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

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

You've convinced me turtle. You're scientific method in proving your theories as facts is every bit as legit as having moon rocks as proof we landed on the moon.

Don't know what you're talking about but there are three things that make moon rocks different from earth rocks. They are made of the same basic elements but are different in that they form in
1. lighter gravity
2. little oxygen
3. very dry conditions

https://www.spaceanswers.com/q-and-a/how-different-is-moon-rock-and-earth-rock/

Finally you have proof of something! You don't think that proof is more verifiable than your method of using account age and supporter titles displayed to determine which accounts are alts? (You're the one who compared people not believing in a moon landing and people not believing your proof). Do you not see one case has scientifically verifiable proof and one case is merely assuming that their non-provable (by us, not by GGG) evidence is correct?

I never claimed what you're saying. That is ridiculous. You and Shovelcut took a statement that there was proof that the list of almost 700 account names could not reasonably represent a handful of people and went off the deep end. That is all fine and good, just an apparent misunderstanding until you guys tried to turn it into a smear against my character. Now please stop.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Don't know what you're talking about but there are three things that make moon rocks different from earth rocks. They are made of the same basic elements but are different in that they form in
1. lighter gravity
2. little oxygen
3. very dry conditions

https://www.spaceanswers.com/q-and-a/how-different-is-moon-rock-and-earth-rock/

Finally you have proof of something! You don't think that proof is more verifiable than your method of using account age and supporter titles displayed to determine which accounts are alts? (You're the one who compared people not believing in a moon landing and people not believing your proof). Do you not see one case has scientifically verifiable proof and one case is merely assuming that their non-provable (by us, not by GGG) evidence is correct?

I never claimed what you're saying. That is ridiculous. You and Shovelcut took a statement that there was proof that the list of almost 700 account names could not reasonably represent a handful of people and went off the deep end. That is all fine and good, just an apparent misunderstanding until you guys tried to turn it into a smear against my character. Now please stop.

Actually, our argument is based on the statement you've made that you have personally verified all accounts on this list and that is definitive proof that there are only 3 or 4 alts on the list. It's not a mark against your character, it's a mark against your data gathering methods and the way you're presenting this rhetoric as factual data when it's actually just your opinion.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

Finally you have proof of something! You don't think that proof is more verifiable than your method of using account age and supporter titles displayed to determine which accounts are alts? (You're the one who compared people not believing in a moon landing and people not believing your proof). Do you not see one case has scientifically verifiable proof and one case is merely assuming that their non-provable (by us, not by GGG) evidence is correct?

I never claimed what you're saying. That is ridiculous. You and Shovelcut took a statement that there was proof that the list of almost 700 account names could not reasonably represent a handful of people and went off the deep end. That is all fine and good, just an apparent misunderstanding until you guys tried to turn it into a smear against my character. Now please stop.

Actually, our argument is based on the statement you've made that you have personally verified all accounts on this list and that is definitive proof that there are only 3 or 4 alts on the list. It's not a mark against your character, it's a mark against your data gathering methods and the way you're presenting this rhetoric as factual data when it's actually just your opinion.

Please stop your silly nonsense. I never claimed the things you keep accusing me of. You said that I was being deceitful among other things. Please stop telling lies about what I said. I responded to Lagwin that I had done an analysis of every single account and said exactly what that analysis was and said yes there was proof that the list of almost 700 account names could not reasonably represent a handful of people. You and Mark1030 then falsely claimed/misunderstood it as a ridiculous statement that I had verified every single account was a separate person. That is beyond ridiculous. I never said that. Please stop telling that stupid lie.

Turtle, I am telling you this for your own good: You are too easily baited.

If individuals post trash comments, and especially if they do it systematically over a long period of time, the best response is not to respond.

So when the next wave of nonsensical posts lands, know this: You have no face to lose to those two. Don't respond to it. You can acknowledge that it is bullshit in subsequent posts communicating with actual on-topic posters, but don't respond directly to those individuals.

Doing this will allow the thread to get back on topic.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Turtle, I am telling you this for your own good: You are too easily baited.

If individuals post trash comments, and especially if they do it systematically over a long period of time, the best response is not to respond.

So when the next wave of nonsensical posts lands, know this: You have no face to lose to those two. Don't respond to it. You can acknowledge that it is bullshit in subsequent posts communicating with actual on-topic posters, but don't respond directly to those individuals.

Doing this will allow the thread to get back on topic.

My problem here is that I previously had respect for those two fellows and it has been a bit difficult for me to see that respect for Shovelcut getting shattered.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Turtle, I am telling you this for your own good: You are too easily baited.

If individuals post trash comments, and especially if they do it systematically over a long period of time, the best response is not to respond.

So when the next wave of nonsensical posts lands, know this: You have no face to lose to those two. Don't respond to it. You can acknowledge that it is bullshit in subsequent posts communicating with actual on-topic posters, but don't respond directly to those individuals.

