Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!
"
gibbousmoon wrote:
"
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. ;)
.
i did use logic and logic only. I don't know why you say that is what you care about. You have been posting for 95 pages and I've not seen logic from you. At least I feel I can debate turtle about it. You've been posting for those same 8 pages and you haven't posted anything that could resemble an argument.
Guild Leader The Amazon Basin <BASIN>
Play Nice and Show Some Class www.theamazonbasin.com
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.
See, the difference between our posts is that you're doing it in a child-like manner. My post was just stating a fact.
We were discussing Turtles methods and you come in (twice with that self-quote I might add) and basically imply that we're paranoid for thinking something we weren't even talking about. You considered you didn't get a response the first time cause you were off base with your comment?
Just a lowly standard player. May RNGesus be with you.
Why are you quoting your OP. The posts where you are stating the "facts" I'm questioning is like 80 some pages after that.
I said I copied the full post from December 30, 2016 so the full context was there. When I made that post on December 30 I copied part of the OP to explain what the asterisk meant because I referenced those asterisks in the following paragraph.
The piece of the post that you copied like 80 some pages after the OP was taken completely out of context. At that point in time I was discussing why I thought it was unreasonable to claim that only a handful of people were represented by the list. I believe that is still a proven fact. Similar to how it is a proven fact that we landed on the moon and the Sandy Hook school shooting actually happened, even though there are paranoid people running around claiming that those things have not been proven either.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
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. ;)
.
i did use logic and logic only. I don't know why you say that is what you care about. You have been posting for 95 pages and I've not seen logic from you. At least I feel I can debate turtle about it. You've been posting for those same 8 pages and you haven't posted anything that could resemble an argument.
The facts there are incorrect, and the one opinion you state isn't even supported.
Again: No fucks given; I care about logic and logic only.
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.
See, the difference between our posts is that you're doing it in a child-like manner. My post was just stating a fact.
We were discussing Turtles methods and you come in (twice with that self-quote I might add) and basically imply that we're paranoid for thinking something we weren't even talking about. You considered you didn't get a response the first time cause you were off base with your comment?
We were discussing the handful of people representing almost 700 accounts after this post by me on December 28.
"
turtledove wrote:
"
lagwin1980 wrote:
"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people and not the same handful regurgitating the same QQ in other threads.
Even then, minority vs majority, even assuming that only part of the minority have said anything you are still going to be under 10% of players (being generous with the guess)
Yes I have, in the OP it says,
"
I started looking at some other data. 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 *.
Note that early March 2016 was the labyrinth release date.
It seems you're trying to compare the list of 689 accounts against the whole player base. That is a totally meaningless comparison. The nature of the forum is that it is a small subset of the player base. The 689 in the list proves that it is not just 5, 10, or 20 people posting which is what Sidtherat, Goetzjam and company used to claim. I would say that 689 people posting is a significant number voicing their opinion on any issue here in the Feedback and Suggestions forum.
Your next post on the matter was the next day in my time zone and was the following
"
Shovelcut wrote:
"
lagwin1980 wrote:
"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people and not the same handful regurgitating the same QQ in other threads.
"
Turtledove wrote:
Yes I have. -snip- 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 *.
"
Turtledove wrote:
I've added your name to the list. I know you are using an alt account.
"
FixLabPLSGGG wrote:
my army of bump alts.
Yeah...
Therefore, from my perspective you appear to be disingenuous that subject was not about the statement that almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
We were discussing the handful of people representing almost 700 accounts after this post by me on December 28.
No, you were. What mark and I were discussing was your nonfactual claims regarding your "other analysis". But that was spelled out over the course of many, many pages and yet here you are still dancing around the facts. Same old same old...
"
Turtledove wrote:
Therefore, from my perspective you appear to be disingenuous that subject was not about the statement that almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.
One word comes to mind when reading this. Delusional.
Edit: lemme break it down what you're quoting...
"
lagwin1980 wrote:
"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people
"
Turtledove wrote:
Yes I have.
