Necrophob wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 17:02:
You're probably right. I did enjoy the dragon riding bit of the video...that looked like fun.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
Okay then we are both in agreement you said Blue did not care enough about the truth then (as was said,). Why you so emotional over it and dancing like you did not day that ?

We're not in agreement because I didn't say that. And now you're being childish. You keep fabricating claims and insisting I made them while accusing me of being emotional. Remember that word projection?

Please note that this is exactly the kind of dishonesty I was taking Crytek to task for.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
Your account (and how it acts like other pro SC accounts...) is here for that though. Defense of SC/CiG.

It's more defense of reason, but I understand now that you're not willing or able to assess this subject objectively.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
saying someone doesn't care about the truth as they aren't emotionally invested in this video game like you are.

Again, that's not what I said. I suggested he might not be invested in the subject. Please work on your reading comprehension because having your own argument misstated repeatedly is honestly a bit frustrating.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:
I suggest we let this go. There's clearly no middle ground to be reached as our positions are logically incompatible and we're already going in circles trying to establish a common perspective of reality. I appreciate that you took the time to participate even if it was ultimately fruitless. Maybe we'll have better luck next time.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:30:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 19:49:
Still not 100 comments.

100
SC Quality Thread Assured. That’ll slake everyone’s thirst!

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:51:

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Oh my that's cute. You can argue the semantics of it all you like. They both say the same thing. That Blue did not care enough about the truth.

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Ah yes, the actual facts. The fact that you literally said Blue did not care for the truth ISN'T in fact accusing him of not caring.

Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:54:
Maybe I'm wrong and Blue doesn't care enough about the subject to remember those earlier details, and that's understandable

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. I truly am. But it's not semantics. You even quoted the sentence in question, where I clearly state my position. I'm just not sure how you can argue with how words work.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:51:
You maybe didn't notice, but it's not SC/CIG I've been defending all this time.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:51:
I'm the type who tries to have a dialogue with other readers when I feel the need. I admit I expected a more equitable one than I got, but the attempt was earnest.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 11:54:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 22:25:
You can lie to yourself all you want. You're a SC/CiG fanatic. The proof is in the pudding dear.

You claimed the site owner did not care enough about SC to post the truth (which he did, as explained by himself in this thread.). You can try to white wash it any way you'd like. It doesn't change your fanatical denial of the truth. Talk in circles all you want.

No, dear, I'm afraid that's not logically sound.

I didn't accuse Blue of not caring about the truth; I said maybe he doesn't care enough about the story to remember the past details and use them to contradict new claims.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 11:54:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 22:25:
You can lie to yourself all you want. You're a SC/CiG fanatic. The proof is in the pudding dear.

You claimed the site owner did not care enough about SC to post the truth (which he did, as explained by himself in this thread.). You can try to white wash it any way you'd like. It doesn't change your fanatical denial of the truth. Talk in circles all you want.

You either care about the truth all the time... or you don't actually care about the truth. One doesn't need to be a zealot for a particular cause or entity (or biased against their counterpart) to care that details about those things be proliferated accurately and fairly. That seems like a clear logical fallacy to me.

Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:54:
... Maybe I'm wrong and Blue doesn't care enough about the subject to remember those earlier details...

NasWulf wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 21:14:
If you would actually do a little reading into any of what I have posted, and not cherry-pick post/sentences that fit your argument, you would see I have posted on several other topics other than SC topics, and I don't actually defend SC like you claim I do (actually I have had doubts bout it, and frankly don't care). I have defended myself from posters like your self and have bashed a few people over dumb posts over a gaming web site, but you keep on keeping I guess ... makes you feel good at night I guess.

Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 19:56:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 16:58:
No, it is piling on when you both are upset he posted something verbatim and continued to hound him for it. And because of that you decide to insult him as well.

What the actual fuck? I suggested Blue might not remember past details of the CIG/Crytek story--and thus be unable to directly refute bogus claims on the fly--and that constitutes an insult in your mind? Are you really so thin-skinned or just all about the whiteknighting? As I said, he might not have remembered because the details weren't important to him; i.e., he was just reporting a story and happened to not read/remember the documents in question. It wasn't an accusation; it's an understandable position to be in when your job is to post dozens or even hundreds of stories a week. I cannot imagine why you think that's an insult.

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 16:58:
Your entire reason for being here is clear. Now you claim the site owner doesn't care as he isn't fanatical about this pipe dream like you.