It's hilarious that you're going to call out my comments as trash when everything you've posted over the last 13 or so pages doesn't even relate to what we were discussing. The only reason this has gone on so long is because every reply we've gotten is just a run-around response that doesn't even pertain to the discussion at hand. Priceless and extremely judgemental...

"

Turtledove wrote:

Please stop your silly nonsense. I never claimed the things you keep accusing me of.

It's all there in quotes for everyone to see. I'm not the one fabricating data.

"

Turtledove wrote:

You and Mark1030 then falsely claimed/misunderstood it as a ridiculous statement that I had verified every single account was a separate person. That is beyond ridiculous. I never said that. Please stop telling that stupid lie.

Yeah...

"

Turtledove wrote:

My problem here is that I previously had respect for those two fellows and it has been a bit difficult for me to see that respect for Shovelcut getting shattered.

If calling you out on a questionable practice is going to cause you to lose your respect for me, so be it. In the end you're still not even addressing the issue we're bringing up and repeatedly resorting to

"

proof that the list of almost 700 account names could not reasonably represent a handful of people.

over and over again like it's some sort of obsession.

Mark, you fucking nailed it so hard.

"

mark1030 wrote:

You're acting like a politician and fabricating arguments where there are none because that's the rebuttle you already have written on your response cards.

I'll stop, not because you told me to, but because it would be insane to try and have any sort of serious discussion here. If I've learned anything in the past 13 or so pages, it's that there is no fucking hope of that happening. Ever.

I swear it's like talking to the "and then" lady. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKNX6dieVcc xD

Having made one of the threads on this list... I think It's sad to see nothing really being addressed on this. I don't even think I've heard GGG speak on this matter at all.

It's sad because with a few tweaks to the lab, it could be a far more enjoyable experience for all. But GGG are unwilling or unable to do anything about it. With how their schedule is for releasing new content... I can't really see them working on the lab at all. They just keep pumping out new and new content but it always feels half finished.

It almost makes me wish Diablo 3 was far more successful. Would be curious to see how GGG would do things differently if they had competition as an ARPG. Would they just keep on releaseing stuff the way they have... or fine tune each part.

There are parts of the game I do enjoy... but it's filled with concepts and ideas that just make you scratch your head at times. While the Lab is one of them for me... there are other things as well. I can appreciate the work to maintain this thread and compile all this info. Even if at the end of the day... I think the Lab ship has sailed. It probably is what it is at this point.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Turtle, I am telling you this for your own good: You are too easily baited.

If individuals post trash comments, and especially if they do it systematically over a long period of time, the best response is not to respond.

So when the next wave of nonsensical posts lands, know this: You have no face to lose to those two. Don't respond to it. You can acknowledge that it is bullshit in subsequent posts communicating with actual on-topic posters, but don't respond directly to those individuals.

Doing this will allow the thread to get back on topic.

My problem here is that I previously had respect for those two fellows and it has been a bit difficult for me to see that respect for Shovelcut getting shattered.

Well, keep in mind that the Labyrinth issue does bring out the worst in people. We see it again and again in this forum.

You might say it is one of the Labyrinth's "meta-problems." :P

I imagine Shovelcut is a decent guy in real life, the posts in this thread notwithstanding. But the Labyrinth inspires hatred and hateful posting, and thus debates about the Labyrinth inspire hatred and hateful posting.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Turtle, I am telling you this for your own good: You are too easily baited.

If individuals post trash comments, and especially if they do it systematically over a long period of time, the best response is not to respond.

So when the next wave of nonsensical posts lands, know this: You have no face to lose to those two. Don't respond to it. You can acknowledge that it is bullshit in subsequent posts communicating with actual on-topic posters, but don't respond directly to those individuals.

Doing this will allow the thread to get back on topic.

My problem here is that I previously had respect for those two fellows and it has been a bit difficult for me to see that respect for Shovelcut getting shattered.

Well, keep in mind that the Labyrinth issue does bring out the worst in people. We see it again and again in this forum.

You might say it is one of the Labyrinth's "meta-problems." :P

I imagine Shovelcut is a decent guy in real life, the posts in this thread notwithstanding. But the Labyrinth inspires hatred and hateful posting, and thus debates about the Labyrinth inspire hatred and hateful posting.

Turtle isn't being honest and forcing issues that are only issues to him, on all of us and you better not even think of agreeing with even a motion he makes or you will be on... "the list" whether you like it or not.

There is no list for people who don't want the lab changed. It's just a one sided demand, grounded or not doesn't even matter.

That's why there's so much hate in this thread, and why it lacks any official reply or attention. Unlike us, GGG can't engage in "discussions" like these for obvious reasons. Handling this the way Turtle has done has been digging this thread's own grave.

If you want to come across as a pillar of the community, then include all of us, and prove that you're aware of acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your statements, but represent those that do, instead of dividing and downtalking those who disagree.

Talk of respect... not even going there.

I'd bet there are just as many or more people who don't like the XP nerfs, the silly trading system and RNG endgame progression.

What those groups lack, is a handful of jihadi-crusading posters, who would bump threads every day and make "lists".