Royal pronoun or annoying orange

Talk about anything and everything related or unrelated to the FreeOrion project, especially Strategy Games.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#31 Post by LienRag »

wobbly wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:35 am Yeeesss!!!! Finally we can get back to discussing the important topics like linguistics without any more petty disruptions!
Indeed.
Thanks the Lords of Kobol (and Orion I guess) for the existence of an off-topic category.
And thanks to Oberlus to have moved it here and to Ophiuchus for suggesting it.

Note that it started by me reacting to Oberlus proposing to ban a sincere (though annoying) wannabe contributor, which he has the technical ability to do.
So not as pointless as it may seem.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Themed Tech Tree Fundamentals

#32 Post by LienRag »

Well, since this (otherwise interesting) topic was resurrected :
Oberlus wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:01 pm You must be sarcastic. Copypasta isn't high-level English. It isn't high-level Spanish either, and I assume it isn't high-level anything. It's meaning is simple: clumsy/lazy copy/plagiarism.
Well, the word didn't exist at the time I learned English, and before you gave me this definition I never formally learned it either, just inferred its meaning from "copy-paste".
So the pejorative part (clumsy/lazy/plagiarism) was lost on me.
My mistake, but a honest mistake.
So no, I wasn't sarcastic.


Oberlus wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:01 pm You meant, with no doubt, that my proposal was just a plagiarism of Starcraft zerglings (and the offending part of it comes from implying I have little imagination or was lazy, and not that I'm doing anything morally disaproved).
Very sincerely, the fact that in many occasions you have no doubts about things you actually have no way to know (namely because they happen in other people's heads) is imho one of the things that creates big misunderstandings and leads to unwarranted aggressiveness.

Also, since I was replying to labgnome (a fact that was lost on me when I first apologized to you years ago wrongly acknowledging to have involuntarily insulted you), I don't understand how it could have implications on your imagination of lazyness.


Oberlus wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:01 pm For the record: If talking about tentacles, acid blobs and flying spines (which all are weapons already in FO used in the space monsters) means to you "zerg copypasta", then talking about lasers, plasma and death rays should be to you like "Star Trek/Wars copypasta".
Well, yes, in the meaning I believed Copypasta to have ("source of direct inspiration"), it does.
And Labgnome actually claimed (probably rightfully) that the Organic line takes his inspiration from Zerg.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#33 Post by wobbly »

Perhaps Oberlus needs to calm down?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCT-PImSMzs

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#34 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:20 pm Note that it started by me reacting to Oberlus proposing to ban a sincere (though annoying) wannabe contributor, which he has the technical ability to do.
So not as pointless as it may seem.
Not really (to every bit of information in this quote).

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#35 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:58 pm
LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:20 pm Note that it started by me reacting to Oberlus proposing to ban a sincere (though annoying) wannabe contributor, which he has the technical ability to do.
So not as pointless as it may seem.
Not really (to every bit of information in this quote).
I didn't know if you were serious (and hoped that you were not) but preferred to not take chances.
Don't you have the technical ability to ban someone, as a moderator ?
I believe that you already did it...

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#36 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:49 pm I didn't know if you were serious (and hoped that you were not) but preferred to not take chances.
Don't you have the technical ability to ban someone, as a moderator ?
I believe that you already did it...
I wasn't serious, just mocking at the tittle thread. If I was serious about banning blueberry, I would have PMed Geoff presenting the case, instead of playing with titles like a child while trolling the serious cardinal.
I don't know if I can ban anyone, I've only played with topic moderation tools. And certainly I never banned anyone.
I don't know where are you getting these impressions from.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#37 Post by LienRag »

Thanks for the information.

There was a guy who wrote generic stuff and I thought I remembered you banning him after he put a link in his signature that you considered spam ?

(not saying that it wasn't spam, but you removed the post before I saw it so I can't confirm that it actually was spam either)

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#38 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:56 pm There was a guy who wrote generic stuff and I thought I remembered you banning him after he put a link in his signature that you considered spam ?
I can't remember what I did back then. I informed Geoff, probably, of my recommendation to ban the guy, and maybe I edited his message to remove signature (that I can do for sure: untick the "attach signature" box).

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#39 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:54 pm If I was serious about banning blueberry
Well, president Grant did try to ban Mike S. Donovan, but things didn't actually go according to plan, so you may take heed there...

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Royal pronoun or annoying orange

#40 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:09 pm
Oberlus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:54 pm If I was serious about banning blueberry
Well, president Grant did try to ban Mike S. Donovan, but things didn't actually go according to plan, so you may take heed there...
I don't understand. Why would I need advice on how to ban someone if I don't want to ban someone?
This reminds me of when you explained to me that blueberry wasn't stupid, and that honestly you weren't calling him stupid while blaming on me the insult, and a few posts later you stated that blueberry was stupid.
:roll:

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: I recommend we disable species moving for much greater game simplicity and reduced micromanagement.