I've stated my reason for commenting here, so I should hope it's clear. Read my previous posts if you need a refresher. I think--or at least hope--you know what I meant by the above "insult" and are just playing the offense card. And lastly, I am not a fanatic--about anything.

Let me know if there's anything else you need explained in greater detail. I can use smaller words if needed.

Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:54:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 13:31:
You and Steve piled on Blue for posting an article, because it didn't contain what YOU guys wanted from a DIFFERENT article that wasn't submitted.

Two people raising concerns is hardly piling on. And it seems to me that on a topic as frequently discussed as this lawsuit, that expecting a basic understanding of the details from previous posts (that did appear on Blue's) to persist isn't exactly unreasonable. Maybe I'm wrong and Blue doesn't care enough about the subject to remember those earlier details, and that's understandable--memory tends to work that way--but I do wish that familiarity persisted and allowed for calling out of falsehoods when they inevitably appear. I mean, the quote that CIG "was forced to confirm [...] that no such switch had taken place" is literally a lie, but if anyone points that out in comments--after more susceptible readers have accepted it as fact based on the posting--they're labeled fanboys or worse.

I readily admit--again--that I may be asking too much and that even cursory fact-checking just isn't reasonable to expect; all I can do is express my concern (see: frustration) and hope for the best. Blue's has been my chief source of game news for many years and I don't expect that to change; I just wish we could head off the shitstorm that is every CIG/Crytek post.

VoodooV wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:05:
You can't even take responsibility for your shitposting.

VoodooV wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:05:
Look in a mirror dude You really don't get to point the finger at Nas for getting warned by Blue

VoodooV wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:05:
I'm talking about your string of 3 removed posts where instead of attacking my arguments, you attacked me as a person.

NasWulf wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 13:36:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 12:34:
Oh, and those *removed* posts ? Were from going "Awww muffin you sound upset" over and over and Naswulf reporting them (again, whilst calling others names.... it's like you can't read a post). I'd GLADLY do it again. He's here for one reason and attacks regularly - the difference is most of us don't report stuff that could be seen as hurting feelings.

I've never reported any post by anyone, blue can confirm this. What you say here or there means nothing to me. But to think that someone who only post on one topic and only in the last 5 years cannot be someone who has been reading this site since 97ish is and I have to say it because the term fits to use of his actions..Moronic. So get over yourself.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 12:57:

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 12:51:
All I see are people who created a union to get rich without actually doing anything good.

Unions are trash these days. They hide crappy employees under seniority umbrellas and grievances.

Here is the self destructive mentality common in non-millionaire people these days, mostly in the US, but other countries also. "Screw Unions, I want to be fired at any time, for any reason, and work 7 days a week, 60 hours a day for no extra pay!"

Unions are a necessary evil. Sure, some scammers skate by, but without unions, workers have zero protections and usually no bargaining power at all.

Any protections you currently DO have at any job is most likely due to the historical work of unions. Why people continually want to erode their own rights and protections, nobody can logically explain.

Nimh wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 13:39:

The Half Elf wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 13:30:
Question:

If they do unionize, are we going to see more microtransactions in games to offset the development costs?

EA CEO made about 20 million last year.. I'm sure he would love for you to believe game development would be negatively impacted by him having to provide a better work environment.

Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 13:20:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 12:34:
We're saying that's the ONLY reason some are here, and will lie to try and avoid that fact.

As Voodoo already pointed out, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone's motivated to post, even including creating an account to do so, because of the insane amount of misinformation and zealotry in every Star Citizen thread, then who are you to say their opinions aren't valid? There's a person behind every new account whose opinion is equally as valid as yours--moreso, I'd argue, if theirs is grounded in objective reality.

Take a look at my own post history over the past eight years. Notice how most are about Star Citizen? That's not because it's the topic I'm most interested in, but because of all the unfounded claims and outright lies that parade as "facts" in these threads. I actually care about things like skepticism and truth and rationality and it pisses me off to no end when I see people parroting this garbage without doing the bare minimum of fact-checking. I try to avoid SC threads for that reason, but sometimes curiosity gets the better of me. That's when you see those strings of posts periodically in my history.

I promise you, I'd much rather rational discourse was the norm so I could happily not feel the need to comment.

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 13:07:

VoodooV wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 12:57:

Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 12:34:
We're saying that's the ONLY reason some of you are here, and will lie to try and avoid that fact.