"
Turtledove wrote:
I've added your name to the list. I know you are using an alt account.
"
FixLabPLSGGG wrote:
my army of bump alts.
This last quote from FixLabPLSGGG is just demonstrating that there is an "army" of alts that have likely been added to the list.
Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just a lowly standard player. May RNGesus be with you.
Last edited by Shovelcut#3450 on Jan 1, 2017, 10:56:45 PM
Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
This has become so ridiculous it's just amusing now.
I don't know why you bother, Turtledove. I recommend you stop feeding these two.
Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
This has become so ridiculous it's just amusing now.
I don't know why you bother, Turtledove. I recommend you stop feeding these two.
Perhaps I worded that wrong.
"
almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.
Is what you 2 keep accusing us of referring to, it is not. That is what I was trying to say in what you boldened.
Late edit: It's nice how you completely skipped over the points made before what you quoted to point out my grammatical mistake to try and discredit my point. It's beyond ridiculous how you two are skating around the issue.
Just a lowly standard player. May RNGesus be with you.
Last edited by Shovelcut#3450 on Jan 1, 2017, 11:38:33 PM
We were discussing the handful of people representing almost 700 accounts after this post by me on December 28.
No, you were. What mark and I were discussing was your nonfactual claims regarding your "other analysis". But that was spelled out over the course of many, many pages and yet here you are still dancing around the facts. Same old same old...
"
Turtledove wrote:
Therefore, from my perspective you appear to be disingenuous that subject was not about the statement that almost 700 account names was represented by only a handful of individual people.
One word comes to mind when reading this. Delusional.
Edit: lemme break it down what you're quoting...
"
lagwin1980 wrote:
"680" posters...have you went and verified it's 680 individual people
"
Turtledove wrote:
Yes I have.
"
Turtledove wrote:
I've added your name to the list. I know you are using an alt account.
"
FixLabPLSGGG wrote:
my army of bump alts.
This last quote from FixLabPLSGGG is just demonstrating that there is an "army" of alts that have likely been added to the list.
Neither myself NOR mark are talking about anything regarding the people on the list. We're specifically referring to your "fact checking", "account vetting", questionable additions to the list and bold statements. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry Shovelcut, I understand now your confusion but here's the situation. I did my stated analysis on each individual account. Which is stated right there but you conveniently snipped it out. Now if I was a judgemental jerk I could say you did it on purpose to be deceitful but I don't really believe that I think it more likely you made a mistake. Verifying each individual account is NOT an alt account is not necessary to prove the conclusion false. #FACEPALM
The last post by FixLabPLSGGG was making fun of your ridiculous paranoia that many hundreds of the almost 700 account names in the list only represented a handful of individuals.
Finally, since you think I'm being so god damn deceitful why don't you just go away and drop your silly vendetta because this is my last post on the topic.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
Last edited by Turtledove#4014 on Jan 2, 2017, 12:11:43 AM
Sorry Shovelcut, I understand now your confusion but here's the situation. Verifying each individual account is NOT necessary to prove the conclusion false. #FACEPALM
Nice avoiding the actual point there. I'm not confused. lol
"
Turtledove wrote:
The last post by FixLabPLSGGG was making fun of your ridiculous paranoia that many hundreds of the almost 700 account names in the list only represented a handful of individuals.
LOL nope. Yet another lie. And for the final time, I'm not the one paranoid over how many alts there are. Just pointing out the fact that you're pulling some underhanded shit to make this thread look "more legit".
Full quote for context
"
FixLabPLSGGG wrote:
Just keep up hope till 3.0 lab changes. If it doesn't there is going to be a max exodus of players. Yup. At least a small majority of us leaving for good. No more forums posts of hope for change. At least for me anyways and my army of bump alts.
"
Turtledove wrote:
Finally, since you think I'm being so god damn deceitful why don't you just go away and drop your silly vendetta because this is my last post on the topic.
Nah, I think I'll continue to call out your bullshit when you post it.
Just a lowly standard player. May RNGesus be with you.
