback and Suggestions forum that makes up that chorus of everyone. @Sidtherat, sorry I didn't respond to your nice post with wise and reasonable consulting on this subject. However contrary to that advice, fuck GGG for screwing up my favorite game of all time. On the other hand GGG, thank you for making my favorite game of all time and I really appreciate the great fun I had for years playing your great game. GGG, I hope to return full time in 3.0 after you repair the mess you made of PoE, at that point in time I will create a thread and apologize for all the times I cussed you out about the labyrinth.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Check what I bolded. In a nutshell, if it isn't a vendetta then it is about the accuracy of the list. You seem to be saying it is the latter, but you got really pissed off earlier when Turtledove (and later I) implied that that was your primary concern, so now it appears that you are contradicting yourself.

Can't have it both ways. Are you

1. pissed off at a single individual, such that you are willing to spend eight pages trying to prove that that single individual is wrong wrong wrong, or

2. are you questioning the validity of the thread itself due to the presence of more than a handful of alts?

You vehemently denied #2, but now you appear to be claiming #2 as evidence that you are not stating #1.

Admitting to either is not flattering, yes, but everything I have read so far slots quite neatly into either one or the other.

1. I'm not pissed off at anybody. I don't know where you are getting that. I am showing that the method of proof the OP used is not even close to proof. I used an example showing this. 2. I am not questioning the validity of the entire thread. I am questioning the validity of one claim in the thread. You're reaching.

@Turtle, look at the quote of my my last post. In it, you have a nested quote from you. The last one. Read it out loud and tell me when you get to the word "fact". And then tell me again how you never claimed such a thing.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

If you don't think more than a handful of people are acting in bad faith and dishonestly pretending to be more than one person, then this whole scene about "that's not a legitimate list, there are alts on that list, etc." becomes completely irrelevant.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Your opinion on this is completely irrelevant because it's not even what we're discussing at this point.

Ah, the classic "I can't provide a legitimate answer to your query so I will attempt to insult you instead" response.

Mind pointing me to the part of that quote that's an insult? I'm fairly sure I provided a legitimate answer. Thin skinned much?

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Check what I bolded. In a nutshell, if it isn't a vendetta then it is about the accuracy of the list. You seem to be saying it is the latter, but you got really pissed off earlier when Turtledove (and later I) implied that that was your primary concern, so now it appears that you are contradicting yourself.

Can't have it both ways. Are you

1. pissed off at a single individual, such that you are willing to spend eight pages trying to prove that that single individual is wrong wrong wrong, or

2. are you questioning the validity of the thread itself due to the presence of more than a handful of alts?

You vehemently denied #2, but now you appear to be claiming #2 as evidence that you are not stating #1.

Admitting to either is not flattering, yes, but everything I have read so far slots quite neatly into either one or the other.

1. I'm not pissed off at anybody. I don't know where you are getting that. I am showing that the method of proof the OP used is not even close to proof. I used an example showing this. 2. I am not questioning the validity of the entire thread. I am questioning the validity of one claim in the thread. You're reaching.

No fucks given, mate. I care about logic and logic only. Use it and make a compelling argument, or decline to use it and decline to make a compelling argument. Your choice.

Also: Eight pages of an off-topic vendetta, and I'm reaching. Sounds legit. ;)

"

Shovelcut wrote:

Mind pointing me to the part of that quote that's an insult? I'm fairly sure I provided a legitimate answer. Thin skinned much?

Sorry Shovelcut, that isn't what we are discussing at this point, so your opinion is completely irrelevant. You obviously aren't paying attention.

"

mark1030 wrote:

@Turtle, look at the quote of my my last post. In it, you have a nested quote from you. The last one. Read it out loud and tell me when you get to the word "fact". And then tell me again how you never claimed such a thing.

I never claimed any such thing. Here's the full post that I made on December 30 so that the full context is there but you may want to skip to the last paragraph.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Believe it or not, people who really love a game are going to be passionate about it.

Comparing them to children throwing a temper tantrum is little more than an ad hominem attack, and adds nothing to the discussion (quite the opposite; it distracts from it). And, like any ad hominem attack, it does an especially poor job of responding to the many threads describing the negative way the Labyrinth has impacted players' experiences of PoE (some extremely well articulated; others not so much). As does your labeling of those threads "drama."

I understand that you think the small % of your personal gameplay spent on the Labyrinth somehow cancels out all of those descriptions, even the well-articulated ones, but I cannot agree with your perspective.

I didn't mean all lab posts are drama. I was more referring to the ones that make the same complaint over and over with multiple accounts (NOT saying all of them are alt accounts, but everybody knows of a few high profile ones here). And can you deny that arguing over how factual the number of alt accounts discovered is not drama? Seems pretty dramatic to me. At any rate, the comparison to a tantrum I think is valid in that the same complaints are repeated over and over in the hopes that GGG (the creator or parent of PoE) will just give in if we just pester them enough seems pretty similar to the child pestering his mom for a toy. Is there a defined amount of identical complaints someone can make before it's considered a whine? Some people have surpassed that in my book. But there are others who have not and made reasonable feedback posts. It's just the former dilutes the true feedback of the latter and they all get lumped in together as either lovers or haters. I don't even know what category I fit in. I don't love the lab but I don't hate it either. Just like a lot of areas of this game I just play through and see no need to go back to repeat (<cough>act 4<cough>).

I guess now that I look at it, I think the whole premise of this thread is whining whereas each individual who makes a feedback thread is not, even if it is similar to somebody else's feedback. Now the guys who goes into each and every one of those feedback threads to post a copy pasted complaint in agreement might still look like a whiner to me. Especially with a name that was obviously created as an alt account and an explicitly anti-lab name. But that's just how it looks to me.

I recently went through the full list and made the following marks on the account name list.

"

An "o" after the name means the account is older than March 2016. A "$" after the name means that a supporter title is in the profile. An "*" after the name means that neither of those is the case. This was done in response to paranoid people that said I or someone else was creating alt accounts just to up the numbers on the list. This irrational argument has been soundly laid to rest because there are fewer than 4% of the accounts with an *. None of the above (o,$ nor *) means that I haven't gotten to that part of the list yet.

As I went through and made these updates I spent a couple extra seconds or so looking at the accounts with an asterisk "*". I didn't keep a specific count but would guess that maybe 3 or 4 accounts were fairly obvious alt accounts. For example, one account had a creation date of December 20, 2016. There are valid reasons for an alt account, for example, perhaps the person wants to post from work and they don't remember their password so they simply create a new account. There are other valid reasons I'm sure, that's just one example. Anyway, if you or anyone else was interested in doing an analysis of alt accounts then I'd be open to including reasonable data on that issue in the OP. Or perhaps just discussing here if you'd rather?

I believe that you later then responded to this specific post.

Why are you quoting your OP. The posts where you are stating the "facts" I'm questioning is like 80 some pages after that.