Oh, and those *removed* posts ? Were from going "Awww muffin you sound upset" over and over and Naswulf reporting them (again, whilst calling others names.... it's like you can't read a post). I'd GLADLY do it again. He's here for one reason and attacks regularly - the difference is most of us don't report stuff that hurts our feelings.

I mean... as he starts AGAIN with it.... But hey, everyone else is at fault. I get it. We're all meanies picking on the guy who came here to and does nothing but fight.

Again, that's not a crime though. If someone wants to make an account to defend CIG from your shitposts, that's not a problem.

Nice revisionist history there, but wrong. You were making personal attacks against me multiple times, and *I* reported them multiple times since you just weren't taking the hint. Pretty much any other site you would have been banned for making repeated offenses like that. And after you made personal attacks against me, you shifted and attacked Nas. I don't know why Blue didn't remove your attacks against Nas. I can only guess he takes a stance of only the person being attacked can report the posts as personal attacks.

You and others are the aggressors here. And in true aggressor tradition, you blame the person reporting the post instead of the behavior itself. I only reported the post. Blue removed it. Talk to him about your poor behavior. I'm pretty sure he's removed posts without needing someone to report it. Where is your excuse then?

You have only yourself to blame. Nice of you to admit for everyone to see you'll continue making personal attacks against anyone you disagree with.

Blue, we were just talking about how removing comments is not necessarily stopping bad behavior. Here is Exhibit A

VoodooV wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 08:26:
Glass houses, Dacron, glass houses. How many comments have you had removed because you're unable to restrain yourself attacking people who support the game? And not just you either. it's the anti-CIG crowd that can't seem to play nice with others and have had to have Blue step in and remove comments.

Supporting CIG is not a crime. Get over yourself. Making personal attacks, however, does violate Blue's ToS. You have no high ground to stand on.

NasWulf wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 05:46:
roflol ... do you know how moronic you sound when anyone tries that argument? like the internet was made 5 year ago, really? you make this shit too easy

NasWulf wrote on Jan 6, 2020, 21:11:

Beamer wrote on Jan 6, 2020, 11:47:

1) I don't think Blue operates like that. If you really were here often, you'd probably know that

Blues was my home page for 15+ years (since the flaming "q") along with Redwood news, it hasn't been in a long long time now.

NasWulf wrote on Oct 1, 2015, 20:43:
you guys are fuxing idiots, your arguing over a product/stories that may or may not be true, hearsay at best, and from sources who no one gives two squirrel fuxs about. Its a GAME people, who the fux cares who DS is, who care who CR is. CR is making entertainment, he's employing 261 people with a job, and he's doing something he loves to do. Get over your social justice internet saggy ball sacks and move on to real lives.

Korrd wrote on Jan 5, 2020, 21:15:

Orogogus wrote on Jan 5, 2020, 20:16:

Korrd wrote on Jan 5, 2020, 17:52:
I think his objection, unkindly phrased though it was, is that he feels news outlets should not just report claims, but point out when those claims are entirely contrary to reality.

As someone who doesn't typically jump into SC threads, I think this point of view is terrible -- everyone who isn't with you is against you. [...] But if you think sites shouldn't be allowed to report the actual court filings without editorializing, then I see you as the slanted bad guy.

If advocating for responsible reporting makes me the bad guy then I'll wear that with pride. When reporting on a claim that is a known and easily demonstrable lie, I don't feel it's too much to ask that it be pointed out as such. It's the difference between simply quoting a ridiculous wind power claim and prefacing it with "So-and-so claimed" it was true. In this SC story at least Blue included the text "Word is:", not that it stopped the regulars from eating it up as fact.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm the bad guy and it's unreasonable to want bullshit claims to be called out, but after witnessing the advent of alternative facts I find myself wishing for a sea change in how we relay information, even when it concerns something as trivial as a video game.

Beamer wrote on Jan 4, 2020, 14:24:
Oh, this was the thing where the motion to dismiss was denied, and all the people that (perhaps rightfully, but in some cases, jealously) hate Star Citizen took that to mean that the case was decided, even though a motion to dismiss is filed in literally every single lawsuit and denied more often than not, because it isn't evaluating the facts of the case.

That was a fun thread. So many people so badly want something to be true that they latch on to bad evidence as gospel. A motion to dismiss only has meaning if it's granted.