#41 Post by defaultuser »

truepurple wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:47 pm You failed basic reading comprehension, don't worry, you're not the only one.
Just so you know, this is an example of "belligerent and insulting".

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: I recommend we disable species moving for much greater game simplicity and reduced micromanagement.

#42 Post by truepurple »

defaultuser wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:04 am
truepurple wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:47 pm You failed basic reading comprehension, don't worry, you're not the only one.
Just so you know, this is an example of "belligerent and insulting".
Just so you know THIS (quoted) is an example of belligerent and insulting, right here. And all because I said someone didn't understand something I wrote. The irony and hypocrisy is thick with this one.

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: I recommend we disable species moving for much greater game simplicity and reduced micromanagement.

#43 Post by defaultuser »

truepurple wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:06 am Just so you know THIS (quoted) is an example of belligerent and insulting, right here.
As I say, you are rapidly getting to the point where no one will pay any attention to you. This is a prime example.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: I recommend we disable species moving for much greater game simplicity and reduced micromanagement.

#44 Post by LienRag »

truepurple wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:06 am
defaultuser wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:04 am
truepurple wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:47 pm You failed basic reading comprehension, don't worry, you're not the only one.
Just so you know, this is an example of "belligerent and insulting".
Just so you know THIS (quoted) is an example of belligerent and insulting, right here. And all because I said someone didn't understand something I wrote. The irony and hypocrisy is thick with this one.
Your first message may have not been written with an intention of belligerence and insult, but the fact that it has been taken as such should come as a surprise to no one.
And "insulting", if my English is correct, is not conditional on intent, so telling you that your message is insulting is just an objective description.

So in no way defaultuser's advice to you could be said to be "belligerent and insulting".

So your overreacting to it (and adding an insult at the end) not only is unwise and belligerent (and insulting), but it shows that you deny everyone else to have feelings about your attitude, while you allow yourself to react primarily through your feelings at other people's writings.
That sounds fair to you ?

I notice that you do make some efforts in your writings after being told how insufferable your attitude is, but these efforts consist essentially of adding "I'm not a bad guy/you should understand that I'm not a bad guy" in your writings, not in correcting what is insufferable in your attitude.

Oh, and if you wonder how to actually correct your attitude and begin to write in a respectful manner, I believe that Vezzra explained you very calmly and politely the way to achieve that.
And that I explained also (perhaps less calmly and politely) that ahead of the tone change, what could make you a valuable contributor here instead of a permanent annoyance would be reading previous discussions on the topic you're interested in, and understand the constraints that shape the design decisions that exist nowadays, before even beginning to write.

You can propose new and interesting (or new and not interesting, that is to be debated, that's what a "brainstorming" forum is for) ways of tackling these constraints, so once you do your homework and if you can stop thinking that your ideas are obviously better (the discussion in the forum is here to see if they really are), don't hesitate to share your ideas.
But sharing your ideas and insisting on them before doing your homework is more akin to spam/flood than useful contribution, so you'll get reactions according to that fact.

Note that not everybody here is in any obligation to be as forgiving and wise as Geoff and Vezzra, and that you may have already alienated some contributors to the point that bettering a little bit your interventions won't be enough to stop their hostility towards you.

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: I recommend we disable species moving for much greater game simplicity and reduced micromanagement.

#45 Post by truepurple »

LienRag wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:02 pmAnd "insulting", if my English is correct, is not conditional on intent, so telling you that your message is insulting is just an objective description.
Well whether you decide something is insulting is based on intent or perception, it's still not "objective".
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective wrote:objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
And let's say you call it "objective" that means it has to have defined perimeters everyone agrees on. LR, you can't even stay self consistent. DU says a vague negative description of behavior and you say that's "objectively" just a fact. I point out said person is hypocritically (which means do be doing the thing you say to be against, it's a description of behavior) doing the same thing as their accusation and you say it's absolutely "objectively" a insult.

You can't even agree with yourself on what constitutes deserving to be labeled by these words LR, so obviously they are by no means "objective".

Also "belligerent" means hostile and warlike. I would say posting vague negative off-topic accusations in multiple different threads of mine is very hostile and war like AKA "belligerent" And generally speaking, if you are saying vague negative things about someone, that's insulting, for example DU saying I was being "belligerent and insulting". So yeah, I have proven DU was hypocritically being "belligerent and insulting" by accusing me of the same in multiple places, well as much as anyone can with "insulting" being subjective.


Also I notice that I've been told here on multiple occasions to just let things pass, like my feelings don't matter. Yet certain hypocrites get up in arms about every little word from me they decide isn't good enough. So I reject you thinking you have the right to be my figurative judge jury and executioner, even if some stupid mob think is taking hold.

Post Reply